PDA

View Full Version : Renaissance "Tank" technology



RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 08:33 AM
This topic is a bit of a hot one, so I figured I'd start a discussion thread about it. Sorry for the length, there's a lot of information to cover.

First, I'll discuss my position on the "tank" and how it fits into the AC genre of games. Honestly... I don't think it does. I don't like that it's in there because it means the developers have to have a REALLY good reason for Ezio to be driving it rather than blowing it up (since he stole the plans they wouldn't be able to reproduce it). So if they don't have a good reason for him to do so, then it's just... wrong. I have faith that they'll have a good reason, though.

Next, if you think the "tank" doesn't fit in the early 16th century, then I encourage you to research the technology of that time before adding to this discussion. Cannons had been around for a really long time by then. They even invented metal cogs and gears in the Renaissance. They had working mechanical clocks and flush-able toilets.

Taking an extremely rudimentary gear system to allow a stagecoach to be man-powered rather than horse powered isn't that much of a leap for the times (DaVinci evem designed a self powered cart that worked from a design point of view). Using cannons to defend that stagecoach works due to cannons being around in Europe since the mid to late 1200s (13th century). By the 16th century (ACB times) cannons were made in many varieties. As for the mostly wood fortification of the "tank"... siege towers (used since the 9th century) of similar functionality had wood fortifications. Putting those three to four pieces together is what DaVinci designed on paper (his journal), and seems to fit just fine in the time period (regardless of how the "tank" looks).

I want to mention a fun fact I found recently to show where things were technologically around that time. In 1620 (still the Renaissance), the first working submarine was used.

In summery, if you think a mostly wooden "tank" with cannons and men powering it doesn't fit in the time period, then I encourage you to do a little research before commenting. If you have historical evidence (rather than only personal opinion of the times) that cannons and gears and wheels and wood fortifications don't fit in the Renaissance, then please share. If you think the Renaissance tank doesn't fit in this genre of game, then I agree with you and there's no reason to argue with me about that.

I'm only trying to show you that the "tank" can possibly fit in this time period so it's not longer (or less of an) issue for you. I hope the historical information allows you to accept the "tank" in that time period and allow for immersion to stay unbroken (as unbroken as possible with it not fitting the genre and all). That's my main goal here. I also would like to restore people's faith in the team working on these games.

Lastly, I want to apologizing to anyone who got into a discussion with me about this and was offended, hurt, or aggravated. I know I could have used more tact in explaining my opinion and point of view on this subject.

p.s. Remember that the Renaissance is not the Medieval period. The Renaissance wasn't just swords and axes (as pistols and matchlock rifles were even present throughout that period).

itsamea-mario
09-26-2010, 08:39 AM
Ok we get it you know abit about the renaisance and leos designs, but not much more than i know after watching the bbc's documentary.

anyway I know perfectly well it fits and would have been possibe, but i dont really think a tank section belongs in any AC game even one that is set in modern times. its just not what it's about for me.

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 08:45 AM
I absolutely agree with you, mario. Doesn't belong due to genre and what the "tank" is. The flying machine had function that fit with stealth and infiltration and assassination... the tank... not seeing that...

And I hope I don't seem like I'm trying to rub it in that I know about the Renaissance. Like I said in my first post, I'm mainly trying to help people "accept the 'tank' in that time period and allow for immersion to stay unbroken." Well, as unbroken as a tank in a stealth game can be (but that feeds back to my... the developers better have a darn good reason for him using it). That way, they might enjoy the game more... I want to help people enjoy the game more.

Keksus
09-26-2010, 08:56 AM
When I bought AC1 I thought this game was about ONLY killing your target you have in the mission and that it's going to be a pain in the *** to start a fight with the guards. AC soon showed me that it only wants to satisfy the people who want to bring down an entire enemy army on their own. Seems like you have even more ways in Brotherhood to do this.

Somwhere during the development of AC1 they seem to have forgotten what thhey wanted to do at first: Social Stealth. Really. Social Stealth is just in the game and you don't need it AT ALL.

Instead they give you tanks, machine guns and rocket launchers. Really, what on earth has this to do with ASSASSINS, who are known for the FACT that they just kill their target without killing anybody else. If they want to add tanks and so on they can do this ... they could give all these stuff to the templars, but an assassin MUSTN'T use them.

My opinion: Ubisoft should focus on the social stealth system and not on the fighting systems or tanks and stuff. In every AC trailer you only see how Ezios is fighting a bunch of guards.

I think their next AC game will be called: "Call of the Creed - Modern Warfare"

With every new trailer the SP Part of Brotherhood is getting less and lesser interesting. In my opinion you can ignore the SP part, because it's only about fighting and not about sneaking, using the Social Stealth System.

But I am excited about the MP Part, because you will meet A LOT of people who think they just can fight against everything. It seems that you can really use Social Stealth in the MP part of Brotherhood. And it's going to be a lot of fun.

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Keksus:
When I Bought AC1 I thought this game was about killing your targets. AC soon showed me that it only wants to satisfy the people who want to bring down an entire enemy army on their own. Seems like you have even more ways in Brotherhood to do this.

Somwhere during the development of AC1 they seem to have forgotten what thhey wanted to do at first: Social Stealth. Really. Social Stealth is just in the game and you don't need it AT ALL.

Instead they give you tanks, machine guns and rocket launchers. Really, what on earth has this to do with ASSASSINS, who are known for the FACT that they just kill their target without killing anybody else. If they want to add tanks and so on they can do this ... they could give all these stuff to the templars, but an assassin MUSTN'T use them.

My opinion: Ubisoft should focus on the social stealth system and not on the fighting systems or tanks and stuff. In every AC trailer you only see how Ezios is fighting a bunch of guards.

I think their next AC game will be called: "Call of the Creed - Modern Warfare"

With every new trailer the SP Part of Brotherhood is getting less and lesser interesting. In my opinion you can ignore the SP part, because it's only about fighting and not about sneaking, using the Social Stealth System.

But I am excited about the MP Part, because you will meet A LOT of people who think they just can fight against everything. It seems that you can really use Social Stealth in the MP part of Brotherhood. And it's going to be a lot of fun.

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm just glad they have parts of ACB that give you the option to social stealth your way through a mission to gain bonuses: following Ezio's notes to a 'T'.

Yep, the MP is more in spirit of the genre than the SP seems to be headed, from what the videos look like. I'll still be utilizing stealth as much as I can... forcing myself to do so... in SP. Even if the dev team misses the mark on the genre, I'll still be playing it within the genre. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif How about you?

LOL "Call of the Creed - Modern Warfare" I love that analogy.

Keksus
09-26-2010, 09:08 AM
Yep, the MP is more in spirit of the genre than the SP seems to be headed, from what the videos look like. I'll still be utilizing stealth as much as I can... forcing myself to do so... in SP. Even if the dev team misses the mark on the genre, I'll still be playing it within the genre. Smile How about you?

I also try it. But it became really hard in AC2, because you have to fight in almost every storymission. That's why I like the sidemissions more.

I even tried to play through AC1 without killing anybody but the assassination target. Well: After you reached memory block 4 you MUST kill your first normal guards, thanks to the investigation missions.

itsamea-mario
09-26-2010, 09:13 AM
it's because with each game they're trying more and more to appeal to the 'call of duty' player. the kind who will see the AC B trailers, whilst thinking gaaaayyyy, then they see a pretty explosion, and its suddenly "i must get that". as apposed to its original fanbase.

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Keksus:

I also try it. But it became really hard in AC2, because you have to fight in almost every storymission. That's why I like the sidemissions more.

I even tried to play through AC1 without killing anybody but the assassination target. Well: After you reached memory block 4 you MUST kill your first normal guards, thanks to the investigation missions.

Yeah, and the "tank" is just an illustration of how they're straying from that original concept. That's why the dev team better have that good reason for Ezio using it or I'll be upset.

I liked using the smoke bombs to aid in not killing anyone or being spotted. But you're right about having to kill more. I didn't even like the last memory of ACI because of that huge fight that ended with you finding out it was the chick and not your target (the fight there was annoying especially since you had to fight all the way to your actual target after that).

I really hope they improved the stealth in ACB and get it right in ACIII.


Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
it's because with each game they're trying more and more to appeal to the 'call of duty' player. the kind who will see the AC B trailers, whilst thinking gaaaayyyy, then they see a pretty explosion, and its suddenly "i must get that". as apposed to its original fanbase.

I really hope they're not trying to do that. That would just be wrong... That would show very little fan loyalty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

FrankieSatt
09-26-2010, 09:22 AM
A seige tower that sets up shop and starts firing is much different than a tank firing on the move.

It doesn't belong in the time period. I don't care that it "Could Fit" in my opion it DOES NOT fit. Mechanical locks and flushable toilets have no part in this discussion.

The discussion is whether a tank rolling down the street and along the hill sides firing while on the move belongs in an era with horses and swords.

My answer is NO it doesn't belong and should not have been put in the game.

Xanatos2007
09-26-2010, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by RandomRansom:
The flying machine had function that fit with stealth and infiltration and assassination... the tank... not seeing that...
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129124126991158761.jpg

Keksus
09-26-2010, 09:23 AM
I liked using the smoke bombs to aid in not killing anyone or being spotted. But you're right about having to kill more. I didn't even like the last memory of ACI because of that huge fight that ended with you finding out it was the chick and not your target (the fight there was annoying especially since you had to fight all the way to your actual target after that).

Well, at least it was possible to only "kill" the chick. It wasn't possible to let ANYONE live on your way to de Sable.


I really hope they improved the stealth in ACB and get it right in ACIII.
So do I. And I hope they don't mess up Desmond big time like they messed up Ezio.

Keksus
09-26-2010, 09:26 AM
I really hope they're not trying to do that. That would just be wrong... That would show very little fan loyalty. Angry Blue Guy

I DO SO WANT to see the raging people because they can't just fight in the MP part. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I can already imagine how they will come into this forum and rage about the fact that they only get killed, because they don't use social stealth at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by FrankieSatt:
A seige tower that sets up shop and starts firing is much different than a tank firing on the move.

It doesn't belong in the time period. I don't care that it "Could Fit" in my opion it DOES NOT fit. Mechanical locks and flushable toilets have no part in this discussion.

The discussion is whether a tank rolling down the street and along the hill sides firing while on the move belongs in an era with horses and swords.

My answer is NO it doesn't belong and should not have been put in the game.

OK. You're entitled to that personal opinion. I'm not saying you aren't. I agree that it shouldn't have been put in the game... for other reasons, but you already hear me talk about that. I do, however, have a few things to add.

Mechanical clocks (metal gears, really) have relevance. They were a technological advance. They were also intricate gears that were precise and useful. The "tank" uses very rudimentary gears that cause forward motion by the turning of cranks (by a few men).

The flush-able toilets were just an example of how the technology was advancing.

Remember that this is the Renaissance. It's not just horses and swords in that time period. There were pistols and rifles and eyeglasses and telescopes for viewing the stars and planets and so much more than just horses and swords.

Again, I encourage you to look into the history of the time period before determining whether cannons, wooden boards, wheels, cranks, metal supports, and gears fit in that period. And if you have an issue with it moving and firing a cannon, then you should take something into consideration. All that metal and wood would make it rather heavy and able to take the recoil of a smaller cannon, don't you?

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RandomRansom:
The flying machine had function that fit with stealth and infiltration and assassination... the tank... not seeing that...
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129124126991158761.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love you, Xanatos... LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Originally posted by Keksus:

I DO SO WANT to see the raging people because they can't just fight in the MP part. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I can already imagine how they will come into this forum and rage about the fact that they only get killed, because they don't use social stealth at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh, hey... that's a totally different story. If people want to run around in the open so I can kill them easily, I'm fine with that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

What I'm not fine with is the dev team moving too far away from the original concept and genre.

Stormpen
09-26-2010, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
it's because with each game they're trying more and more to appeal to the 'call of duty' player. the kind who will see the AC B trailers, whilst thinking gaaaayyyy, then they see a pretty explosion, and its suddenly "i must get that". as apposed to its original fanbase.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

When the devs say 'we're trying to appeal to a wider audience' they mean thy want to sell the game to the guys who didn't buy the first one because there wasn't any bang bang. All we've seen so far is Ezio demolishing siege towers, Ezio shooting a boat, Ezio shooting on top of a cart, and that's it. The word is 'shooting' not 'stabbing', anymore. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 10:36 AM
I realized that some people may be getting caught up on the concept of the cannon. A cannon isn't necessarily this HUGE thing that fires a 20 pound cannon ball. The cannons in DaVinci's "tank" were actually quite small.

Here's a video of the "tank" being tested after construction with material available in the Renaissance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...L2H4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P42_U_L2H4&feature=related) 2:33 is a good spot to start at but the whole episode is up if you're interested in the construction.

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Stormpen:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

When the devs say 'we're trying to appeal to a wider audience' they mean thy want to sell the game to the guys who didn't buy the first one because there wasn't any bang bang. All we've seen so far is Ezio demolishing siege towers, Ezio shooting a boat, Ezio shooting on top of a cart, and that's it. The word is 'shooting' not 'stabbing', anymore. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I still hope they fix this... appealing to a broader audience and "shooting" rather than "stabbing" in ACIII.

SteelCity999
09-26-2010, 11:45 AM
Despite what we all would hope for, I think that ACB is more about the rising up and creating a brotherhood - order, mob, whatever you want to call - instead of assassination. Therefore, there would by the nature of such design that there would be rising up and revolt - more gunplay to appeal to more people. I will have to wait for the finished product to cast an opinion because I don't know how it all fits in the grand scheme of their story. I just hope that AC3 will return to the roots of the series.

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by SteelCity999:
Despite what we all would hope for, I think that ACB is more about the rising up and creating a brotherhood - order, mob, whatever you want to call - instead of assassination. Therefore, there would by the nature of such design that there would be rising up and revolt - more gunplay to appeal to more people. I will have to wait for the finished product to cast an opinion because I don't know how it all fits in the grand scheme of their story. I just hope that AC3 will return to the roots of the series.

Indeed. And regardless of whether people like it or not, the "tank" is in there. It's not going away and complaining about it won't take it out. I can see how it fits in the era, not the genre, but can give the game designers some slack before I get angry at them. If there's a good reason for Ezio to use the "tank", then I'm not upset. They'll have officially justified the break from the genre to me (but seemingly not some others).

Keksus
09-26-2010, 12:29 PM
I still hope they fix this... appealing to a broader audience and "shooting" rather than "stabbing" in ACIII.

I don't care if it's shooting or stabbing, as long as I have the Hidden Blade. But what they are doing is the fact, that they use every possibility they have to add action sequences rather than adding stealth sequences. I want to remember that they talked very much about "Social Stealth" before releasing the first game. I thought they are going to make a game like Splinter Cell where you have disadvantages when you fight but only that you have social stealth instead of the usual sneaking in the shadow. But no, fighting is even easier than sneaking. This franchise is obviously heading into the wrong direction. To much action and fighting, not enough stealth.


Oh, hey... that's a totally different story. If people want to run around in the open so I can kill them easily, I'm fine with that. Mean Happy
That's what I'm talking about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

UBOSOFT-Gamer
09-26-2010, 12:52 PM
the devs really put in that leonardo-tank...

ok, on the hand it is interssting the devs put in inventions into the game leonardo created on paper during that time, which were never builed then, but what can work.

but, i hope you, the devs, stop with that. back to the roots please! please dont to time between the year 1550 and 1999, because we fear the assassins creed main charcater of AC3 will use guns and explosives mostly, etc.!

i really wouldn't want that. I think it got over the top now or your make it really historical correct and it takes all steps and time to load and shoot a cannon!
otherwise it may turn into a call of duty like game...............
dont go further with modern guns. the secret pistol, now cannons and even the tank?? OK! But let the AC3 main character only use knives!

Keksus
09-26-2010, 02:07 PM
but, i hope you, the devs, stop with that. back to the roots please! please dont to time between the year 1550 and 1999, because we fear the assassins creed main charcater of AC3 will use guns and explosives mostly, etc.!

Desmond lives in the year 2012. I really hope he will use more stealth. I don't want him to fly around in a kind of jet. And I really don't want to finish the last assassination with a nuclear bomb. But if they continue like this we will see something as mentioned above.

I don't care about the Pistol because it was nice to use as a sniper rifle. If you just kill your assassination target with it it's fine.

DeSabellis
09-26-2010, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Keksus:
Desmond lives in the year 2012. I really hope he will use more stealth. I don't want him to fly around in a kind of jet. And I really don't want to finish the last assassination with a nuclear bomb. But if they continue like this we will see something as mentioned above.

I don't care about the Pistol because it was nice to use as a sniper rifle. If you just kill your assassination target with it it's fine.

That's a hell of a jump. By that standard, wasn't the flying machine ridiculous? How about one person killing thousands and healing themselves with... smelling salts. Whats next, stem cells!!???

And if Desmond uses a firearm, that is accurate by the time period. Arming yourself with only a hidden blade in a world of firearms would be illogical. What's making the game worse is not the gameplay elements, but rather that story line.

I personally didn't have a problem with the assassins in AC1 using select-fire weapons to break Desmond out. I don't think no one did. I do however have a problem with a large solar flare looming over the modern world. That is cliche. An extremely flamboyant story, coupled with flamboyant design choices (such as the one person killing thousands) leads to a downgrade in quality.

Think of it this way... if the tank was scrapped, as with all the other pieces of technology, wouldn't the story still be getting a bit ridiculous? AC1 had a fantastic story, but lackluster progression and variety. You can guess what I would say about AC2.

ACfreak357
09-26-2010, 05:22 PM
Why you guys making a big thing out of the tank?

Its a tank so what if you dont like it then well your gonna have to play it unless you can skip missions which would be REALLY stupid.

And if you like well have fun with it.

To me its just another new awesome experience thats been added to the game.

AubreyWilborn
09-26-2010, 05:25 PM
I like the idea of a tank in ACB! I'm actually really impressed that the devs included the tank, because it shows that they really did their homework-again. They are keeping this game pretty historically accurate.

Like many have already posted, Leonardo Da Vinci DID design a saucer-shaped armored vehicle during his lifetime. However, like many of his designs the vehicle was never built and tested. I like that we'll be able to play "what-if" and experience the vehicle in ACB.

Something else that's pretty cool is the inclusion of the pistol in AC2-that's a "nod" to another one of Da Vinci's designs. Many people believe that Leonardo invented the first, mass produced handgun used in Europe.

Keksus
09-26-2010, 05:49 PM
Think of it this way... if the tank was scrapped, as with all the other pieces of technology, wouldn't the story still be getting a bit ridiculous? AC1 had a fantastic story, but lackluster progression and variety. You can guess what I would say about AC2.

It all started when Al Mualim used the Piece of Eden to summon the assassination targets and to make clones of himself. This was the point at which AC got ridiculous.


And if Desmond uses a firearm, that is accurate by the time period. Arming yourself with only a hidden blade in a world of firearms would be illogical.

Social stealth. How would you react to some guy who runs around with a MP on his back? They can't get rid off the social stealth in the part with Desmond. And they can't give him so many weapons because if they did social stealth would seem a little bit odd. Walking on a market whilst fuly armed and nobody cares. Yeah right. But well ... you're right about the story line. It was nice when it was just about templars ... there was no need to add this solar flare stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JonnyQuickShot
09-26-2010, 06:38 PM
In all honesty, walking around praying does tend to bring attention to yourself, so AC1 failed at social stealth there. In AC2, you could walk up to any crowd and instantly be accepted as a member of their group. Hehe, like THAT'S gonna happen.... AC2=Social Stealth Fail.

Not all Assassins are sneaky anyway. There are just as many Assassins who use high powered sniper rifles, or remotely detonated explosives, to achieve their kill. Even if they NAILED stealth, and I meant perfect stealth, stabbing someone with a wrist-blade is not even CLOSE to the best way of brutally slaughtering someone. The Assassins in Assassin's Creed don't even need to be assassin's. Remember Bartolomeo d'Alviano?

All I'm saying is stealth isn't everything. And no-one can say that AC2 couldn't use a little extra variation.

Keksus
09-26-2010, 07:09 PM
And no-one can say that AC2 couldn't use a little extra variation.

You're right about this. It would be really cool of you could sneak sometimes instead of just fighting your way to your target.

JonnyQuickShot
09-26-2010, 07:33 PM
No need to be such a tosser about it. I was just saying that Assassin's creed has NEVER been that stealth focused.

Keksus
09-26-2010, 08:01 PM
No need to be such a tosser about it. I was just saying that Assassin's creed has NEVER been that stealth focused.

And that's the problem because ubisoft promoted AC1 with the social stealth system and talked a lot of being able to hide in crowds and so on.

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by JonnyQuickShot:
In all honesty, walking around praying does tend to bring attention to yourself, so AC1 failed at social stealth there. In AC2, you could walk up to any crowd and instantly be accepted as a member of their group. Hehe, like THAT'S gonna happen.... AC2=Social Stealth Fail.

Not all Assassins are sneaky anyway. There are just as many Assassins who use high powered sniper rifles, or remotely detonated explosives, to achieve their kill. Even if they NAILED stealth, and I meant perfect stealth, stabbing someone with a wrist-blade is not even CLOSE to the best way of brutally slaughtering someone. The Assassins in Assassin's Creed don't even need to be assassin's. Remember Bartolomeo d'Alviano?

All I'm saying is stealth isn't everything. And no-one can say that AC2 couldn't use a little extra variation.

I don't think Altair was pretending to pray. In fact, wasn't he imitating a scholar? That would mean he was pretending to be deep in thought while lowering his head and even covering part of his face with his hands/fingers (folded hands with index fingers pointed up to his mouth). Does that work better for you? There were white robed wandering scholars all over, so he wouldn't have looked too out of place.

Remember that things such as the scholar imitation and blending with the crowd are gameplay elements. How would you have had the social stealth elements work in the game? Keep in mind that it has to be economical in a programming and processing power point of view, and it has to be something players can continue to use across the whole game.

Games can't imitate life exactly or they wouldn't be fun. Failing at social stealth, I think, would require more than a fictitious group of people accepting you into their group. That (the group of people) is just a device the game designers used to allow players to have moving hiding spots that fit in the setting of a busy city street.

I'm by no means saying they fully succeeded at the social stealth in either game. I am, however, saying they didn't horribly and completely fail at it either (in AC or ACII). Heck! I agree that they took a step backward in the design of the social stealth in ACII due to its obviously OPTIONAL nature.

I also agree that Assassin's Creed hasn't been that stealth focused in the traditional hide-in-the-shadows sense. They went in a different direction with it, but they didn't reach the full potential of what it could be.

Are you saying that you don't want Assassin's Creed games to be stealth focused (or even just more stealth focused)? I don't want to misinterpret you. I know I like having a game that allows the freedom to play it the way I want to (which happens to be forcing myself to do things as stealthy as possible) while still allowing others to play the way they want to. Is that what you meant?

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by UBOSOFT-Gamer:
the devs really put in that leonardo-tank...

ok, on the hand it is interssting the devs put in inventions into the game leonardo created on paper during that time, which were never builed then, but what can work.

but, i hope you, the devs, stop with that. back to the roots please! please dont to time between the year 1550 and 1999, because we fear the assassins creed main charcater of AC3 will use guns and explosives mostly, etc.!

i really wouldn't want that. I think it got over the top now or your make it really historical correct and it takes all steps and time to load and shoot a cannon!
otherwise it may turn into a call of duty like game...............
dont go further with modern guns. the secret pistol, now cannons and even the tank?? OK! But let the AC3 main character only use knives!

I hope your idea about the "tank" is right (taking all the steps to reload and such). That would help keep immersion going.

As for ACIII not having the hidden pistol, I think it could work to keep that but loose everything else with a Call of Duty scent to it. If they traced gunpowder back to it's origin in China, then they could even show the origin of the hidden gun (kind of a prequel yet not due to Desmond's story still moving forward).

I have no problem with Desmond using a few firearms that fit with a stealthy assassin but nothing too extravagant (no shotguns or SMGs or anything).


Originally posted by Keksus:

It all started when Al Mualim used the Piece of Eden to summon the assassination targets and to make clones of himself. This was the point at which AC got ridiculous.

Social stealth. How would you react to some guy who runs around with a MP on his back? They can't get rid off the social stealth in the part with Desmond. And they can't give him so many weapons because if they did social stealth would seem a little bit odd. Walking on a market whilst fuly armed and nobody cares. Yeah right. But well ... you're right about the story line. It was nice when it was just about templars ... there was no need to add this solar flare stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Al Mualim use the Apple to make it appear as though the assassination targets wee there when they weren't (hence them vanishing when you defeat them). Similarly, didn't it only appear as though he cloned himself (as it all that was only illusion).

I agree with the social stealth stuff in Desmond's days.

As for the solar flare and TWCB... I'm giving the dev team some slack in that area. If they go overboard with that stuff in ACB, then I'll get upset. It's a creative idea with a background that shows where the Templars are getting their power from... but we'll see how it all plays out in ACB and ACIII.

EzioAssassin51
09-26-2010, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by RandomRansom:
Games can't imitate life exactly or they wouldn't be fun.

Exactly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bKoahtmcHY)

RandomRansom
09-26-2010, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RandomRansom:
Games can't imitate life exactly or they wouldn't be fun.

Exactly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bKoahtmcHY) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. That was great.

And this means certain elements that aren't exactly like real life are OK in a game. Having a mostly wooden "tank" with small cannons that Leonardo designed on paper but probably didn't build, being able to move around easily in that "tank" (as turning would be hard based on the design and even moving over certain terrain would be a challenge), having projectiles explode, and such things are there to make those parts of the game possibly fun.

I still say the "tank" would have been better if Ezio just blew it up, but I'm still waiting on the dev team's story behind that before I condemn the driving of the "tank" altogether.

Xanatos2007
09-26-2010, 11:17 PM
Aye, but you need a realistic edge in order to make them immersive, and attention to detail. Two things which AC seems to be lacking lately.

RandomRansom
09-27-2010, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
Aye, but you need a realistic edge in order to make them immersive, and attention to detail. Two things which AC seems to be lacking lately.

I think that people are having a stylized or polarized outlook on the time period that ACII takes place in. ACII doesn't take place in the Medeival period, but that polarization seems to have people looking at it like that. The Renaissance was a time period that took us out of the Dark Ages and into a more modern society. I think ACII seems to have at least a little realistic edge to it as result. Hence, at least for me with my mindset, there's plenty of immersion.

But if you're talking more about guards being kinda thick, guys climbing tall buildings, hidden blades during the crusades, hidden guns during the Renaissance, hiding in small groups of people, using a flying machine before man actually flew, using a "tank" that was designed at that time (but most likely never used), etc., then I can't help you with those. I see those as gameplay elements to try to make the game fun (and not too close to reality).

itsamea-mario
09-27-2010, 09:41 AM
YES OK WE GET IT!!!


anyway, i'm thinking of AC:B as ubi's testing ground, where they can see just what they can get away with.

RandomRansom
09-27-2010, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
YES OK WE GET IT!!!


anyway, i'm thinking of AC:B as ubi's testing ground, where they can see just what they can get away with.

I'm sorry. Was I supposed to stop replying to posts at some point? I'm not trying to be mean or be a know it all in this thread. Why are you yelling at me?

Maybe you're right about ACB being their testing ground for ACIII. It wouldn't surprise me. I'd go on with my explanation of agreement, but I don't want to make you more mad...

EzioAssassin51
09-27-2010, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by RandomRansom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
YES OK WE GET IT!!!


anyway, i'm thinking of AC:B as ubi's testing ground, where they can see just what they can get away with.

I'm sorry. Was I supposed to stop replying to posts at some point? I'm not trying to be mean or be a know it all in this thread. Why are you yelling at me?

Maybe you're right about ACB being their testing ground for ACIII. It wouldn't surprise me. I'd go on with my explanation of agreement, but I don't want to make you more mad... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably is the testing ground for AC3, see if they can get away with having normal guns in the modern times!

UBOSOFT-Gamer
09-28-2010, 01:36 PM
about the flying machine, it was interesting. it was like "oh, a flying machine. ok, test it out" however, i preferd the horse to reach destinations.

if i want to use a tank, then i play COD 1 and COD:UO or better, Steel Beasts or whatever.
if i want to play as an assassins who use primarly sniper rifles for the kills, i play Hitman.

Btw, did Leonardo invent the Flamthrower or Rocketluncher or what it is to shoot on the ship?

Btw Here is a youtubeclip where you can see the tank in action. most of you may already know the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC9SYrBXO5w

rome trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HywsQY6ErTE

@RandomRansom, I was talking about the canon in monteriggioni, not about the canon of the tank.

I wonder if you can overdrive trees with this "tank" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (I am joking!)

[joke]@at devs, what about a time machine, not this animus, a real time machine where you can send soldiers and equipment form the 21century to the begining of the 16th century? Give Ezio Abram-tanks, jets, cruis missiles, machine guns and a Divison of Navy Seals! HOOAH for the win! could be an interessting what-if-experiment. knives against tanks. is it a myth, a lie, bull**** or not. according to this story, polish cavelry of ww2 found out, knives doesn't work against tanks, but maybe it is differnt with 16 century knives![joke off]