PDA

View Full Version : A question for all the fanboys of this game...



oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-21-2007, 05:56 PM
What games have you been playing recently that makes Assassin's Creed seem so fantastic?

I honestly cant see it. I'm an avid gamer that appreciates good solid challenging gaming but this just doesn't make the cut. It's fun, but it's by no means the fantastic title some people are making it out to be, or had the potential to become.... Don't you feel slightly irritated that it's not what it could have been?

It's rare that you see an original enough idea in games and to see such a fantastic preface for a game squandered, but UBISOFT Montreal of all places, just aggrivates me

I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much....

It's quite funny when you think about it!

eWaster
11-21-2007, 06:01 PM
Actually, I was very happy with the game and I still am. Not a single disappointment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


And some people were expecting a whole new life with Assassin's Creed. Ubisoft can't make a game living up to that hype http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stuburns
11-21-2007, 06:03 PM
I guess I'm quite a fanboy for this title, I'm a big fan of MGS2, it's my favourite game, and I'm quite a big fan of playing games for the story, and this game has an excellent story, well told and paced out very nicely.

That matched with the free running which I love and they've got an game I think.

So yeah, that's the opinion of this fanboy.

My only major gripe outside of the framerate/jagging/screen tear/freezing and crashing is the difficulty, the game is far to easy, you can easily do the whole thing without dying.

BlackRabbit
11-21-2007, 06:07 PM
Different strokes for different folks.

Kada-Dix
11-21-2007, 06:10 PM
I am dissapointed with the certain aspects of the gameplay; the repetitiveness of the "Information Collecting" missions for example, travelling through the Kingdom can be tedious at times (I prefer to gallop through it)

Graphically it's a beautiful, it's easy and intuitive to control... maybe i'm simple minded but i find the "sandbox" element it does have entertaining, ultimately howerever i suspect i'm attracted to "what could have been" rather than what we have... but more often that not I think that is the case with a lot of titles

CoD4 for example is a blast online. But Single player is lacking, true it looks amazing, but it's so stuck to it's rails they might have stuck wheels on it and called it Trainz2008

Eville23x
11-21-2007, 06:11 PM
I like the game. It's not without it's faults for sure. It's not a game of the year title either. I like the story line the most I think as it's history and such is a hobby of mine. That coupled with the prince of persia-esq combat and the free running was a lot of fun.

But hey, I can understand other people's frustrations. The AI was a little goofy as well. I'll not knock anyone for not liking it.

BTOG46
11-21-2007, 06:24 PM
Interesting, so far there doesn't seem to have been the kind of response that oO_ShadowFox_Oo was perhaps hoping to get, it's all been very adult and unbiased so far.
It can't last though, someone is bound to fall into his trap................ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

stuburns
11-21-2007, 06:29 PM
Well the game isn't perfect, it has elements that I know would make people dislike, such as it being repetative, that doesn't bother me because life is repetative and I like delaying the big moments in games, and being able to delay them by doing additional material is a joy, but I know some people will hate that, so I don't think he'll get a flaming, it's a legit-ish question.

Fastr77
11-21-2007, 06:39 PM
simply put; it's a fun game. It's no bioshock, but it's damn fun. Running around a huge city killing guards and templars as you please. figuring out how to kill your target with a full DNA bar (of course, if you own a ps3 you don't know what i'm talking about)

I was intrigued by the story (spoiler) going on in the present, sometimes i wanted to just kill my target so i could get back to the present and talk to lucy, read emails.. snoop around, ect. the ending was pretty damn cool too, this game delivered on some of the "oh ****" moments halo missed out on. (/spoiler)

oh, and if you bothered by running around the kingdom.. if your not there yet eventually you can just warp from town to town, avoiding the kingdom.

blarson11
11-21-2007, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by BTOG46:
Interesting, so far there doesn't seem to have been the kind of response that oO_ShadowFox_Oo was perhaps hoping to get, it's all been very adult and unbiased so far.
It can't last though, someone is bound to fall into his trap................ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

and i shall spring it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

i...just...cant...do...it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

i like this game and at first (before i played it) i was like "wtf. not goty, gtfo noobs." but then i played it and i realized that it was not game of the year material. theres a lot of things that didnt quite manifest themselves the way they were expected to. this didnt really hit me until after i finished the game. i wasnt quite thinkin "finally," but i did find myself thingking "wait, thats it?, now what?" how long can you run around and randomly assassinate? you can do the memory blocks over, but i already did all i could because i wanted to experience it all. Overall i think they made a fun, passable product, but it is by no means what they promised

dirtybird21
11-21-2007, 11:03 PM
I'm pretty sure the reason i like it is because i find the game fun.... I could be wrong though, You could correct me if you like?

colt122
11-22-2007, 12:07 AM
what games hmmm
darkness
lol every game i love this game to much

MiniAssasin
11-22-2007, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
What games have you been playing recently that makes Assassin's Creed seem so fantastic?

I honestly cant see it. I'm an avid gamer that appreciates good solid challenging gaming but this just doesn't make the cut. It's fun, but it's by no means the fantastic title some people are making it out to be, or had the potential to become.... Don't you feel slightly irritated that it's not what it could have been?

It's rare that you see an original enough idea in games and to see such a fantastic preface for a game squandered, but UBISOFT Montreal of all places, just aggrivates me

I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much....

It's quite funny when you think about it!

why does it really matter to you.

if you dont like it simply dont post on here telling others that you dont like it and that they should all hate it and just leave.

trade it in get another game

--

its as simple as that, i never get why people cant go, oh this game isnt for me i'l sell it get a different one. why people taht do like it going on the official forums to suggest improvements tips help and advice have to suffer repete posts of how the game is awful i dont know

Royal.Mist
11-22-2007, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
What games have you been playing recently that makes Assassin's Creed seem so fantastic?

I honestly cant see it. I'm an avid gamer that appreciates good solid challenging gaming but this just doesn't make the cut. It's fun, but it's by no means the fantastic title some people are making it out to be, or had the potential to become.... Don't you feel slightly irritated that it's not what it could have been?

It's rare that you see an original enough idea in games and to see such a fantastic preface for a game squandered, but UBISOFT Montreal of all places, just aggrivates me

I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much....

It's quite funny when you think about it!

Mate, I totally agree with you. I was like... wow... repetitive **** game, **** story...

And then I hit Memory Black 7 and all those hours of listening to boring story was suddenly worth while. I loved the endgame and I thought it was the only well done thing in the game and was worth my money.

Have you played until the end?

MiniAssasin
11-22-2007, 12:44 PM
im still waiting for a reply to my post

i personally got halo 3 and i didnt think it was all that but i didnt troll around the forums telling people to hate the game and demand people who like it to justify it to me.

people like different things

im a big fan of the legacy of kain series and i bet a ton of people could pick a million wholes in that. but i couldnt fingd you any.

people have different tastes why this is hard for people to grasp i dont know

Tela
11-22-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
im still waiting for a reply to my post

i personally got halo 3 and i didnt think it was all that but i didnt troll around the forums telling people to hate the game and demand people who like it to justify it to me.

people like different things

im a big fan of the legacy of kain series and i bet a ton of people could pick a million wholes in that. but i couldnt fingd you any.

people have different tastes why this is hard for people to grasp i dont know

Halo 3 was quite a let-down. Sadly, I have only played soul reaver, but I know how the last game ends. Soul Reaver was good, though.

MiniAssasin
11-22-2007, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Tela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
im still waiting for a reply to my post

i personally got halo 3 and i didnt think it was all that but i didnt troll around the forums telling people to hate the game and demand people who like it to justify it to me.

people like different things

im a big fan of the legacy of kain series and i bet a ton of people could pick a million wholes in that. but i couldnt fingd you any.

people have different tastes why this is hard for people to grasp i dont know

Halo 3 was quite a let-down. Sadly, I have only played soul reaver, but I know how the last game ends. Soul Reaver was good, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you ever get the cahnce you should play them all the storyline is complex, well made. a few inconsistencies but thouroughly enjoyable. soul reaver 2 had some of the best scenes. shame its looking that the last game will never be made.

Tela
11-22-2007, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
im still waiting for a reply to my post

i personally got halo 3 and i didnt think it was all that but i didnt troll around the forums telling people to hate the game and demand people who like it to justify it to me.

people like different things

im a big fan of the legacy of kain series and i bet a ton of people could pick a million wholes in that. but i couldnt fingd you any.

people have different tastes why this is hard for people to grasp i dont know

Halo 3 was quite a let-down. Sadly, I have only played soul reaver, but I know how the last game ends. Soul Reaver was good, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you ever get the cahnce you should play them all the storyline is complex, well made. a few inconsistencies but thouroughly enjoyable. soul reaver 2 had some of the best scenes. shame its looking that the last game will never be made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the last game was Defiance. That's the one that I know how it ends. Not specifics, but the main point, I guess. Was there supposed to be one after that?

MiniAssasin
11-22-2007, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Tela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
im still waiting for a reply to my post

i personally got halo 3 and i didnt think it was all that but i didnt troll around the forums telling people to hate the game and demand people who like it to justify it to me.

people like different things

im a big fan of the legacy of kain series and i bet a ton of people could pick a million wholes in that. but i couldnt fingd you any.

people have different tastes why this is hard for people to grasp i dont know

Halo 3 was quite a let-down. Sadly, I have only played soul reaver, but I know how the last game ends. Soul Reaver was good, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you ever get the cahnce you should play them all the storyline is complex, well made. a few inconsistencies but thouroughly enjoyable. soul reaver 2 had some of the best scenes. shame its looking that the last game will never be made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the last game was Defiance. That's the one that I know how it ends. Not specifics, but the main point, I guess. Was there supposed to be one after that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah defiance finally merged the two stories in the legacy of kain series..soul reaver and lood omen making it possible to play as both characters

most of the storys questions and inconsistencies were anaswered but alot remain. but at the end he knows what he is, what he has to do but thats for the next game

it was a cliffhanger

since then eidos has said it didnt sell as wel, decided to make tombraider games, the main storywriter left and one of the character voices has died

its not looking good lol

Ghotten
11-22-2007, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by DuMbAzZ-:
Actually, I was very happy with the game and I still am. Not a single disappointment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


And some people were expecting a whole new life with Assassin's Creed. Ubisoft can't make a game living up to that hype http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I know, what did they expect? to evolve and move onto the next plane of gaming? come on. It's a video game for christ's sake! they're there for when you're bored, or just need something to pass the time. Don't swear by these things.

katz_bg
11-22-2007, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
What games have you been playing recently that makes Assassin's Creed seem so fantastic?

I honestly cant see it. I'm an avid gamer that appreciates good solid challenging gaming but this just doesn't make the cut. It's fun, but it's by no means the fantastic title some people are making it out to be, or had the potential to become.... Don't you feel slightly irritated that it's not what it could have been?

It's rare that you see an original enough idea in games and to see such a fantastic preface for a game squandered, but UBISOFT Montreal of all places, just aggrivates me

I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much....

It's quite funny when you think about it!
(as you said) STFU n00b

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I happen to really like going around killing people to save the citizens, pickpocketing, interregations and most of all the assassination itself and the intense action that follows.
And to answer the question you raised: God of War 1, Motorstorm, "reinstall my ****ed-up pc twice" and (I believe I played) Mafia.

You may have played other big recent games, but I don't have that kind of cash to throw away at random games. In fact the money for this game was supposed to last me for at least 3 weeks of food, drinks and night-clubs. Considering I sent 70€, because that's how much 50 is from the UK shop and the banks probably robbed me of another 20€. That's about an elderly person couple gets from his retirement for three months here (for some four).

Pr0metheus 1962
11-22-2007, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
What games have you been playing recently that makes Assassin's Creed seem so fantastic?

I've recently played (in order of most recent first) Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, Rainbow Six Vegas, Call of Duty 3, Bioshock, Gears of War. My biggest disappointments in that lot would be Halo 3, GoW and R6: Vegas - all REALLY bad games that were way overhyped.

Call of Duty 3 and 4 were the only games that were the same standard as AC. Not that I think AC is the best thing since sliced bread - I'm hardly a 'fanboy' as you might be able to tell from my Amazon.com review of the Xbox 360 version of the game.

I think the biggest 'problem' with AC is that people who like FPS games were assuming it was going to be an action/shooter-type game, but it's not. It's more like an adventure game. That's not the game's fault - it's the fault of those who can't deal with it being in a different genre from the one they've become accustomed to.

I like games in almost any genre, and I'm not overawed by the FPS genre, so I didn't have unrealistic expectations.

AirRon_2K7
11-22-2007, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by katz_bg:
Considering I sent 70€, because that's how much 50 is from the UK shop and the banks probably robbed me of another 20€. That's about an elderly person couple gets from his retirement for three months here (for some four).

Pffft, wait until you learn how much we get ripped off compared to the US... comparitively, they pay 30 ; _ ;

and they complain about it ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

MasterNeilson
11-22-2007, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
What games have you been playing recently that makes Assassin's Creed seem so fantastic?

I honestly cant see it. I'm an avid gamer that appreciates good solid challenging gaming but this just doesn't make the cut. It's fun, but it's by no means the fantastic title some people are making it out to be, or had the potential to become.... Don't you feel slightly irritated that it's not what it could have been?

It's rare that you see an original enough idea in games and to see such a fantastic preface for a game squandered, but UBISOFT Montreal of all places, just aggrivates me

I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much....

It's quite funny when you think about it!

why does it really matter to you.

if you dont like it simply dont post on here telling others that you dont like it and that they should all hate it and just leave.

trade it in get another game

--

its as simple as that, i never get why people cant go, oh this game isnt for me i'l sell it get a different one. why people taht do like it going on the official forums to suggest improvements tips help and advice have to suffer repete posts of how the game is awful i dont know </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mini, he said "I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much"

He did'nt say anything about people should hate it and leave, he did'nt say he did'nt like it, and he said he'd like a REAL answer, instead of idiotic ones like yours.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-23-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
why does it really matter to you.

if you dont like it simply dont post on here telling others that you dont like it and that they should all hate it and just leave.

trade it in get another game

--

its as simple as that, i never get why people cant go, oh this game isnt for me i'l sell it get a different one. why people taht do like it going on the official forums to suggest improvements tips help and advice have to suffer repete posts of how the game is awful i dont know

It's a discussion forum, thats what you do here, you discuss how you feel about certain aspects of the game. If we had your way of doing it all that would happen would be that people would come on here and see "OMG THIS GAME RLZZZzs!!"!1 EVrY1 SHUD gEtz it!!" and more people who appreciate the level of gaming I do that come on here to check what the feedback of the game is would be fooled into buying it and feel stiffed!

That's why it matters to me

SplinterCell_37
11-23-2007, 06:15 PM
Well, recently I've played Halo 3, Just Cause, XIII, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Far Cry, Call of Duty 2 and Oblivion amongst others.

I've also been enjoying the demos for Medal of Honour: Airborne, Stranglehold, Hitman: Blood Money, Rainbow Six Vegas, Bioshock; and on PC, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Call of Duty.

As you can see, I play a lot of games (I also dabble in the actual creation of games and know a fair bit about the actual development process), and hence should have a fair opinion on such topics as game design, graphical quality, development and the amount of work thereof, and most importantly, the sacrifices that must be made when developing a game of this size, the current integrity of the market and storyline - I myself am a writer.

You sound like you're after proper answers so I'd like to address each of your complaints individually.

"I'm an avid gamer that appreciates good solid challenging gaming but this just doesn't make the cut."

I have to agree that the lack of difficulty settings was a very harsh error on Ubisoft's behalf, because the game lacks the challenge of "pulling off a flawless assassination on the hardest difficulty". I also think that removing the idea of escaping from the city, while realistic in terms of design (it would be very hard to pull off such an escape), takes away part of that fantastic challenge.

"It's fun, but it's by no means the fantastic title some people are making it out to be, or had the potential to become"

I never listen to hype because it's always wrong. Halo 3 was meant to be the advent, but it was only Halo 2.5. That's why I played Assassin's Creed with an open mind, and knowing the amount that they'd crammed into one disc, I was expecting to see sacrifices (actually I was expecting more sacrifices than there is). You can never take someone's opinion as fact, and as such you should go by neutral reviews and, if still skeptical, a rental.

It still has the potential to become fantastic, in the same way that Ghost Recon 2 had the potential to become Ghost Recon 3, and Splinter Cell 1 had the potential to become Splinter Cell 3, and Morrowind had the potential to become Oblivion. Since when have developers ever gotten it perfect on their first try? They require the constructive criticism of the masses - a public beta test, if you will - to make sure they address the issues and don't make the same mistake in the sequel. It's like an artist. His first art piece has the proportions wrong, an error in foreshortening, slight misalignment of features and imperfect rendering of depth. An established artist or a friend then sees his piece, identifies where he went wrong, assists him in getting it right with advice and demonstration, then encourages him for what he got right.

To draw connections, [in my opinion] Ubisoft made errors in variety, predefined hide spots, repetition, difficulty, and a couple of other points.
What they got right was freerunning, most animations, graphics engine, control scheme, most of combat, crowd, freeroaming (if you're going to complain about the memory walls, then you would complain about the loading times, framerate issues and crashes that would occur if you could access every area at one time - it's a technical sacrifice), a lot of intelligent design choices (you only have to do 2 investigations if you want to get it over and done quickly - how much more repetitive would it be if you HAD to do all of them?) and the size of the game world. Opinions of the storyline differ from person to person, but I think they did well.
See? They did a lot of things right if you stop and analyse it. Most of all, the game is fun. Must we criticize Ubisoft for not living up to expectation, and instead put ourselves in their shoes and realise that, for the amount of work and effort they put into it, we've got quite a fair bit of value for money?
Maybe it's just that I know the development process and the difficulties, but honestly, Ubi have put a hell of a lot of sweat and tears in this game and just made a few mistakes, and suddenly everyone's pouncing on what was done wrong instead of what was done right?
...sorry, I had to get that out.

"Don't you feel slightly irritated that it's not what it could have been?"

Not really, because at the moment, it's still quite a bit. I understand what you mean; they could have done much more with it, and it's a pity they didn't take extra time to make it better. But then hype would be even higher and review scores would be lower, so...


"I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much...."

Okay, I'll supply answers for why I like it so much.
-It's a step in a new direction. Not only is it almost freeroaming, it's freeclimbing. When has that been done before except for that lame game on the PS2 mimicking parkour?
-The Crowd, with a capital C. Ubisoft deserves an award for not only the concept, but the execution. Before, a crowd was just a set of pathways with some meshes attached to them. Start a battle, they run away until they're at a preset distance, then walk along a different path. In AC, they walk along, stop to look at stalls, listen to a towncrier for a bit, stare at something, walk off. Not only that, but if they come across a dead body, they'll either scream and run away, or gasp and wonder how it happened, then avoid the area. Guards who notice it will call out angrily for whoever's responsible, then search the area and even try and get help. If you're climbing something, passers-by will comment, gasp, question or watch. And if you're in a chase, some people will grab at you or trip you up, others avoid, and others will stop the guards. Beggars cry for money, people who you've injured will recognise you...When else has this been done?
-Freerunning. While I think they went a bit overboard with what you can climb (some things would be a little impossible to grab hold of), who can criticise it? It's fun, it provides an alternate pathway, it opens up a new level of exploration, and heck, it's fun!
-Combat. I don't think the AI is stupid at all, though admittedly I'm sure there are instances I've not encountered. While countering is simply too easy, it is satisfying, and you can choose to increase difficulty by not using the counter...and again, it's fun.
-Sandbox. I have a love affair with sandbox games, except GTA, which takes great pleasure in being pointlessly sadistic to innocents.
-Storyline. For me, this type of storytelling is a wonderful step in a new direction, and I love watching it play out.
-Rewards. You're rewarded for trying to do extra. Do all the investigations, you'll have all the information. Go to all the viewpoints, you'll have a complete map, additional memories and achievements. Explore the city corners and rooftops, you get flags, which unlock additional memories and achievements. Assassinate quickly and quietly, the escape is easier, you unlock an achievement. After each assassination you get an extra piece of equipment, a new part of a city, another part of the storyline. And you can choose to avoid everything I mentioned above, except the last two. They're optional, but there are rewards.
-The environment/setting. Ubi have paid very, very close attention to recreating this area as well as possible and the atmosphere is fantastic. Turn off the HUD and you'll experience it even more. The music, composed by the awesome Jesper Kyd, adds to the atmosphere double. Plus there's always something on the horizon, always a mountain or a plain or a river, and it just adds to the feeling of scale.
-As a developer, the amount of work that's been put into this game.

And there are other things I can't recall right now because I haven't played the game for a couple of days due to more pressing matters.

Well there you go. Any other questions, I'll be happy to respond.

BTOG46
11-23-2007, 06:28 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
An excellent and well reasoned judgement, I just wish more of the posts here were as well thought out.

Spblob
11-23-2007, 08:10 PM
The only thing I was (very very) disapointed in was that The 360 fried before I got to assassinate a main target! And that is not even a fault in AC...it is one in that stupid 360.

^^^^^^^^^^not a well thought out post....sorry

Tela
11-23-2007, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
Well, recently I've played Halo 3, Just Cause, XIII, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Far Cry, Call of Duty 2 and Oblivion amongst others.

I've also been enjoying the demos for Medal of Honour: Airborne, Stranglehold, Hitman: Blood Money, Rainbow Six Vegas, Bioshock; and on PC, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Call of Duty.

As you can see, I play a lot of games (I also dabble in the actual creation of games and know a fair bit about the actual development process), and hence should have a fair opinion on such topics as game design, graphical quality, development and the amount of work thereof, and most importantly, the sacrifices that must be made when developing a game of this size, the current integrity of the market and storyline - I myself am a writer.

You sound like you're after proper answers so I'd like to address each of your complaints individually.

"I'm an avid gamer that appreciates good solid challenging gaming but this just doesn't make the cut."

I have to agree that the lack of difficulty settings was a very harsh error on Ubisoft's behalf, because the game lacks the challenge of "pulling off a flawless assassination on the hardest difficulty". I also think that removing the idea of escaping from the city, while realistic in terms of design (it would be very hard to pull off such an escape), takes away part of that fantastic challenge.

"It's fun, but it's by no means the fantastic title some people are making it out to be, or had the potential to become"

I never listen to hype because it's always wrong. Halo 3 was meant to be the advent, but it was only Halo 2.5. That's why I played Assassin's Creed with an open mind, and knowing the amount that they'd crammed into one disc, I was expecting to see sacrifices (actually I was expecting more sacrifices than there is). You can never take someone's opinion as fact, and as such you should go by neutral reviews and, if still skeptical, a rental.

It still has the potential to become fantastic, in the same way that Ghost Recon 2 had the potential to become Ghost Recon 3, and Splinter Cell 1 had the potential to become Splinter Cell 3, and Morrowind had the potential to become Oblivion. Since when have developers ever gotten it perfect on their first try? They require the constructive criticism of the masses - a public beta test, if you will - to make sure they address the issues and don't make the same mistake in the sequel. It's like an artist. His first art piece has the proportions wrong, an error in foreshortening, slight misalignment of features and imperfect rendering of depth. An established artist or a friend then sees his piece, identifies where he went wrong, assists him in getting it right with advice and demonstration, then encourages him for what he got right.

To draw connections, [in my opinion] Ubisoft made errors in variety, predefined hide spots, repetition, difficulty, and a couple of other points.
What they got right was freerunning, most animations, graphics engine, control scheme, most of combat, crowd, freeroaming (if you're going to complain about the memory walls, then you would complain about the loading times, framerate issues and crashes that would occur if you could access every area at one time - it's a technical sacrifice), a lot of intelligent design choices (you only have to do 2 investigations if you want to get it over and done quickly - how much more repetitive would it be if you HAD to do all of them?) and the size of the game world. Opinions of the storyline differ from person to person, but I think they did well.
See? They did a lot of things right if you stop and analyse it. Most of all, the game is fun. Must we criticize Ubisoft for not living up to expectation, and instead put ourselves in their shoes and realise that, for the amount of work and effort they put into it, we've got quite a fair bit of value for money?
Maybe it's just that I know the development process and the difficulties, but honestly, Ubi have put a hell of a lot of sweat and tears in this game and just made a few mistakes, and suddenly everyone's pouncing on what was done wrong instead of what was done right?
...sorry, I had to get that out.

"Don't you feel slightly irritated that it's not what it could have been?"

Not really, because at the moment, it's still quite a bit. I understand what you mean; they could have done much more with it, and it's a pity they didn't take extra time to make it better. But then hype would be even higher and review scores would be lower, so...


"I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much...."

Okay, I'll supply answers for why I like it so much.
-It's a step in a new direction. Not only is it almost freeroaming, it's freeclimbing. When has that been done before except for that lame game on the PS2 mimicking parkour?
-The Crowd, with a capital C. Ubisoft deserves an award for not only the concept, but the execution. Before, a crowd was just a set of pathways with some meshes attached to them. Start a battle, they run away until they're at a preset distance, then walk along a different path. In AC, they walk along, stop to look at stalls, listen to a towncrier for a bit, stare at something, walk off. Not only that, but if they come across a dead body, they'll either scream and run away, or gasp and wonder how it happened, then avoid the area. Guards who notice it will call out angrily for whoever's responsible, then search the area and even try and get help. If you're climbing something, passers-by will comment, gasp, question or watch. And if you're in a chase, some people will grab at you or trip you up, others avoid, and others will stop the guards. Beggars cry for money, people who you've injured will recognise you...When else has this been done?
-Freerunning. While I think they went a bit overboard with what you can climb (some things would be a little impossible to grab hold of), who can criticise it? It's fun, it provides an alternate pathway, it opens up a new level of exploration, and heck, it's fun!
-Combat. I don't think the AI is stupid at all, though admittedly I'm sure there are instances I've not encountered. While countering is simply too easy, it is satisfying, and you can choose to increase difficulty by not using the counter...and again, it's fun.
-Sandbox. I have a love affair with sandbox games, except GTA, which takes great pleasure in being pointlessly sadistic to innocents.
-Storyline. For me, this type of storytelling is a wonderful step in a new direction, and I love watching it play out.
-Rewards. You're rewarded for trying to do extra. Do all the investigations, you'll have all the information. Go to all the viewpoints, you'll have a complete map, additional memories and achievements. Explore the city corners and rooftops, you get flags, which unlock additional memories and achievements. Assassinate quickly and quietly, the escape is easier, you unlock an achievement. After each assassination you get an extra piece of equipment, a new part of a city, another part of the storyline. And you can choose to avoid everything I mentioned above, except the last two. They're optional, but there are rewards.
-The environment/setting. Ubi have paid very, very close attention to recreating this area as well as possible and the atmosphere is fantastic. Turn off the HUD and you'll experience it even more. The music, composed by the awesome Jesper Kyd, adds to the atmosphere double. Plus there's always something on the horizon, always a mountain or a plain or a river, and it just adds to the feeling of scale.
-As a developer, the amount of work that's been put into this game.

And there are other things I can't recall right now because I haven't played the game for a couple of days due to more pressing matters.

Well there you go. Any other questions, I'll be happy to respond.

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

Well put.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-23-2007, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
"I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much...."

Okay, I'll supply answers for why I like it so much.
-It's a step in a new direction. Not only is it almost freeroaming, it's freeclimbing. When has that been done before except for that lame game on the PS2 mimicking parkour?
-The Crowd, with a capital C. Ubisoft deserves an award for not only the concept, but the execution. Before, a crowd was just a set of pathways with some meshes attached to them. Start a battle, they run away until they're at a preset distance, then walk along a different path. In AC, they walk along, stop to look at stalls, listen to a towncrier for a bit, stare at something, walk off. Not only that, but if they come across a dead body, they'll either scream and run away, or gasp and wonder how it happened, then avoid the area. Guards who notice it will call out angrily for whoever's responsible, then search the area and even try and get help. If you're climbing something, passers-by will comment, gasp, question or watch. And if you're in a chase, some people will grab at you or trip you up, others avoid, and others will stop the guards. Beggars cry for money, people who you've injured will recognise you...When else has this been done?
-Freerunning. While I think they went a bit overboard with what you can climb (some things would be a little impossible to grab hold of), who can criticise it? It's fun, it provides an alternate pathway, it opens up a new level of exploration, and heck, it's fun!
-Combat. I don't think the AI is stupid at all, though admittedly I'm sure there are instances I've not encountered. While countering is simply too easy, it is satisfying, and you can choose to increase difficulty by not using the counter...and again, it's fun.
-Sandbox. I have a love affair with sandbox games, except GTA, which takes great pleasure in being pointlessly sadistic to innocents.
-Storyline. For me, this type of storytelling is a wonderful step in a new direction, and I love watching it play out.
-Rewards. You're rewarded for trying to do extra. Do all the investigations, you'll have all the information. Go to all the viewpoints, you'll have a complete map, additional memories and achievements. Explore the city corners and rooftops, you get flags, which unlock additional memories and achievements. Assassinate quickly and quietly, the escape is easier, you unlock an achievement. After each assassination you get an extra piece of equipment, a new part of a city, another part of the storyline. And you can choose to avoid everything I mentioned above, except the last two. They're optional, but there are rewards.
-The environment/setting. Ubi have paid very, very close attention to recreating this area as well as possible and the atmosphere is fantastic. Turn off the HUD and you'll experience it even more. The music, composed by the awesome Jesper Kyd, adds to the atmosphere double. Plus there's always something on the horizon, always a mountain or a plain or a river, and it just adds to the feeling of scale.
-As a developer, the amount of work that's been put into this game.

And there are other things I can't recall right now because I haven't played the game for a couple of days due to more pressing matters.

Well there you go. Any other questions, I'll be happy to respond.

You are now my newest favourite poster. This is exactly the kind of response that I wanted for this thread. I agree with every aspect of the game that you've highlighted. I do get the feeling that you're used to level of gaming I am and that this game just sits with what you appreciate, but I was just looking for a certain level of depth that wasn't there and that I thought the game deserved.

It's why I feel so aggrivated with this game. I know we all want to be in the developers seat and dictate where a game should go, but this game had such great potential (and I really mean great, not in the everyone will love it "great" kind of way, I mean a "game generations will remember" context). You can see and understand that it was pushed to the extent that it was released from a financial point of view because the hype that was surrounding this game had the majority of serious gamers (that I know, and they are nerds) in an absolute frenzy.

It is a sad side of the gaming industry that the profit comes before the game. I'm fully confident that every person that plays this game will agree, whether they enjoy the way it is or not, that it could have been soooo much more.

Don't get me wrong, I really did enjoy playing the game. When people tell me it's a fun game, I fully agree. But every game I play is fun, but not all of them are games that I won't trade in.

And that's why I feel the need to express my opinion here......

A champion wasted.

swplatinum
11-24-2007, 05:27 AM
I think AC is fairly good. But not as good as it looked at first.

Why couldn't it have been more like the first half hour of the game. With more elements that feel alive. I get the feeling that I have this huge world that is entierly dead. I would have wanted more things happening on the streets that would set the areas apart, more "mini missions" instead of the repetetive climbing of view points and sitting on benches. This way it feels more like you have a lot of (fun!) running/climbing but only nine times in witch you actually do something meaningful. In GTA for example there are loads of fun extra stuff that makes it feel more alive.

The climbing and running is original, fun and almost flawless but it seems that this aspect of the game took up all the development resources (except maybe for the storytelling).

And what is with all the hangs, freezes bugs? Did anyone even play the game before it was released. It's actually impossible not to notice them. I think it was a concious decision to release a buggy game in order to keep the schedule, and we have to pay for it.

No, I was dissapointed but it's still fun and the story was actually better than I thought. Absolutely NOT a waste of money, but not flawless either.

//P

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2007, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
A champion wasted.

In my opinion those who say things like that are people who expected - demanded - that AC be something it was never intended to be. Those who bought the game with an open mind are enjoying it greatly because they didn't have any preconceived notions.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2007, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by swplatinum:
And what is with all the hangs, freezes bugs?

WHAT hangs, freezes, bugs? I've played it through twice now and I've had a grand total of three problems - two graphics glitches and a hang. What system are you using to play the game?

Warrior-Within2
11-24-2007, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Kada-Dix:
I am dissapointed with the certain aspects of the gameplay; the repetitiveness of the "Information Collecting" missions for example, travelling through the Kingdom can be tedious at times (I prefer to gallop through it)

Graphically it's a beautiful, it's easy and intuitive to control... maybe i'm simple minded but i find the "sandbox" element it does have entertaining, ultimately howerever i suspect i'm attracted to "what could have been" rather than what we have... but more often that not I think that is the case with a lot of titles

CoD4 for example is a blast online. But Single player is lacking, true it looks amazing, but it's so stuck to it's rails they might have stuck wheels on it and called it Trainz2008

If you PREFER to gallop through the kingdom, then how is it tedious... especially when they give you a warp option.

AirRon_2K7
11-24-2007, 09:55 AM
CoD4 for example is a blast online. But Single player is lacking, true it looks amazing, but it's so stuck to it's rails they might have stuck wheels on it and called it Trainz2008

That's your opinion, but what: stuck to it's rails? What would you do if Halo tryed to be a flight sim? That's called "genre"... deal with it.

mefninja
11-24-2007, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
What games have you been playing recently that makes Assassin's Creed seem so fantastic?

I honestly cant see it. I'm an avid gamer that appreciates good solid challenging gaming but this just doesn't make the cut. It's fun, but it's by no means the fantastic title some people are making it out to be, or had the potential to become.... Don't you feel slightly irritated that it's not what it could have been?

It's rare that you see an original enough idea in games and to see such a fantastic preface for a game squandered, but UBISOFT Montreal of all places, just aggrivates me

I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much....

It's quite funny when you think about it!


if you dont like it then thats you.. i just beat it.. maybe over 30hours.. i enjoyed ever moment.. my fav game atm.. but everyone has there own tastes

MiniAssasin
11-24-2007, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
why does it really matter to you.

if you dont like it simply dont post on here telling others that you dont like it and that they should all hate it and just leave.

trade it in get another game

--

its as simple as that, i never get why people cant go, oh this game isnt for me i'l sell it get a different one. why people taht do like it going on the official forums to suggest improvements tips help and advice have to suffer repete posts of how the game is awful i dont know

It's a discussion forum, thats what you do here, you discuss how you feel about certain aspects of the game. If we had your way of doing it all that would happen would be that people would come on here and see "OMG THIS GAME RLZZZzs!!"!1 EVrY1 SHUD gEtz it!!" and more people who appreciate the level of gaming I do that come on here to check what the feedback of the game is would be fooled into buying it and feel stiffed!

That's why it matters to me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im moe talking about people such as the OP who seem to make threads just to start arguments

i know its a discussion board good and bad are discussed but people go way over the top with hate threads calling people fanboys or idiotss etc fro liking somethign they dont.

it works both ways

Destrier
11-24-2007, 07:20 PM
Its a good game, and good fun but lacking depth.

I wonder what took so much development time. The graphics are beautiful. The main character moves amazingly but there is not really all that much to it. I mean sandbox wise there is very little you can do.

*Collect Flags
*Kill bullies in the street
*Pickpocket
*Listen in
*Do running missions on timer
*Do "kill 3 guys without being seen" missions
*Kill major targets.


You cant buy equipment from any shops, you cant interact with anyone. Essentially its very cool but very repetitive game wise and sound wise.

Why couldnt they record more voice acting?
Why not make the shops sell herbs which make you more powerfull for a while or something?
Why not make characters more interactive?

It would have been cool to add some stealth missions at night etc.

All in all its a good game but not the groundbreaker i was waiting for.

I would give it 7.5 out of 10. Maybe push an 8 if it had been crash free.

But then its just an opinion, and everyones differs. I thought beowolf was a great film, and it only got 2/5 in the review i read!

SplinterCell_37
11-25-2007, 01:11 AM
Addressing ShadowFox:


Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
...I was just looking for a certain level of depth that wasn't there and that I thought the game deserved.
...this game had such great potential (and I really mean great, not in the everyone will love it "great" kind of way, I mean a "game generations will remember" context).

I understand your frustration in that Ubisoft decided to take a safe route (in terms of technicality) and simply stay with preset hide spots and a fairly linear method of finding information on, not only where your target is, but exactly how to kill him. At its core Ubisoft ideas are brilliant (interrogating someone who seems to know), they're just not well executed (pull left trigger, follow, button mash). The addition of a heads-up display that tells you where everything also detracts from the challenge, and I'm considering playing the entire game without the HUD for a bit of extra challenge that should have been there in the first place.
Again, if this game - already the hybrid of genres - had simply added elements from RPG's and stealth games, it would have been so much deeper.
For instance:
-You should be able to buy from stalls to lose suspicion (for that matter, a suspicion meter?) or to use alchemy to create potions that enhance a skill, as someone mentioned. Dead Rising, anyone?
-You should be able to ask random people on the street what they think of the target, or if they know anything
-In a chase, why can't you "blend" into a crowd? Why do you always have to sit on a chair? Why not disappear amidst the crowd?
-Why doesn't suspicion simply disappear if you lose the line of sight for a while? Why do you have to jump in a pile of hay if they're on the other side of a mountain? Sometimes it feels like you're just doing things to appease the game.
EDIT: Correction, this IS possible, just rare.

-An inventory - why can't I choose to crossbow him from a distance?

So I do know what you mean when you say it had so much potential, but I don't think it's a waste. First of all we know there will be a sequel. Many of these issues will be addressed then. Second of all, I think you expected just a little too much. I expected nothing and hence got everything.

Addressing other comments:


Originally posted by Metal-Dragon:
You cant buy equipment from any shops, you cant interact with anyone. Essentially its very cool but very repetitive game wise and sound wise.

Why couldnt they record more voice acting?
Why not make the shops sell herbs which make you more powerfull for a while or something?
Why not make characters more interactive?

It would have been cool to add some stealth missions at night etc.


Exactly why I believe that if it had more RPG elements, it would have been a far greater game.



Originally posted by AirRon_2K7:
That's your opinion, but what: stuck to it's rails? What would you do if Halo tryed to be a flight sim? That's called "genre"... deal with it.

By "stuck to it's rails", he means that it's linear and doesn't try and push any boundaries. I don't think you quite understood his point, and that is that it doesn't try and do anything new, it just stays with what it knows.

Halo does have some flying elements, yeah http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by swplatinum:
And what is with all the hangs, freezes bugs?

Haven't experienced one. As with Beeryus, which system are you playing on?


In my opinion those who say things like that are people who expected - demanded - that AC be something it was never intended to be. Those who bought the game with an open mind are enjoying it greatly because they didn't have any preconceived notions.

My exact point.

Sparcrypt
11-25-2007, 04:52 AM
You see, I enjoyed the game and had fun.

And I don't give a damn if you agree with me.. go play something else, just dont expect people to change their opinions to suit your views.

I've already posted my thoughts on what I want improved, past that, I'm happy with my purchase.

Dynamix01
11-25-2007, 05:10 AM
The answer is simple. Everyone has different likes and dislikes.
If you didn't enjoy the game you don't need to post it here unless you have some sort of useful and helpfull hints and tips on how to imporve the game.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-25-2007, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Sparcrypt:
You see, I enjoyed the game and had fun.

And I don't give a damn if you agree with me.. go play something else, just dont expect people to change their opinions to suit your views.

I've already posted my thoughts on what I want improved, past that, I'm happy with my purchase.

I never asked anyone to change their opinion, you'll see that if you read all of my posts. I'm just posting my opinion that this game was extremely average for a project that took over four years to develop.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-25-2007, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by Dynamix01:
The answer is simple. Everyone has different likes and dislikes.
If you didn't enjoy the game you don't need to post it here unless you have some sort of useful and helpfull hints and tips on how to imporve the game.

I'm sorry, but that's a absolutely ridiculous statment.

Why should I not be allowed to express my honest opinion about this game after I paid almost 70 euros of my hard earned cash for it?

And people saying that "different people like different games" is also a little off the ball. Action/adventure/stealth games are my games of choice, along with FPSs, and this is nowhere near one of the best titles in any of those genres that it was supposed to take to the "next generation level"

b-busher
11-25-2007, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dynamix01:
The answer is simple. Everyone has different likes and dislikes.
If you didn't enjoy the game you don't need to post it here unless you have some sort of useful and helpfull hints and tips on how to imporve the game.

I'm sorry, but that's a absolutely ridiculous statment.

Why should I not be allowed to express my honest opinion about this game after I paid almost 70 euros of my hard earned cash for it?

And people saying that "different people like different games" is also a little off the ball. Action/adventure/stealth games are my games of choice, along with FPSs, and this is nowhere near one of the best titles in any of those genres that it was supposed to take to the "next generation level" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But your forgeting one thing.....you s**k b*lls.
No but seriously complaining isnt going to get your money back now is it? And the people who like the game(me) couldnt care less if you do or not cause we love it. Sooo.....GTFO.

Hassan-Sabbah
11-25-2007, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
I'm sorry, but that's a absolutely ridiculous statment.

Why should I not be allowed to express my honest opinion about this game after I paid almost 70 euros of my hard earned cash for it?

And people saying that "different people like different games" is also a little off the ball. Action/adventure/stealth games are my games of choice, along with FPSs, and this is nowhere near one of the best titles in any of those genres that it was supposed to take to the "next generation level"

Is that not contradictory to the fact that you are stating your "opinion?" Obviously, that is the opinion of the person you are responding to...why does your's hold more weight than theirs?

Like Geronimo said: "Opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has one and they usually stink!"

pillaysteven
11-25-2007, 05:45 AM
OK in fairness when all is said and done the game is a little bit disappointing. I've noticed that as much as I wish I wanted to replay the missions and get all the flags I find I kind of force myself. It's as if I'm trying to force myself to really love this game.

I'm extremely happy in what the team achieved as far as animations, graphics, story, characters, lip-syncing go but when it comes to gameplay, it's very good (in all honesty about an 8, which is a great score but doesn't quite reach the excellent mark) the first time through but replay value is non existent. And I'm not talking about awards or unlockables, I mean that the game isn't that fun to play 2nd time through... and I'm a gamer who usually plays games mutliple times after dishing out the 60/70 euro. I've finished the Prince of Persia games multiple times, God of War over 10 times... I'm not sure what it is about the game but it just doesn't have that replayable quality.

Unlockable cheats, awards (on PS3) and difficulty settings would have been great but as much as it pains me to say it, the game lacks variety. EG. Although the NPCs look different they have the exact same actions.

The pickpocketing missions for instance, every time, they look around them at first, walk about 5 steps then stop and look around again and then walk and look around after a predetermined number of steps. So obviously all you do is wait til they finish looking around after the first 5 steps and then pickpocket... and it's the same for every pickpocket mission.

I mean the only thing really different in each assassination is the story, the place and the target. And it's just... not really enough. I've waited for this game from the very first trailer when it was Project Assassin's and though I'm happy enough with it, I sort of hoped it would be my favourite game ever. I know that's high expectations but it didn't even come close to the enjoyment I still get from playing God of War.

They also made a few overall game design choices that impede the enjoyment of the game. Like the inability to skip cut-scenes, no free roam (which would eliminate the need to skip cut-scenes). Maybe they would have been a bit awkward to implement story wise, but if the overall gaming experience would have been improved than they really should have done it.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-25-2007, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by b-busher:
But your forgeting one thing.....you s**k b*lls.
No but seriously complaining isnt going to get your money back now is it? And the people who like the game(me) couldnt care less if you do or not cause we love it. Sooo.....GTFO.

No, but if you read one of my posts from earlier you'd realise WHY people come on here to complain. The same reason that people come on here to rave about the game, to express their opinion and discuss it with those that have a similar one, so sir, I think you'll find that unless you're going to respond to the original point of this thread, or else you going to offer something valuable to this thread I suggest you....

"GTFO"

Again, what is the average age of the people on this forum? It's like trying to talk to a class of puberty raging boys with attitude...

Then again, it probably is

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-25-2007, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Hassan-Sabbah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
I'm sorry, but that's a absolutely ridiculous statment.

Why should I not be allowed to express my honest opinion about this game after I paid almost 70 euros of my hard earned cash for it?

And people saying that "different people like different games" is also a little off the ball. Action/adventure/stealth games are my games of choice, along with FPSs, and this is nowhere near one of the best titles in any of those genres that it was supposed to take to the "next generation level"

Is that not contradictory to the fact that you are stating your "opinion?" Obviously, that is the opinion of the person you are responding to...why does your's hold more weight than theirs?

Like Geronimo said: "Opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has one and they usually stink!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm basing my opinion on the fact that this game is unfinished, repetative and linear.

3 qualites that don't work well in making a game great, never mind one of the best in it's genres

ScytheOfGrim
11-25-2007, 06:18 AM
Opinions, opinions, opinions...
Nothing more than mere opinions... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Oh, so subjective...

BTOG46
11-25-2007, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by ScytheOfGrim:
Opinions, opinions, opinions...
Nothing more than mere opinions... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Oh, so subjective...
Very true, but entertaining in a way, and a very revealing insight into the relative maturity levels of the assorted posters.
Valid and constructive criticism should never be suppressed or shouted down, but that does not mean that constructive and reasoned counter argument doesn't have equal validity.

AirRon_2K7
11-25-2007, 06:43 AM
I'm basing my opinion on the fact that this game is unfinished, repetative and linear.

You're basing your opinion on your opinion? That's a very dumb thing to do when you're trying to debate facts with people.

dsgt92d
11-25-2007, 08:38 AM
Since September I have only played Halo 3, Track & Field, and Assasins Creed. This game aint no Halo 3, but Halo 3 aint no Assasins Creed.

There is much more to the game than linear play if you take the time to discover it. I suppose that will still seem linear to people, but hey you can't please everyone I guess.

Game grew on me 9.466/10

AirRon_2K7
11-25-2007, 08:50 AM
And people saying that "different people like different games" is also a little off the ball. Action/adventure/stealth games are my games of choice, along with FPSs, and this is nowhere near one of the best titles in any of those genres that it was supposed to take to the "next generation level"

He said different games, not different genres. I hate Halo 3, but I love CoD4. FPS = same genre, but I have different opinions on the games within the genre. So your opinion is "a little off the ball" too. It may well be some peoples favourite game in ALL of those genres. Even with your (very well) constructed views, it still doesn't make them any more valid in some people's eyes. This game fits perfectly into my Assassin's Creed genre, but (In my opinion) it doesn't excel as an adventure (My favourite being PoP), an action (My favourite being [not too keen on actions] King Kong) or a stealth game (my favourite being Splinter Cell).

Disclaimer: That's all my opinion, I'm not wrong, I'm not right.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-25-2007, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
I'm basing my opinion on the fact that this game is unfinished, repetative and linear.

Assumes facts not in evidence:

Clearly the game is finished. If you can play every facet of the game through without seeing any cross-platform bugs that are always there it's finished. I've played it through without seeing any bugs.

Repetitive, sorry no, it's not. Any repetitive element of the game can be skipped. There is not a single mission in the game that must be repeated. All the elements that people have claimed to be repetitive are either completely optional or have significant differences from similar missions.

Linear? Is that a joke? Of course the overall storyline is linear, but how you get there is not. CoD4 is an example of a linear game - you have to do all parts of the story in order to get to the end. AC has no such linearity and you can miss significant story elements and still finish the game.

AirRon_2K7
11-25-2007, 02:21 PM
Repetitive, sorry no

You don't need to worry, he said repetative... which must mean something good, I suppose.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-25-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by AirRon_2K7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm basing my opinion on the fact that this game is unfinished, repetative and linear.

You're basing your opinion on your opinion? That's a very dumb thing to do when you're trying to debate facts with people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's pretty much a fact that this game is unfinished. I haven't seen a game's forums so full of complaints about glitchs and bugs. The frame rate on the PS3 is a joke and it stalled for me on several occasions while I was playing through it.

For a game comprising of on average about 15-20 hours game play there are a total of about (and I'm guessing here) 10-15 gameplay elements and about 8 that are supposed to give the game it's lifespan.

Every assassination mission you play comprises of exactly the same method with an alternating amount of guards, type of guards and character dialogue.

These are facts.

In this day and age of "next gen" gaming it is my opinion (I hope this phrasing appeals to you more AirRon_2K7 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) that this game unfinished, repetitive and linear.

MiniAssasin
11-25-2007, 03:39 PM
try the command and conquer 3 forums

and to my knowlege every forum in existence is full of peopel complain that its unplayable bug fileld unfinished ****

the internet is full of people like you, we just cant get rid of you.

its really sad

MiniAssasin
11-25-2007, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AirRon_2K7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm basing my opinion on the fact that this game is unfinished, repetative and linear.

You're basing your opinion on your opinion? That's a very dumb thing to do when you're trying to debate facts with people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's pretty much a fact that this game is unfinished. I haven't seen a game's forums so full of complaints about glitchs and bugs. The frame rate on the PS3 is a joke and it stalled for me on several occasions while I was playing through it.

For a game comprising of on average about 15-20 hours game play there are a total of about (and I'm guessing here) 10-15 gameplay elements and about 8 that are supposed to give the game it's lifespan.

Every assassination mission you play comprises of exactly the same method with an alternating amount of guards, type of guards and character dialogue.

These are facts.

In this day and age of "next gen" gaming it is my opinion (I hope this phrasing appeals to you more AirRon_2K7 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) that this game unfinished, repetitive and linear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

er sure lol

BTOG46
11-25-2007, 04:11 PM
Well, looks like he has the reaction from you all that I expected, when I commented on it back on page one, and was surprised by the initial response to the thread.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-25-2007, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by BTOG46:
Well, looks like he has the reaction from you all that I expected, when I commented on it back on page one, and was surprised by the initial response to the thread.

So was I, it was actually one of the more informative threads I've read on here and actually opened my eyes to how some people can appreciate certain aspects that I can't, but as usual it degenerates into the ususal lark that you see on here.


Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
try the command and conquer 3 forums

and to my knowlege every forum in existence is full of peopel complain that its unplayable bug fileld unfinished ****

the internet is full of people like you, we just cant get rid of you.

its really sad

Yes, that's it. I'm the one that's detrimental to this forum and the internet by actually making supported points and posting my valid opinion. Maybe instead I should just go around randomly instulting those that I don't agree with and not really make any case for my opinion.

A dose of reality might do you some good sir, perhaps it will come to you when you reach the far side of the tunnel known to most as "puberty"

If you've already passed through it then I'm sorry you didn't collect yours.

bokeef04
11-25-2007, 05:32 PM
i thoroughly enjoyed the game, my opinion. however i dont agree that we should be able to buy herbs to make us more powerful(do any such herbs actually exist, also, it's not an rpg and was meant to be as realistic as possible while still being fun)

a crossbow would have been nice to be able to use to clear rooftops of archers also with the assinations, with the paranoid guy(can't remember his name, in acre on the boat) i was standing right behind him when he gave his speech, i shoulda been able to drive my blade through his neck there, in front of everyone(assassins creed in that it must be done in a crowd, not on his boat where their is just a couple of guards)

also i like the idea of night time, harder for guards to see you, but less social blending as no-one would be about. They also should have had missions where you left a dagger in someones bed as a warning message(also what the hashshashin did)

again, it's just my opinion, and Patrice Desiletes did say they had to cut alot of what they wanted from the game

Tela
11-25-2007, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by bokeef04:
i thoroughly enjoyed the game, my opinion. however i dont agree that we should be able to buy herbs to make us more powerful(do any such herbs actually exist, also, it's not an rpg and was meant to be as realistic as possible while still being fun)

a crossbow would have been nice to be able to use to clear rooftops of archers also with the assinations, with the paranoid guy(can't remember his name, in acre on the boat) i was standing right behind him when he gave his speech, i shoulda been able to drive my blade through his neck there, in front of everyone(assassins creed in that it must be done in a crowd, not on his boat where their is just a couple of guards)

also i like the idea of night time, harder for guards to see you, but less social blending as no-one would be about. They also should have had missions where you left a dagger in someones bed as a warning message(also what the hashshashin did)

again, it's just my opinion, and Patrice Desiletes did say they had to cut alot of what they wanted from the game

...Are you talking about Hashish?

Instead of the crossbow, there are the throwing knives. They do the same job, but don't take forever and a day to reload.

bokeef04
11-25-2007, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Tela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bokeef04:
i thoroughly enjoyed the game, my opinion. however i dont agree that we should be able to buy herbs to make us more powerful(do any such herbs actually exist, also, it's not an rpg and was meant to be as realistic as possible while still being fun)

a crossbow would have been nice to be able to use to clear rooftops of archers also with the assinations, with the paranoid guy(can't remember his name, in acre on the boat) i was standing right behind him when he gave his speech, i shoulda been able to drive my blade through his neck there, in front of everyone(assassins creed in that it must be done in a crowd, not on his boat where their is just a couple of guards)

also i like the idea of night time, harder for guards to see you, but less social blending as no-one would be about. They also should have had missions where you left a dagger in someones bed as a warning message(also what the hashshashin did)

again, it's just my opinion, and Patrice Desiletes did say they had to cut alot of what they wanted from the game

...Are you talking about Hashish?

Instead of the crossbow, there are the throwing knives. They do the same job, but don't take forever and a day to reload. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you mean my part about herbs, someone said they wanted to see herbs for sale that make you stronger for a set period of time, also a crossbow would have been a nice addition ontop of knives as a way to kill someone further away then the knives range or to save your knives for later

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-25-2007, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
Addressing ShadowFox:

I understand your frustration in that Ubisoft decided to take a safe route (in terms of technicality) and simply stay with preset hide spots and a fairly linear method of finding information on, not only where your target is, but exactly how to kill him. At its core Ubisoft ideas are brilliant (interrogating someone who seems to know), they're just not well executed (pull left trigger, follow, button mash). The addition of a heads-up display that tells you where everything also detracts from the challenge, and I'm considering playing the entire game without the HUD for a bit of extra challenge that should have been there in the first place.
Again, if this game - already the hybrid of genres - had simply added elements from RPG's and stealth games, it would have been so much deeper.
For instance:
-You should be able to buy from stalls to lose suspicion (for that matter, a suspicion meter?) or to use alchemy to create potions that enhance a skill, as someone mentioned. Dead Rising, anyone?
-You should be able to ask random people on the street what they think of the target, or if they know anything
-In a chase, why can't you "blend" into a crowd? Why do you always have to sit on a chair? Why not disappear amidst the crowd?
-Why doesn't suspicion simply disappear if you lose the line of sight for a while? Why do you have to jump in a pile of hay if they're on the other side of a mountain? Sometimes it feels like you're just doing things to appease the game.
EDIT: Correction, this IS possible, just rare.

-An inventory - why can't I choose to crossbow him from a distance?

So I do know what you mean when you say it had so much potential, but I don't think it's a waste. First of all we know there will be a sequel. Many of these issues will be addressed then. Second of all, I think you expected just a little too much. I expected nothing and hence got everything.

Again, great post. I do agree with some of what you're saying about the improved gameplay elements and overall that would lead to a nice blend of a more RPG feel to the game, which I also think it deserved. Everyone loves to play the "bad *** character" but what really gets you immersed in a game is when you can assume the role of that character and alter him slightly to your own personal preferances.

One thing that I didn't see, which again I thought the game deserved (not demanded, I never demand anything from a game apart from value for money) was more interaction with the fantastic cities that they managed to create! As you mentioned, Vendors would be an awesome aspect to the game. Each one with different wares and specialities. There could have been certain black market vendors that would have had the better weapons and could only be located through means of random extra eavesdropping, interegation etc. Much like the way Oblivion rewarded you for exploring the enviorment and talking to random characters with extra quests. The silly cheap aspect that they employed (just having to find random flags on rooftops) was blatantly ripped from GTA and it serves nothing to the overall shape of the game.

Your point about Ubisoft's ideas being great is true, but I just don't see why they didn't make certain aspects of the game a bit more complex to improve the challenge. Simple things like making the pickpocketing action a bit more than just pressing a button. Something simple like a display screen that shows you where the item is in a pocket and displays your hand having to move towards it without hitting anything and giving you a certain amount of time to do it before being noticed. You could manage to get to the item but if the time ran out you'd still manage to steal it but the mark would be alerted to your actions forcing you deal with the crowd realising that you're a criminal. Do I push the target and run off or do I kill him? Something similar to the lockpicking aspect of SC, which I have never tired of, and was irritated that they replaced with a gadget in Double Agent.

They also could have employed something similar to the eavesdropping mechanic, like having to follow the two people conversing through a crowd as they talk and stay close enough to listen to them without getting too close that they'll notice you. This would have been a fantastic touch, especially with the crowd mechanics and the gentle push actions. A great challenge would be to eavesdrop through a thick crowd and a beggar approaches you.

Which brings me to my next point. Although this would have added more depth to the game and made it more challenging, the side quest challenges didn't provide enough of a reward to actually want to do them. I found myself getting sick of them towards the end because they were too simple and didn't provide enough of a bonus to move you one step closer to the perfect assassination.

Some variation in the social stealth aspect would also have been nice. Using the monks and scholars is good, but that's it. Why couldn't you pick up a box and carry it into an area with other people delivering goods?

The combat I will admit, was fantastic. Much too easy but a really solid platform from which to build. Again, some variation wouldn't have gone afar, extra weapons for each cateogry (ranged, blade, melee) with their pros and cons. I found myself not using the dagger/short sword simply because it had no advantage over my main sword. Sure it was fun to try and take guards on with it for an extra challenge, but it should have some of it's own added benefits to make it more appealing. Much like the pistol in SC, it was much weaker, but no one heard it and was perfect for close range.

These are just some of the areas that I thought could have been improved and would have made this game much more enjoyable...


In my opinion those who say things like that are people who expected - demanded - that AC be something it was never intended to be. Those who bought the game with an open mind are enjoying it greatly because they didn't have any preconceived notions.

My exact point[/QUOTE]

I didn't demand anything from this game. I just felt that it deserved to reach the level of potential it had. I've heard people say that developers never get it right the first time, but SC1 (and I know it's the third time I've referred to SC in this post, but it's one of the best games out there IMO) is a classic game that will stand out in my mind forever. It had its flaw but it got its basic gameplay elements right the first time and it stood to it in later installments.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-25-2007, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
Every assassination mission you play comprises of exactly the same method with an alternating amount of guards, type of guards and character dialogue.

These are facts.

Okay, on one thing everyone can agree on - AirRon is an equal opportunity ***** (he even admits it in his signature), but please - every assassination mission the same? I mean Right now I recall the one on board the ship. Are you seriously suggesting they all take place aboard a ship? If so I'd have to say your game is suffering from one heck of a bug.

SplinterCell_37
11-25-2007, 11:06 PM
I could address each point individually again, but I agree with pretty much all of them. They're all valid ideas and points that would have been great to see (especially adopting disguises, mimicking the actions of a crowd instead of just folding your fingers when you press A). Instead I'll sum up with this point:


Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
I've heard people say that developers never get it right the first time, but SC1 (and I know it's the third time I've referred to SC in this post, but it's one of the best games out there IMO) is a classic game that will stand out in my mind forever. It had its flaw but it got its basic gameplay elements right the first time and it stood to it in later installments.

The Splinter Cell Trilogy was one of the best series' in gaming; not only was its foundation rock solid, it always built on previous weaknesses, climaxing at Chaos Theory. Unfortunately Double Agent tried to appeal to the masses, and the storyline was so weak I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. (Where did the brilliance of JT Petty and Clint Hocking gone? To Far Cry 2, I guess)

Anyway.

Your main point is that Splinter Cell established it's framework right the first time around, but here's the main problem:
Assassin's Creed is a MUCH huger scale. They spent most of development time and resources on the creation of the game world, the characters, the AI and the atmosphere, but much less work was paid to making the design as strong as possible, unfortunately. As bokeef04 mentioned, a lot was cropped from the 'final cut' that they wanted to keep in there.
The minute I heard that there was four specific hide spots, I instantly identified that it was just an easy way to do what they were trying to achieve because they ran out of time. Honestly, the very idea of jumping into hay was probably something that programmers used as a temporary and quick way to test the mechanics of blending (it has all the hallmarks of it - conveniantly placed, easily accessed and the quickest way to test it), and then eventually the team probably just said "we haven't got enough time; heck, let's just use the hay".

(It's been very interesting dabbling in programming, you learn a lot about not only how they did it, but why they did it [or didn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif])

Anyway, the point is that Assassin's Creed potential isn't lost...it just wasn't completely utilized the first time. There'll be a sequel, and it'll be then that design errors will be addressed.

And if they don't...THEN they're stupid.

About bugs and glitches, refer to the Just Cause forums...and hey, that game was still awesome. It was just a bit weak in its side missions and storyline.

AirRon_2K7
11-26-2007, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
Every assassination mission you play comprises of exactly the same method with an alternating amount of guards, type of guards and character dialogue.

These are facts.

Okay, on one thing everyone can agree on - AirRon is an equal opportunity ***** (he even admits it in his signature), but please - every assassination mission the same? I mean Right now I recall the one on board the ship. Are you seriously suggesting they all take place aboard a ship? If so I'd have to say your game is suffering from one heck of a bug. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't admit to being a "*****" in my sig... I just said that I no longer douse my words in happiness, because of idiots. If I've been a "*****" to you, then maybe you should think that through.

MiniAssasin
11-26-2007, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BTOG46:
Well, looks like he has the reaction from you all that I expected, when I commented on it back on page one, and was surprised by the initial response to the thread.

So was I, it was actually one of the more informative threads I've read on here and actually opened my eyes to how some people can appreciate certain aspects that I can't, but as usual it degenerates into the ususal lark that you see on here.


Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
try the command and conquer 3 forums

and to my knowlege every forum in existence is full of peopel complain that its unplayable bug fileld unfinished ****

the internet is full of people like you, we just cant get rid of you.

its really sad

Yes, that's it. I'm the one that's detrimental to this forum and the internet by actually making supported points and posting my valid opinion. Maybe instead I should just go around randomly instulting those that I don't agree with and not really make any case for my opinion.

A dose of reality might do you some good sir, perhaps it will come to you when you reach the far side of the tunnel known to most as "puberty"

If you've already passed through it then I'm sorry you didn't collect yours. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your way of posting, the title the language style you used the replies are what im getting out

i couldnt give two shiney ****es if ya say you like or dislike the game. but your one of those people that decide to make a look at me thread.

the sort thats saying i keep reading threads where people like the game soim gonna make one that will stir it up

zgubilici
11-26-2007, 01:02 AM
Stop the bickering people and remember these are E-rated forums.
Thanks.

IceColdHatred
11-26-2007, 05:32 AM
Hi there.

This is the first time I've posted here, and is actually the first time I've read anything about the game, so I had no pre-conceived ideas about the game.

Executive Summary: The game was ok. Not great, not ****, ok.

Pros:
*The game world.
Oh. My. God. I have to take my hat off to Ubisoft here - the cities looked beautiful. I just wanted to stare at them all day.

*free-running/climbing
Fantastic. I loved bouncing around everywhere.

*Combat "cutscenes"
Those little pre-scripted moves when you made a counter? Nice. Oh, so very nice.

Cons:
*Storyline
Boring. I saw 90% of the plot coming like a freight train. That could be just me - I'm often very good at predicting these sorts of things.

*Blending
I agree with previous posters - blending with crowds, changing clothes, doing anything other than hand-clasping, haystacking and bench-sitting would have been great.

Conclusion: All-in-all a decent game. I found myself *wanting* to like the game more than I actually did. 7.5/10

Pr0metheus 1962
11-26-2007, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
They spent most of development time and resources on the creation of the game world, the characters, the AI and the atmosphere, but much less work was paid to making the design as strong as possible, unfortunately.

I don't see how you can say that. The one thing I notice about this game is that the design, though fairly simple, is solid. There's nothing that seems out of place to me.


As bokeef04 mentioned, a lot was cropped from the 'final cut' that they wanted to keep in there.

But that's the case with every game ever made.


The minute I heard that there was four specific hide spots, I instantly identified that it was just an easy way to do what they were trying to achieve because they ran out of time. Honestly, the very idea of jumping into hay was probably something that programmers used as a temporary and quick way to test the mechanics of blending (it has all the hallmarks of it - conveniantly placed, easily accessed and the quickest way to test it), and then eventually the team probably just said "we haven't got enough time; heck, let's just use the hay".

Isn't it just as likely that they originally intended the hay to be there as a hiding place and that they liked how it worked? I mean I love the hay - it makes total sense for the time period. I mean animals need it and animals were the machinery of the middle ages. It SHOULD be all over the place and in terms of the game it works beautifully. I mean what would you put under towers to enable those leaps of faith - conveniently located mattresses? Trampolines? Cardboard boxes? Hay is correct for the period, it breaks a fall and you can hide in it. What's not to like?


(It's been very interesting dabbling in programming, you learn a lot about not only how they did it, but why they did it [or didn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif])

Strangely I dabble in programming too and I have made a number of major mods and bug fixes for various computer games, but I come to completely different conclusions.


Anyway, the point is that Assassin's Creed potential isn't lost...it just wasn't completely utilized the first time. There'll be a sequel, and it'll be then that design errors will be addressed.

I just don't buy the premise that the game has 'design errors'. What you're talking about are features that you don't particularly like. That's not evidence of 'design error'. It's just a matter of taste.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-26-2007, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by IceColdHatred:
*Blending
I agree with previous posters - blending with crowds, changing clothes, doing anything other than hand-clasping, haystacking and bench-sitting would have been great.

Well, the thing is, even if they'd added ten more different ways of blending it still comes down to two types of blend - the moving blend where you can move away from a situation, and the non-moving blend where you wait for a situation to cool down. From a gameplay perspective it really doesn't matter what keys you push or what varieties of those blends you get, the result is exactly the same, so at a certain point putting in other variants is an exercise in futility - it's just busy work that you add in order to make the game SEEM more complex when in reality it isn't.

Also, in adding those other methods you're cutting down on time that could be spent developing other aspects of the game. I mean at some point development time is limited and it comes down to a choice: the devs either add more ways of doing the two basic blend types or they decide that four or five variations of blends are enough so that they can add some other feature of the game that we all like. In my view the number of blends is fine and the way they balanced what they added to the game is perfect.

SplinterCell_37
11-27-2007, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
I don't see how you can say that. The one thing I notice about this game is that the design, though fairly simple, is solid. There's nothing that seems out of place to me.

But there's a lot that seems out of place to others, and it's all the complexity of stealth mechanic and investigations. Don't get me wrong, I love the stealth mechanic and investigations. It just seems to me like they made it as simplistic as possible due to time limitations.
Ubisoft's ideas are solid, they just weren't able to translate it to the design like they wanted to.
One last thing I'd like to mention on the topic - I never said the design was weak, I said it wasn't "as strong as possible".


But that's the case with every game ever made.

Er...your point? My point was that the game would have had a more complex design to its stealth, but most of these original ideas had to be cut. And of course that's the case with every other game. Is any other game perfect?


Isn't it just as likely that they originally intended the hay to be there as a hiding place and that they liked how it worked? I mean I love the hay - it makes total sense for the time period. I mean animals need it and animals were the machinery of the middle ages. It SHOULD be all over the place and in terms of the game it works beautifully. I mean what would you put under towers to enable those leaps of faith - conveniently located mattresses? Trampolines? Cardboard boxes? Hay is correct for the period, it breaks a fall and you can hide in it. What's not to like?

I'm afraid you missed my point. I don't disagree with the use of hay itself. I disagree with its choice as the primary form of concealment. In Splinter Cell you had to stay in the shadows, but shadows weren't always everywhere and it was still a challenging mechanic to work around the AI. In Assassin's Creed, while a similar concept is in place (crowd), they've traded the use of crowd with the use of preset hiding spots - hay. I wouldn't have a problem if the hay, roof gardens etc were kept in there as a backup for the player to fall on, but not the primary concealment. It would be far better, in my opinion, for the primary method of concealment to lose the guards and then just become part of the crowd.
Really, if you were an Assassin in the Third Crusade and you were being chased by guards, would you instantly dive in a pile of hay every time? Perhaps at extreme times, yes, but not EVERY time. The same goes for park benches and roof gardens. Except for park benches, wouldn't it be better to hide in a crowd, inspect a few market stalls, listen to a towncrier? Do something unsuspicious?
Again, Ubisoft's ideas are all completely solid, they just weren't executed like they originally intended to. At least, I presume the original intention was to become lost in a crowd, because all the trailers suggested it.


Strangely I dabble in programming too and I have made a number of major mods and bug fixes for various computer games, but I come to completely different conclusions.

Really? Then by all means, tell me what those conclusions are. I'd be interested to hear them.


I just don't buy the premise that the game has 'design errors'. What you're talking about are features that you don't particularly like. That's not evidence of 'design error'. It's just a matter of taste.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you believe the game is flawless. Personally it's one of the most incredible and polished pieces I've seen, but surely you'll acknowledge the stealth mechanics would have benefited from some further complexity?
About "design error", I apologise, that is a phrase I'm in the bad habit of saying. You're right in saying it's a matter of taste, but you said that it's a 'feature I don't particularly like' - I love every aspect of Assassin's Creed. The only thing that hampers its perfection in my eyes is lack of complexity in its stealth design, and lack of complexity in the investigations.
Then again, I am a rabid fan of Splinter Cell, so that may be clouding my judgement.

BTOG46
11-27-2007, 06:18 AM
I just wish more posts on this thread were as articulate and reasoned, this kind of debate is the kind the forum needs, and not the purely biased and deliberate flame trap/angry response kind of posts that the majority on the forums eventually degenerate to.
If someone makes a valid but perhaps debatable suggestion, it should not be a reason for flaming or name calling, it should be accepted as a valid point of view, even if it happens to be different from one's own.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-27-2007, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
It just seems to me like they made it as simplistic as possible due to time limitations.

And that's bad because? Every game ever made has to cut out things that were in the original concept. Also things that weren't in the original concept are added when good ideas emerge from playtesting and programming. I think you're complaining about something that is a fact of life in terms of game development. You say you "love the stealth mechanic and investigations" but you find it a problem that the complexity had to be cut back due to time limitations. It seems to me that if you like it there's not much point in complaining about it. Anyway, before this is even debatable we'd need to see the evidence that these aspects of the game were originally more complex. No evidence has been shown that this was even the case, so it seems to me that you're basing your criticism on pure conjecture.


Ubisoft's ideas are solid, they just weren't able to translate it to the design like they wanted to.

And the evidence for this assertion is... what? Where?


One last thing I'd like to mention on the topic - I never said the design was weak, I said it wasn't "as strong as possible".

No design is ever as strong as possible. The developers took four years to make this game. At a certain point they have to publish or the new technology is no longer new. If they had ten years to develop the game your point might have more validity, but they only had a limited time so your point is essentially meaningless.


My point was that the game would have had a more complex design to its stealth, but most of these original ideas had to be cut.

I just don't buy that. As the accuser you bear the burden of proof. So prove it.


I don't disagree with the use of hay itself. I disagree with its choice as the primary form of concealment. In Splinter Cell you had to stay in the shadows, but shadows weren't always everywhere and it was still a challenging mechanic to work around the AI. In Assassin's Creed, while a similar concept is in place (crowd), they've traded the use of crowd with the use of preset hiding spots - hay. I wouldn't have a problem if the hay, roof gardens etc were kept in there as a backup for the player to fall on, but not the primary concealment. It would be far better, in my opinion, for the primary method of concealment to lose the guards and then just become part of the crowd.

Having the ability to lose LOS and then just merge with the crowd would make the stealth aspects far less challenging, and this game is already being criticised for being too easy. In my opinion the hay, the citizen's help, the merging with scholars and the ability to merge (the praying thing) to prevent being found are far better solutions because they present the player far more challenge and far more options.


Really, if you were an Assassin in the Third Crusade...

A real assassin in the Third Crusade would probably have had only three or four targets in his entire lifetime. In the game we get nine in the space of a few weeks. Also, real assassins didn't climb buildings, none of them were ambivalent about religion and most of them, I'm sure, would hardly have been the type of person you'd want to be playing in a videogame. My point is that the game's first job is to be playable and realism comes second: the game's mechanics work great as a game and no one ever intended it to be an Hashshashin simulator.


Again, Ubisoft's ideas are all completely solid, they just weren't executed like they originally intended to.

You've said that three times in this post alone, but I'm still waiting for proof to back it up. Saying something a lot doesn't make it true (unless, apparently, you're in Bush's White House).


At least, I presume the original intention was to become lost in a crowd, because all the trailers suggested it.

A trailer is pure hype. Anyone who judges a game by what its trailer suggests is flirting with disappointment. You need to present some hard evidence to back up your points, not what you think the trailer suggested. Anyway, what trailer are you talking about? The only one I saw that showed blending was the intro movie, which suggests that Altair can disappear in a group of scholars, which is exactly what the game permits.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Strangely I dabble in programming too and I have made a number of major mods and bug fixes for various computer games, but I come to completely different conclusions.

Really? Then by all means, tell me what those conclusions are. I'd be interested to hear them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This post is all about my conclusions as they pertain to this game. In short, programming is not as simple as you seem to think it is, and four years is nowhere near enough time to produce the miracle of gaming design that you seem to have expected.


Pardon me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you believe the game is flawless.

If you think that, you need to check out my Amazon.com review (http://www.amazon.com/review/RH6KYIXAUEM08/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

Enough said.


Personally it's one of the most incredible and polished pieces I've seen, but surely you'll acknowledge the stealth mechanics would have benefited from some further complexity?

Certainly not. To me it seems that what you're talking about is complication, not complexity. Complication in a game is not something to be desired.

Onijin
11-27-2007, 12:04 PM
I'm going to have to voice my opinion on this one and just agree with the OP. A lot of views of "negativity" are on the forums more to just warn people interested in the game that it lacks something such that that are noted of the critisism before they buy it.
Some people are more easily fueled by emotions than others and thus drives them to be angry at a post or become very defensive about their posts. But i can see that this thread contains a lot of well put discussions rather than mindless arguments.

In any reguards, my opinion will have to be that the game is fun. Great ideas wonderful graphics, sounds, environment. I still feel that, even though there are such great aspects of the game, my experience with the game tells me that some gamers (those that want another experience out of their game) should be warned. I think most of us can respect that people will still want a game for it's beauty and uniqueness. Others want it for the full package and those are the people the "negative" posts are trying to warn.

We feel that the game is faulted in ways. Those who choose to read it, hopefully will get a sense of where we are coming from and then can decide for themselves if they agree or not. Faults like frame rates and screen tearing are esp important for me while easily dismissed by others, BUT i'm sure we can all agree that it's THERE.
Other faults are the repetativeness along with the predictability of the missions. Again, some people find that the other aspects of the game makes up for this. Story? Free running? Sadistic assassinations of beggers and drunks? W/e it is, my opinion is different and warns readers of these faults. Whether it is important or not, one of the things that matters is that someone noticed it and thus pressent as a fault.

On a possitive note, the game does have many redeaming features, like graphics, sound and a decent story. Great, easy to use control utility helps the game feel fun and less frustrating. The game does provide numerous objectives (whether this is fun or not can be debated, but reguardless of that, the game does contain these objectives). There's a life to the NPCs which is very unique and only found in a handful of games, except that AC does this better in ways. Could it be better? Sure, but as of right now it serves it's purpose in AC.

As a whole this game has it's ups and downs. Personally, i find that the game could have been more polished. Certain people enjoy the game for different aspects and i enjoy the game (depending on the game) for my own reasons. Here i "EXPECTED" a sense of realism from AC and unfortunately the game falls short. Thus it wasn't as fun as it could have been. Few key things would have to be AI intelegence and predictability. Two things that remove from the realism aspect. Of course readers will agree here or not, but it's a very valid complaint either way to warn others or hopefully somehow gets read by the company so they can improve on future products (giving us a sense that although this game isn't perfect, that it could be closer next time).

Steef7
11-27-2007, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by MasterNeilson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
What games have you been playing recently that makes Assassin's Creed seem so fantastic?

I honestly cant see it. I'm an avid gamer that appreciates good solid challenging gaming but this just doesn't make the cut. It's fun, but it's by no means the fantastic title some people are making it out to be, or had the potential to become.... Don't you feel slightly irritated that it's not what it could have been?

It's rare that you see an original enough idea in games and to see such a fantastic preface for a game squandered, but UBISOFT Montreal of all places, just aggrivates me

I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much....

It's quite funny when you think about it!

why does it really matter to you.

if you dont like it simply dont post on here telling others that you dont like it and that they should all hate it and just leave.

trade it in get another game

--

its as simple as that, i never get why people cant go, oh this game isnt for me i'l sell it get a different one. why people taht do like it going on the official forums to suggest improvements tips help and advice have to suffer repete posts of how the game is awful i dont know </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mini, he said "I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much"

He did'nt say anything about people should hate it and leave, he did'nt say he did'nt like it, and he said he'd like a REAL answer, instead of idiotic ones like yours. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i can understand if you dont like the game, but why do people that dont like/hate it keep posting, every game is hyped it called marketing, i like it, but to say how is too long, in short from now on i will feel cheated if i can clamber up every building in a game, why ? because assassin creed made it so easy and fun

SplinterCell_37
11-28-2007, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
It seems to me that if you like it there's not much point in complaining about it.

Improvement. It's great, but it can be better. To me it feels like the framework around which a beautiful mansion is built, but it's not quite a mansion yet. Just like almost every other game series starts. The foundation for a brilliant series.


Anyway, before this is even debatable we'd need to see the evidence that these aspects of the game were originally more complex. No evidence has been shown that this was even the case, so it seems to me that you're basing your criticism on pure conjecture.

I did state, yes, that I was presuming the design was originally stronger. Several times if I recall correctly, because I wanted to emphasize it was my conjecture - evidently I did not emphasize strongly enough.
The "evidence" I have to supply is that the first few trailers showed the crowd so that it was difficult to see where he was (disappeared into the crowd), the E3 trailer and game intro demonstrates him scholar blending in a way that makes it look like this is the main feature of the stealth...not losing LOS and diving into a pile of hay (which I still assert the hay is a GOOD CHOICE but should be a BACKUP measure, not the main form).
Also, original gameplay footage showed him trying to escape the city, not lose LOS, "blend", and go to the Bureau. It IS conjecture, but I doubt Ubisoft, creators of Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia, originally thought "Let's make a game where you play as an assassin, escape, then disappear from detection by diving into hay or a roof garden!" If they truly, honestly did that, my point is invalid. But neither of us have proof, unless you've been keeping an ace up your sleeve.


No design is ever as strong as possible. The developers took four years to make this game. At a certain point they have to publish or the new technology is no longer new. If they had ten years to develop the game your point might have more validity, but they only had a limited time so your point is essentially meaningless.

In my views, the game design we see now is a shadow of its original intention. It appears to me that it was an ambitious design that Ubisoft didn't have time to pull off in its entirety, and settled for what they have now. I simply desire to see a more fleshed out, sophisticated stealth design.
Following this back to where the debate started, my original point to ShadowFox was that the game's design couldn't be as fleshed out as possible because it was a larger scale than Splinter Cell, the game we were comparing it with.
My other point was that the game's potential was not lost, it just wasn't completely used the first time round.
Is that meaningless?


I just don't buy that. As the accuser you bear the burden of proof. So prove it.

Must this become aggressive? We are debating a point. I'm stating an opinion. Did I not say as much? Besides, we were DISCUSSING that which we consider flaws in the design. I closed it up by saying these possible issues, which many reviewers noted as issues, will be addressed for the next title.


Having the ability to lose LOS and then just merge with the crowd would make the stealth aspects far less challenging, and this game is already being criticised for being too easy. In my opinion the hay, the citizen's help, the merging with scholars and the ability to merge (the praying thing) to prevent being found are far better solutions because they present the player far more challenge and far more options.

Having to merge with the crowd provides the active option of being spotted, making it harder. Why can't you blend in by acting like the crowd (this will introduce further game mechanics), instead of just reaching a preset hide spot and waiting ten seconds? The stealth is one of the very reasons it's criticised for being too easy.


My point is that the game's first job is to be playable and realism comes second: the game's mechanics work great as a game and no one ever intended it to be an Hashshashin simulator.

Blending with the crowd IS playable, the game mechanics can still work great, and there's a difference between a simulator and a game that doesn't force you to use a preset hide spot to lose detection.
I don't think you're reading my posts properly.


A trailer is pure hype. Anyone who judges a game by what its trailer suggests is flirting with disappointment.

So I was wrong in presuming that you can climb on buildings, counterattack, assassinate and walk through crowds because that was what the trailer suggested? (By the way, very nice wording.)


This post is all about my conclusions as they pertain to this game.

So you don't have any conclusions re programming, like you originally said?


In short, programming is not as simple as you seem to think it is...

...I've programmed before. What made you think I thought it was simple? Where in my post do I say programming is simple? I said it helps understand why they make a lot of technical sacrifices. I never said it was simple.
You act as if I'm being presumptuous.


...and four years is nowhere near enough time to produce the miracle of gaming design that you seem to have expected.

Okay, have you even read the first few pages of this thread? I was one of the people who said gamers shouldn't have expected a miracle. My main point was that the game is great, and its flaws in the eyes of many gamers will most likely be addressed in the sequel. I didn't expect a miracle in game design, I simply highlighted where I thought they made sacrifices because of a time limit.


Certainly not. To me it seems that what you're talking about is complication, not complexity. Complication in a game is not something to be desired.

Then we differ in opinion.

SplinterCell_37
11-28-2007, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
If you think that, you need to check out my Amazon.com review (http://www.amazon.com/review/RH6KYIXAUEM08/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

Enough said.


Upon reading your review in depth (I previously only gave it a cursory glance), I'd like to make a few points:

-First of all, that was a very well written and reasoned review, I commend your neutrality.

-Second of all, you mention that you do not like stealth...and there exactly is why our opinions on the game differ so much.
The stealth design as it is would appeal almost perfectly fine to someone who is not at home with stealth, but for someone like me who owns the first three Splinter Cells (excluding Double Agent), I was hoping for more.

There is one last point I would like to mention, and that is that Ubisoft can appeal to both audiences by using the exact same hide mechanics (press A, dive into haystack, etc), except with the crowd. You should be able to press a button to adopt their behaviour and then navigate within the crowd to always try and put people between you and the guards. (Perhaps like a group of scholars, only much larger?) This would add an entire extra dimension to the difficulty and it could become an objective for players to try and pull off a flawless assassination by killing, running, blending and completely disappearing without having to kill a single guard.

Again, these are not necessarily criticisms of Assassin's Creed, but instead suggestions and discussions for improvement in the next game. (If you think I do not like the game and only desire improvement, check page 2.)

rogue_tom
11-28-2007, 08:17 AM
If think the assassination should have been more indepth with more options. They should ahve used the whole city, for the main targets to walk around, to give more replayability.

They should have also had more kinds of stealth. light / dark, more sneaking. The social stealth is to easy and too much of a gimmick. It wasn't involved enough.

The game was good but it would have been nice if they efficently used the cities for gameplay.

Stillzero
11-28-2007, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by BTOG46:
I just wish more posts on this thread were as articulate and reasoned, this kind of debate is the kind the forum needs, and not the purely biased and deliberate flame trap/angry response kind of posts that the majority on the forums eventually degenerate to.
If someone makes a valid but perhaps debatable suggestion, it should not be a reason for flaming or name calling, it should be accepted as a valid point of view, even if it happens to be different from one's own.

To be honest it's his own fault by adressing people by "fanboys" and actually adressing that particulair group.
You can't reason with "fanboys" and you can't change their opinion about a game, they love it inquestionabelly and without a doubt.
That's why they're called "fanboys".
All he's doing is trying to put out a fire with oil. No matter how much you throw at the fire, it'll only get bigger on you.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by rogue_tom:
They should have also had more kinds of stealth. light / dark, more sneaking. The social stealth is to easy and too much of a gimmick. It wasn't involved enough.

I find the social stealth very effective, more realistic than in other games and not gimmicky at all. When I jump on buildings I like the fact that citizens and soldiers react to that. If social stealth wasn't a feature of the game we wouldn't have any of that.


The game was good but it would have been nice if they efficently used the cities for gameplay.

In what specific ways?

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
My point was that the game would have had a more complex design to its stealth, but most of these original ideas had to be cut.


Originally posted by Beeryus:
I just don't buy that. As the accuser you bear the burden of proof. So prove it.


Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
Must this become aggressive?

Since when is demanding proof 'aggressive'? Your reaction is certainly defensive. I notice you avoided the question entirely. Saying that it's conjecture doesn't absolve you from the burden of proof. If you can't prove it then you must concede that your assertion is entirely fabricated. You keep making this assertion yet as far as we can see it bears no relation to what any developer has said.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-28-2007, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Stillzero:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BTOG46:
I just wish more posts on this thread were as articulate and reasoned, this kind of debate is the kind the forum needs, and not the purely biased and deliberate flame trap/angry response kind of posts that the majority on the forums eventually degenerate to.
If someone makes a valid but perhaps debatable suggestion, it should not be a reason for flaming or name calling, it should be accepted as a valid point of view, even if it happens to be different from one's own.

To be honest it's his own fault by adressing people by "fanboys" and actually adressing that particulair group.
You can't reason with "fanboys" and you can't change their opinion about a game, they love it inquestionabelly and without a doubt.
That's why they're called "fanboys".
All he's doing is trying to put out a fire with oil. No matter how much you throw at the fire, it'll only get bigger on you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original post was asking what other games "fanboys" had played that made them think that this game was so fantastic. I also stated that I couldn't see why it was so fantastic and was curious as to what they were comparing it. I have never once tried to change anyone's opinion of this game.

If you think that by expressing my honest opinion of the game with a constructed argument that I'm trying to change people's minds then you can. The only truth that you're stating there is that my argument could change someone's mind because some might view it as correct.


Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rogue_tom:
They should have also had more kinds of stealth. light / dark, more sneaking. The social stealth is to easy and too much of a gimmick. It wasn't involved enough.

I find the social stealth very effective, more realistic than in other games and not gimmicky at all. When I jump on buildings I like the fact that citizens and soldiers react to that. If social stealth wasn't a feature of the game we wouldn't have any of that.


The game was good but it would have been nice if they efficently used the cities for gameplay.

In what specific ways? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well for one, as I've stated, there is actually very little to do in the cities apart from the limited amount of pre designated actions. It would be nice to be able to explore the cities in another way apart from running around and free running the whole time. When you've created such diverse and expansive levels it's an absolute shame that they're not employed in an RPG manner.

Now I'm not saying that the game should be an RPG, far from it as it has always been an action game, but variation and depth is the key component that the game is missing. The levels are absolutely huge and when you create such a massive environment it's a shame to be so limited in what you can do. It's like having a massive playground and then only having 10 set of swings and 15 see saws instead of 25 different types of rides!

SplinterCell_37
11-28-2007, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
Since when is demanding proof 'aggressive'? Your reaction is certainly defensive. I notice you avoided the question entirely. Saying that it's conjecture doesn't absolve you from the burden of proof. If you can't prove it then you must concede that your assertion is entirely fabricated. You keep making this assertion yet as far as we can see it bears no relation to what any developer has said.

I avoided the question entirely? Since when is answering it directly avoiding the question entirely?
Come back once you've actually read my entire post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Stillzero
11-28-2007, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stillzero:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BTOG46:
I just wish more posts on this thread were as articulate and reasoned, this kind of debate is the kind the forum needs, and not the purely biased and deliberate flame trap/angry response kind of posts that the majority on the forums eventually degenerate to.
If someone makes a valid but perhaps debatable suggestion, it should not be a reason for flaming or name calling, it should be accepted as a valid point of view, even if it happens to be different from one's own.

To be honest it's his own fault by adressing people by "fanboys" and actually adressing that particulair group.
You can't reason with "fanboys" and you can't change their opinion about a game, they love it inquestionabelly and without a doubt.
That's why they're called "fanboys".
All he's doing is trying to put out a fire with oil. No matter how much you throw at the fire, it'll only get bigger on you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original post was asking what other games "fanboys" had played that made them think that this game was so fantastic. I also stated that I couldn't see why it was so fantastic and was curious as to what they were comparing it. I have never once tried to change anyone's opinion of this game.

If you think that by expressing my honest opinion of the game with a constructed argument that I'm trying to change people's minds then you can. The only truth that you're stating there is that my argument could change someone's mind because some might view it as correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all let's not forget that what you're "stating" has been over stated a dozen times already.
And the fact that you asked the question that you asked was merely to mask the fact that you could whine about the community and the game, and don't say that isn't true because it is.
You knew you would draw out a discussion like this and if you didn't realise that then you must be stupid.
Other then that you are doing this to see how people would react, even a 4 year old brat with a banana peeled in his nose would understand that stating your opinion with facts and arguments like you did towards the "fanboy" community wouldn't do anything except lure out a discussion of either how much you are wrong or how much you suck.

Don't get me wrong here, i don't want to stop you from moaning about the game, in my opinion your free to complain whatever you want.
You seem to have valid points instead of most of the brainless monkeys that spew their idiocity out on their forums telling us how much Assassins creed sucks or dissapoints.

But don't tell me that you simply wanted to just ask a question like that, especially a dumb one like "i wonder what you fanboys play to compare this game to" wich basically translates to "You're a bloody fool to praise and love this game like you do and here's why."

No my friend you intentionally lured out "fanboys" or other people to start this discussion and don't deny that.
Why do i say that you try to change people's minds ?

Why else would you waiste your time posting everything that you did, because otherwise you should know it's useless trying to argue with the same group of people you tryed to adress.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2007, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
I avoided the question entirely? Since when is answering it directly avoiding the question entirely?
Come back once you've actually read my entire post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I did read the entire post. You avoided the question and you're still avoiding it. Answer it and we can talk.

Oh forget it. Clearly you have no interest in pursuing debate when you twice refuse to answer a simple question. I honestly don't know why I bother with some folks. Tell you what, I'll ignore you and you can do the same to me if you want. That way neither of us has to go through this ridiculous song and dance again.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-28-2007, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Stillzero:
First of all let's not forget that what you're "stating" has been over stated a dozen times already.
And the fact that you asked the question that you asked was merely to mask the fact that you could whine about the community and the game, and don't say that isn't true because it is.
You knew you would draw out a discussion like this and if you didn't realise that then you must be stupid.
Other then that you are doing this to see how people would react, even a 4 year old brat with a banana peeled in his nose would understand that stating your opinion with facts and arguments like you did towards the "fanboy" community wouldn't do anything except lure out a discussion of either how much you are wrong or how much you suck.

Don't get me wrong here, i don't want to stop you from moaning about the game, in my opinion your free to complain whatever you want.
You seem to have valid points instead of most of the brainless monkeys that spew their idiocity out on their forums telling us how much Assassins creed sucks or dissapoints.

But don't tell me that you simply wanted to just ask a question like that, especially a dumb one like "i wonder what you fanboys play to compare this game to" wich basically translates to "You're a bloody fool to praise and love this game like you do and here's why."

No my friend you intentionally lured out "fanboys" or other people to start this discussion and don't deny that.
Why do i say that you try to change people's minds ?

Why else would you waiste your time posting everything that you did, because otherwise you should know it's useless trying to argue with the same group of people you tryed to adress.

First off you're assuming that I use the term "fanboy" as a deregatory term. I used it the context of those that like this game no matter what. I was curious as to what games they played because I was wondering if all of their love for this game game from PoP roots or was it from other similar action installments.

Secondly, s the point of a thread not to start a discussion? I stated that there was a whole lot of STFU n00b attitude hoping that someone, preferably a die hard fanboy, would actually answer my question with some proper answers, which I might add, I got. The first page of the this thread is probably some of the most reasoned answering I've seen as to why people enjoy this game in the face of adversary to it's obvious (to me) faults.

And this thread has seen some very valid points raised for both sides of the argument with spotted moments of fanboys with attitude coming in to tell me to STFU, which I tried to dispel.

If I wanted to provoke some flames there are much easier ways to do it, none of which are beneficial to this forum. Say what you will but if you re read my OP without preconcieving that I'm trying to ***** and moan (which I'm not, because there's no point the game has been released) you'll see that I was trying to raise points that I felt needed raising about the game so that others could see that even some "fanboys" do actually admit the game isn't as fantastic as some make it out to be.

Some people obviously love it, and that's fully understandable. There are several features of the game which are outstanding, but none of which, in my opinion, are enough to hang a game on. Which returns me to the point of my original post, what games to the "fanboys" enjoy so I could make an honest assessment of what qualities people were really looking for in this game.

Much like the Graphical Creed thread, but without stating that graphics was the only thing that mattered.

But it's nice to see after 4-5 pages of discussion that there actually IS a proper discussion in place, which I'll admit has valid points for both sides.

But I will honestly say that I'm inclined to agree with SplinterCell_37 that the there alot of aspects of the game that do hint at being finalised before they were finished.

Of course there is no hard evidence but I don't personally believe that the Ubi Montreal team with their reputation would have intially comprised the stealth system without the presence of time restraints.

SplinterCell_37
11-28-2007, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
I did read the entire post. You avoided the question and you're still avoiding it. Answer it and we can talk.

Oh forget it. Clearly you have no interest in pursuing debate when you twice refuse to answer a simple question. I honestly don't know why I bother with some folks. Tell you what, I'll ignore you and you can do the same to me if you want. That way neither of us has to go through this ridiculous song and dance again.

Very well, I'll quote it here if you honestly did not see it.


I did state, yes, that I was presuming the design was originally stronger. Several times if I recall correctly, because I wanted to emphasize it was my conjecture - evidently I did not emphasize strongly enough.
The "evidence" I have to supply is that the first few trailers showed the crowd so that it was difficult to see where he was (disappeared into the crowd), the E3 trailer and game intro demonstrates him scholar blending in a way that makes it look like this is the main feature of the stealth...not losing LOS and diving into a pile of hay (which I still assert the hay is a GOOD CHOICE but should be a BACKUP measure, not the main form).
Also, original gameplay footage showed him trying to escape the city, not lose LOS, "blend", and go to the Bureau. It IS conjecture, but I doubt Ubisoft, creators of Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia, originally thought "Let's make a game where you play as an assassin, escape, then disappear from detection by diving into hay or a roof garden!" If they truly, honestly did that, my point is invalid. But neither of us have proof, unless you've been keeping an ace up your sleeve.

That is my answer. It was the third last post on the fourth page. I'm honestly surprised you did not see it, or otherwise did not identify it as my answer when I was clearly addressing your question.

EDIT: ShadowFox sums up my point with this eloquently put statement:


Of course there is no hard evidence but I don't personally believe that the Ubi Montreal team with their reputation would have intially comprised the stealth system without the presence of time restraints.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2007, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
Of course there is no hard evidence but I don't personally believe that the Ubi Montreal team with their reputation would have intially comprised the stealth system without the presence of time restraints.

If you admit there's no evidence that the stealth system was compromised, then how can you suggest, in the very same sentence, that it was? That's taking circular logic to a whole new level - it's kinda like saying "It must be so because it isn't". It suggests that you believe that an argument can be based on the complete nullification of the argument. A very interesting new take on argument - it's a Dadaist or surrealist form of debate that throws out all the rules of argument and replaces them with extreme illogic.

As a Punk I like the idea of making the art of argument into an exercise in surrealism - it's VERY cool and groundbreaking in a way. But I don't find it convincing or meaningful in terms of this discussion.

This whole argument hinges on a supposed 'fact' that exists only in the minds of you and SplinterCell_37. I mean the notion that the stealth system is unfinished is based on pure speculation and no evidence whatsoever. In short it's pure fantasy.

The stealth system, as a game mechanic, works perfectly well. You guys would prefer it to work differently but that doesn't mean the system is unfinished or flawed. It just means that you would prefer it to work differently. That is not evidence that the mechanic is flawed - it's evidence that you guys can't adapt to unfamiliar systems.

SplinterCell_37
11-28-2007, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
If you admit there's no evidence that the stealth system was compromised, then how can you suggest, in the very same sentence, that it was?

He suggested, not claimed.


Originally posted by ShadowFox:
I don't personally believe that the Ubi Montreal team with their reputation would have intially comprised the stealth system without the presence of time restraints.

See? A personal belief. An opinion. Opinions, upon which, this entire thread is based. It is opinions that started this thread and opinions on which it has continued. Are you not yourself stating an opinion that the use of hay was planned from the start? Now really, can you show us any evidence? Do you honestly know for a fact what was originally planned? Then why contradict my opinion with such aggression?


Originally posted by Beeryus:
This whole argument hinges on a supposed 'fact' that exists only in the minds of you and SplinterCell_37.

It is not a supposed fact, it is a conjecture.
Are you still not reading my posts? I stated that in so many words.


Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
I did state, yes, that I was presuming the design was originally stronger. Several times if I recall correctly, because I wanted to emphasize it was my conjecture - evidently I did not emphasize strongly enough.

Behold. No supposed fact, but an opinion. If I stated it as a fact later on in the post, it is because I had already established that it was my opinion, and did not expect my recurrence of the theme to be taken as opposite to my originally stated intention. If you read my post from half way through like you seem to have read this thread, then you are bound to not understand what I am saying.


Originally posted by Beeryus:
I mean the notion that the stealth system is unfinished is based on pure speculation and no evidence whatsoever. In short it's pure fantasy.

Correction: In short, it's an opinion. And your notion that the stealth system is perfect, or close enough to not matter, is your opinion.


Originally posted by Beeryus:
The stealth system, as a game mechanic, works perfectly well. You guys would prefer it to work differently but that doesn't mean the system is unfinished or flawed.

Of course it works perfectly well, but it feels like the framework around which a mansion has not yet been built. As I have stated, it feels like a simplified version of the original design, and we'd like to see similar stealth mechanics that incorporate the crowd. We desire - not demand - further sophistication to the stealth, a sophistication that SEEMED to be there originally.


It just means that you would prefer it to work differently.

And you prefer it the way it is. Cannot we just accept that our opinions differ, like every living human on earth? ShadowFox and I are not enforcing our opinion, we are stating it. To reiterate, our opinion is that the stealth could be better but wasn't for a reason that is entirely not Ubisoft's fault, and that reason is time.


Originally posted by Beeryus:
That is not evidence that the mechanic is flawed - it's evidence that you guys can't adapt to unfamiliar systems.

First of all, that was a personal attack, and I find it discouraging that you would even resort to such.
Second, We never claimed evidence, we claimed opinion. And our opinion was as Splinter Cell lovers, and I have already mentioned that being a fan of such could be clouding my judgement. I shall quote it for you.


Originally posted by SplinterCell_37:
About "design error", I apologise, that is a phrase I'm in the bad habit of saying. You're right in saying it's a matter of taste, but you said that it's a 'feature I don't particularly like' - I love every aspect of Assassin's Creed. The only thing that hampers its perfection in my eyes is lack of complexity in its stealth design, and lack of complexity in the investigations.
Then again, I am a rabid fan of Splinter Cell, so that may be clouding my judgement.

See? It hampers its perfection in my eyes. And our discussion was one of what could or should have been done differently.

This entire thread is based on opinion. If ever I have stated something as fact or without rectification of my claim, it is simply a typographical error.

After some further time playing the game with your opinion in my head, I've come to realise that the stealth, as it is, would be perfectly designed for someone unfamiliar or uncomfortable with stealth, as you stated in your Amazon review. Nevertheless for those of us who desire complication in stealth, would it not be better replay value to have the option to use sophisticated stealth techniques?
That way Ubisoft's design can appeal to everyone, casual players and avid stealth fans alike.
(Behold! A suggestion for improvement. Not a statement of fact nor criticism.)

midna1
11-30-2007, 06:03 AM
Ubi's mandate was to redefine action gaming. So AC isn't stealth orientated. The idea is to attack in broad daylight with bad-boy skills for the takedown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif. Then you run off. Splinter cell has too much sneaky-sneaky. Just attack already. Then shoot your way out. Like Sam Fisher is too fat to do free-running...for shame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif.

Ubi would have needed a lot more time to include sophisticated stealth stuff ie day/night cycle. You cant have it all at the moment.

chickmgnt222
11-30-2007, 07:33 AM
I was going to get into this thread and then realized I didn't even have to because of SplinterCell's posts. Mmm.

Dvlos56
11-30-2007, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by midna1:
Splinter cell has too much sneaky-sneaky. Just attack already.

Right.. Splinter Cell requires more planning and strategy.

Assassin's Creed is for those with ADD, action junkies who can only press 1-2 buttons at once.. tops. It's easy and built so you can't lose with minimal thought.

Like watching a hamster run in its hamster wheel, and then telling yourself you're making him run.

That's pretty much why I'm so disappointed with AC, had I known it was a Hamster Wheel simulator I wouldn't have kept an eye out for this game and followed newly released details and info, I don't follow Cabela's Big Hunter games either. However they went out of their way saying that this is an "assassin" game (even if it is out in the open, they said you would use social stealth.. for well stealth).. with advanced AI and a "living city" where as Desilet's said "You play Altair anyway YOU want to!" and as it turns out it's very, very watered down and trimmed for the casual gamer.

Stillzero
11-30-2007, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Dvlos56:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by midna1:
Splinter cell has too much sneaky-sneaky. Just attack already.

Right.. Splinter Cell requires more planning and strategy.

Assassin's Creed is for those with ADD, action junkies who can only press 1-2 buttons at once.. tops. It's easy and built so you can't lose with minimal thought.

Like watching a hamster run in its hamster wheel, and then telling yourself you're making him run.

That's pretty much why I'm so disappointed with AC, had I known it was a Hamster Wheel simulator I wouldn't have kept an eye out for this game and followed newly released details and info, I don't follow Cabela's Big Hunter games either. However they went out of their way saying that this is an "assassin" game (even if it is out in the open, they said you would use social stealth.. for well stealth).. with advanced AI and a "living city" where as Desilet's said "You play Altair anyway YOU want to!" and as it turns out it's very, very watered down and trimmed for the casual gamer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off all let me just say that you suck at metafors, i'm sorry mate, but you do. You really do.

Second off all, every "next-gen" game has been watered down for casual gamers, you said somewhere that you where enjoying Mass Effect, well that wasn't as hardcore as Bioware promised me it would be.
And don't say that it is because it shows everywhere on Mass Effect, but does that make the game any worse off ? No, not in my opinion and in my honest opinion people that bestow the title of "Hard core gamer" on themselfs need to pull the 20inch long ***** out of their *** and need to realise that it's not profitable to make a "hard-core" game anymore.

Every game from now on will be more accesible for casual gamers.
Don't be surprised when your mother will be playing Solid Snake's new adventure. (i'll ignore the urge to make a very obvious yet lame porno comment here)

And fact is hard core gamers have been realising this aswell and that's why you see so many people whining about games like this more and more often because they can't handle it.

You say you where dissapointed in Assassins Creed because it was trimmed down for Casual Gamers ?
That's not a solid point anymore, it used to be a few years ago, but now you need to come down your mighty throne and get rid of the idea of a "hard-core/casual gamer" community, because we're all "casual gamers" these days.

Dvlos56
11-30-2007, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Stillzero:
First off all let me just say that you suck at metafors, i'm sorry mate, but you do. You really do.

How so? The hamster wheel metaphor applies IMO since all you do half the time is hold 1 button and direction, and then just watch as Altair does everything on his own.


Second off all, every "next-gen" game has been watered down for casual gamers, you said somewhere that you where enjoying Mass Effect, well that wasn't as hardcore as Bioware promised me it would be.

Be careful with absolutes here.. even Mass Effect's "normal" difficulty has casual players posting that it is too hard. But if Normal is too hard, there is Veteran. And if you beat Veteran and you want to play again with more challenge there is 'hardcore' difficulty, and finally 'Insane' where every enemy is 3-6 levels higher than you are and uses their skills/powers more.

Oops arguement shot down in the mouth. Also Bioware never promised that Mass Effect was going to be "the most hard core game ever". I think their pitch was something like "We are striving to deliver a truly cinematic experience" and "making decisions that effect the world you are in" as well as "real-time tactical combat" ala Rainbow Six and GRAW.

What did Mass Effect bring?

- Cinematic conversations and cutscenes.
- Multiple answers for each problem including extra answers if you have Charm/Intimidate high enough that reveal different scenario resolutions. Your decisions are sometimes talked about later on by crew members and other NPC characters.
- Third Person shooter combat that is in fact real time.

Mass Effect has flaws, but they sure hit what they said they would. To compare what you are saying Mass Effect would have to have been sold by Bioware as:

- "Better than or equal to a Hollywood movie in terms of cinematic quality and presentation!"
- Advanced tactical combat like you have never seen before in any game, hide behind anything, manipulate everything in your environment: rocks, dirt, beams, crates, people.. EVERYTHING!! Strategy so deep it will take weeks to master.
- Multiple decisions you can take, 100 different endings, if you don't see a decision up on the dialog wheel speak into your mic it will happen!

[qoute]"Hard core gamer" on themselfs need to pull the 20inch long ***** out of their *** and need to realise that it's not profitable to make a "hard-core" game anymore.[/quote]

Veteran gamer.. as in someone who plays games often or has plenty of experience with gamers. I never ran around calling myself Hardcore, although you seem to love that word.

Also you have really gross playing habits.


Every game from now on will be more accesible for casual gamers.

That's fine... but it's the long time gamers that usually sustain a game's popularity longer than a casual gamer. I would even say that there are many instances veteran players keep bringing more players to a game thanks to word of mouth.

Keep a mode for "casual" players and then make options for veteran players to either get more out of the game, or can play the game harder.


Don't be surprised when your mother will be playing Solid Snake's new adventure. (i'll ignore the urge to make a very obvious yet lame porno comment here)

If my mother can play MGS, and everyone has to play on that skill level, MGS franchise is going to go bust.


And fact is hard core gamers have been realising this aswell and that's why you see so many people whining about games like this more and more often because they can't handle it.

So like a true sheep, you're saying you've cower over your phallic collection, cackle with glee, and just blindly accept it? "Oh well, they want to appease the casual gamer, guess I have to dumb myself down too!" Well you do it, I won't, please be sure to sterilize all your plastics before you have your hard core friends come over to play games with you ok?


You say you where dissapointed in Assassins Creed because it was trimmed down for Casual Gamers ?

That's not a solid point anymore

I still feel that way.. seems like a solid point to me. Unless you can prove the game has higher challenges, you can't? Good night.


it used to be a few years ago, but now you need to come down your mighty throne and get rid of the idea of a "hard-core/casual gamer" community, because we're all "casual gamers" these days.

Casual - Plays games once in a while, limited exposure to a variety of genre's and game styles.

Veteran - Has played many games, is playing many games actively, plays or has been exposed to a wide variety of games.

We're not all casual gamers. Sure games want to APPEAL to casual gamers, but if you succeed in hooking a gamer, and he plays your game extensively there's a risk he becomes a 'veteran gamer' or on a smaller scale, a veteran with just that game. Then what?

I think the control scheme is simple enough to attract casual gamers, and even the gameplay is initially simple enough.. then what? where do you go from there? Apparently to EB to trade your game in.. mate.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-30-2007, 10:26 AM
In response to Stillzero's post I have to say I absolutely agree that the gaming industry has gone over the top in terms of games that are built for the hardcore gamer. Some recent titles are casual-player-UNfriendly even on their easiest settings! I also agree that the casual player should be the market that game developers target as job #1. BUT the answer is not to swing back and forth between hardcore and casual depending on the mood of the times. The one thing that computers should be able to offer is options. There's no reason whatsoever why games like AC shouldn't appeal to both casual gamers, hardcore gamers, everything inbetween and everything on each extreme. Sure, program the game primarily for the casual player, but for goodness sake can't hardcore gamers and softcore gamers have optional difficulty settings?

I am a casual gamer myself, and I love AC - it's just right for my abilities and playstyle. But I would never try to impose my playstyle or my level of play on anyone else. There is no reason why every gamer's abilities shouldn't be catered for in every game. The lack of difficulty options in AC is an outright disgrace. I mean difficulty options are what make games playable by all, and in my opinion three levels isn't enough. No options at all is just shoddy design. Games should have levels of difficulty customizable for every aspect of the game.

I'm a flight sim fan and I've seen games with literally hundreds of difficulty options that cater to all aspects of a simulation. Why can't that same level of customization be brought into arcade style games? Limiting players to one overall difficulty level is inherently exclusive and one thing a game can't afford to be is exclusive. Heck, EVERYONE should be able to play Assassin's Creed and EVERYONE should feel challenged by it. The fact that that is not the case should be an embarrassment to Ubisoft.

On the other hand, hardcore gamers bear a portion of the blame for the attitude that leads to difficulty levels not being included in games. I mean every time anyone mentions the need for difficulty levels in a hardcore game they are shouted down and called wussies (or worse) by people who can't see that some players don't want to pwn the game on its highest difficulty level. When that attitude is prevalent it's no wonder that after over 35 years of console gaming, developers STILL don't seem to be able to see why difficulty levels are key.

Dvlos56
11-30-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
When that attitude is prevalent it's no wonder that after over 35 years of console gaming, developers STILL don't seem to be able to see why difficulty levels are key.

I'm not sure if there is any "hard core" gamer that cares if they make a really easy mode. Well let me rephrase that I don't know anyone this much of a jerk. I think a master gamemaker makes a difficulty level everyone feels comfortable with or a scaling AI like FarCry (although that's not that perfect either). I think it's more the case that devs are lazy/time constrained/not budgeted to carefully construct their game to tailor to each difficulty.

So often you get a game thats catered to casual players, then the game makes enemies "super human" or do tremendous damage instead of enhancing the game mechanics a little and making enemies smarter than when they're on "normal".

Stillzero
11-30-2007, 11:29 AM
So judging from all of this i can conclude that Hard Core gaming is determined by difficulty settings ?

If that's the case then there's millions and millions of potential "hard core titles" out there.

And if a hard core gamer is somebody who plays alot of games from a long time then these days half the world is a hard core gamer seeing as there's alot of people "gaming" these days.

I always thought that hard core gamers where those people who picked up very complex games with very un-userfriendly gameplay.
The last hard core game i saw was Final Fantasy 12 and everything released after that was so accesible that my cat was playing Nintendogs on my girlfriends DS meanwhile a monkey i fed LSD figured a way to finish Oblivion.

But accepting that all games are being "Casualized" (did i just come up with a new word ? If so i'm so calling patent on it)isn't dumming yourself down and it isn't lowering your standards, the same games are being released with a higher acesibility but beneath is shallow layer is an deep lingering gameplay that's just screaming to be played with.
Mass Effect has something simulair, the action and dialogue are all designed in a way that casual gamers can pick it up and have their way with it, but things like the Codex and the diversity in upgradeble/changeble weapons is something for the more hard core gamer, it isn't much but it's there.
Other then that even Mass Effect, like so many games these days, got overhyped and it doesn't totally deliver what has been promised.
It certainly isn't as long as anticipated, the main story of KoToR 1/2 took longer then the one in Mass Effect and the side quests get repetitive and the same goes for exploring planets.

Overhyping is the trend nowadays, Games are being and will be casualized and it isn't always for the worst.
Difficulty settings are importand and should by anytime be in a game in my opinion but they don't determine wether you're a hard-core or casual gamer.

Even my ******ed brother stuffed with dopamine could finish a game on a easy setting and work it's way up untill he eventually reaches the hard core difficulty setting.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-30-2007, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Dvlos56:
I'm not sure if there is any "hard core" gamer that cares if they make a really easy mode.

Exactly my point when I say that hardcore gamers are part of the problem. They don't seem to understand that there is a vast pool of potential players who won't play because even on the easiest settings games are too hard for them. The developers, lured by the hardcore gamer's elitist attitude, don't seem to understand either. If hardcore gamers were more supportive of other players these games might have enough monetary support so that they could actually give the hardcore gamer more of what he wants. But so far, self-centredness is king.


So often you get a game thats catered to casual players, then the game makes enemies "super human" or do tremendous damage instead of enhancing the game mechanics a little and making enemies smarter than when they're on "normal".

No game ever made had AI with different difficulty levels for when the player changes difficulty level. AI is incredibly hard to write and it requires an awful lot of testing. All the games I've ever known change the number or speed of enemies or change the effectiveness of weapons in order to make the game more or less difficult. Yes, it would be nice if enemies got smarter as the difficulty level gets higher, but I don't see how it's ever going to happen. Anyway, hardcore gamers are a minority. So since it seems that developers are finally realizing that they're losing money by catering to the hardcore player, hardcore players are just going to have to whine about what they see as falling standards. Meanwhile, the majority of gamers are finally getting games that appeal to them.

I'm all for every gamer getting options, but I don't think it's smart for developers to cater to a minority as job #1 when it means that the casual gamer who's in the majority has to accept the leftovers.

Thankfully the market will decide this issue and the hardcore folks will have to accept that they are a niche group.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-30-2007, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Stillzero:
Even my ******ed brother stuffed with dopamine could finish a game on a easy setting and work it's way up untill he eventually reaches the hard core difficulty setting.

I'm not sure what the point of your last post is or who it's directed at, so maybe I'm missing your point, but in the real world, people don't finish games they find frustrating. There's a point at which the level of frustration overcomes the desire to see what the game has to offer. This is not the fault of the player - it's the fault of a game that fails to give options for every level of game expertise.

midna1
12-01-2007, 10:19 AM
I dont think additional difficulty would bring much to the game. You'd end up with a situation like Halo 3 on legendary. Where you just run through the level to complete it. This is the very definition of 'hamster on the wheel' gaming. And the combat system in AC isnt as deep or precise as say ninja gaidens to allow for extreme difficulty without extreme frustration. AC gives the player the chance to make mistakes; fall off buildings, take a few hits in combat etc, These mistakes are pretty inevitable in the game so punishing the player is pointless. If someone is a genius at the game they can still play through. Only they wont get hit and wont fall off buildings. So well done to them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif.

I think a proper hardcore gamer doesnt care about difficulty. Halo 3 isnt exactly a more rewarding experience on legendary. The hardcore gamer just loves games and plays A LOT more than most. This kind of gamer can appreciate what Ubi was trying to do here. I mean there arnt a lot of games that have free running, daylight assassinations and combat based purely on timing and audio cues.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
12-01-2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dvlos56:
I'm not sure if there is any "hard core" gamer that cares if they make a really easy mode.

Exactly my point when I say that hardcore gamers are part of the problem. They don't seem to understand that there is a vast pool of potential players who won't play because even on the easiest settings games are too hard for them. The developers, lured by the hardcore gamer's elitist attitude, don't seem to understand either. If hardcore gamers were more supportive of other players these games might have enough monetary support so that they could actually give the hardcore gamer more of what he wants. But so far, self-centredness is king.


So often you get a game thats catered to casual players, then the game makes enemies "super human" or do tremendous damage instead of enhancing the game mechanics a little and making enemies smarter than when they're on "normal".

No game ever made had AI with different difficulty levels for when the player changes difficulty level. AI is incredibly hard to write and it requires an awful lot of testing. All the games I've ever known change the number or speed of enemies or change the effectiveness of weapons in order to make the game more or less difficult. Yes, it would be nice if enemies got smarter as the difficulty level gets higher, but I don't see how it's ever going to happen. Anyway, hardcore gamers are a minority. So since it seems that developers are finally realizing that they're losing money by catering to the hardcore player, hardcore players are just going to have to whine about what they see as falling standards. Meanwhile, the majority of gamers are finally getting games that appeal to them.

I'm all for every gamer getting options, but I don't think it's smart for developers to cater to a minority as job #1 when it means that the casual gamer who's in the majority has to accept the leftovers.

Thankfully the market will decide this issue and the hardcore folks will have to accept that they are a niche group. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I can agree with what you're saying about it making more financial sense to allow a game to cater for casual gamers you also forget that it's the hardcore gamers that pushed developers to reach such high standards in the first place.

Just because casual gamers who only purchase the odd game and pick up a controller, maybe once a week, are happy enough that the game wasn't too hard for them, does not mean that it's better for a company to make their games "accessible". Hardcore gamers (or veteran we'll call them, hardcore sounds pretty stupid) will buy games until they die as it's a perfectly acceptable form of entertainmaint for them that they've grown up with. They are the ones that are going to buy installments 2-6 of your game IF you make it worth their while. They're the ones who most likely purchase any merchandise of your game and basically give you their money for however long you decide to keep your franchise around.

The way it looks there are an awful lot of people who would have been hooked on this title, completely, if had been up to veteran gamers standards. But sadly it's not and I know for a FACT that I will be renting Assassin's Creed 2 before any purchase no matter how it looks through it's development.

I purchased Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory and Double Agent, without batting an eyelid, all because the Original Splinter Cell was so good. Granted I was completely disappointed with Double Agent but that's a different story.

And also saying that veteran gamers will just have to get used to the fact that standards are going to be dropping because we are a "niche group" is not exactly the approach complanies should be taking! They're going to lose an awful lot of fans that will continue to purchase their product with no questions asked! And look at the veteran gamers now. They grew up with 2D graphics, imagine the people that are only playing games now will be expecting in years to come.

No, sadly Beeyrus you make a very weak point saying that "hardcore gamers" are a niche group. They may only take up a percentage of the total sales of a game but they are the ones that live and breath a game and will rant and rave and free willingly PROMOTE how good a game is to others so that their friends can enjoy the game as much as they do. Believe me it's that kind of promotion that companies need, Hype is only going to blown away 2 weeks after the game is released.

Coming up to Christmas I'm guessing alot of people are already second guessing this game and have changed their wish list. I know a few of my friends have after playing my copy.

Dunno
12-01-2007, 08:23 PM
[QUOTE]
I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much....


I understand your complaints, however, it is your fault. First off, your grammar in that sentence is terrible. Second, this game has great literary element use. If you were to actually read this forum, you would see that this is a tightly-knit story that requires a lot of thought, and no room for negativity such as that you have displayed here. In my opinion, this game is much better than Halo, or even Bioshock (the storylines of both I found cheesy). The point I make here is that you have failed to realize the detail applied to this game, and judged it entirely on its repetition.Please, read up on this storyline. There are stories behind the beginning, the end, and plenty of stuff you definitely wouldnt catch the first time. There's even a story behind symbolism in the original trailer. Before you critisize a subject, we are simply asking that you know what you are talking about, and both sides to the story. Thanks for posting.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
12-02-2007, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Dunno:
[QUOTE]
I get that there's a whoooole load of "STFU n00b" attitude on here (surprise, surprise) but anytime someone makes an honest complaint about the game they're told that it's THEIR fault for not liking it and no real answers are supplied to why they like it so much....


I understand your complaints, however, it is your fault. First off, your grammar in that sentence is terrible. Second, this game has great literary element use. If you were to actually read this forum, you would see that this is a tightly-knit story that requires a lot of thought, and no room for negativity such as that you have displayed here. In my opinion, this game is much better than Halo, or even Bioshock (the storylines of both I found cheesy). The point I make here is that you have failed to realize the detail applied to this game, and judged it entirely on its repetition.Please, read up on this storyline. There are stories behind the beginning, the end, and plenty of stuff you definitely wouldnt catch the first time. There's even a story behind symbolism in the original trailer. Before you critisize a subject, we are simply asking that you know what you are talking about, and both sides to the story. Thanks for posting.

You seem to think that I have't a clue.

I get the story. I have a fairly decent insight into the history of the Third Crusade from several other sources of interest I have in the subject. I thought the story was decent, but poorly executed. Again though, story is not the primary means of a game. Gameplay is and the gameplay in this title is respectively poor (in my opinion). If I wanted to get into "tightly knitted story" as you called it, I'd read a book, but no, I wanted to play as an Assassin in the Third Crusade and was dissapointed.

And please keep your superior attitude to yourself.

Rufus_Da_Doofus
12-02-2007, 08:26 AM
I agree with both sides here, I agree that there should be a way for people who are looking to enjoy an experience, but not neccessarily be challenged by it, and all fairness to them, I wouldnt own a Wii if I was sometimes in that mood.

But after playing games for 10 years, things that, to others would seem fantastic, become almost run-of-the-mill. I am not saying by any means that AC is a bad game, but it lacks that feeling of having devoted yourself to a game and, after working at it, finnally overcoming it.

In reality, we could not expect Ubi to live up to the Hype that the gaming community crated about it, and we really only have ourselves to blame for that. Nor could we expect the game to be perfect across the board.

Now I realise that AC is the first in a trilogy, but another main thing that makes a good game a great game is an absorbing storyline, which it must be said AC had, or has I should say, even after I have completed it. The end of the game seemed unfinished, i realise that it will lead on to something, but after paying 40 for a game, you cant say that a weekend of gaming makes it value for money.

Also, a fact which defines a great game is the need to replay it. Take Star Wars KOTOR 1, probably the game that took one of the biggest steps ever, whilst really changing very little compared to your normal run of the mill game. However, when I look back and think that the game takes about 20 hours to complete, and if you add on all of the side quests its probably closer to 50 hours, AC fades into insignificance. Then when I think that I played SWKOTOR 1 through about 20 times, that was a GREAT game.

Perhaps the AC trilogy will be a great trilogy, but the game is simply not a great game.

I dont want people to flame me for this, this is just my point of view, and I am not self-centered for being dissapointed with a game, and if you think I am, then sort yourself out.

Belt Up.

BTOG46
12-02-2007, 08:49 AM
Nothing wrong with expressing your point of view mate, it's only a certain small minority that act as though their view is the only right one.
As far as KOTOR is concerned, it used the NWN 1 game engine, I never played KOTOR, but I played NWN 1, along with the expansions and user made ones as well.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-02-2007, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by midna1:
I think a proper hardcore gamer doesnt care about difficulty. Halo 3 isnt exactly a more rewarding experience on legendary. The hardcore gamer just loves games and plays A LOT more than most....

I agree with almost everything you say in this post, but I think there are different types of hardcore gamer. The type you mention is the one who simply plays games a whole lot. I guess I'm that kind of gamer. But there's also the hardcore gamer who needs to be challenged with ever harder difficulty levels until he's finished the game on its hardest difficulty level. I'm not that kind of gamer because for me the story is the most important thing, so I usually play games on their easiest level (unless it's a simulation, when I try to set the game at its most realistic level). I completely agree with you that games like AC can be played by all players because every play-through is going to involve mistakes. But I do think that the second type of hardcore gamer that I mentioned would enjoy added difficulty levels because their playstyle demands almost impossible challenge and that type of gamer appreciates story much less than you or I would.

Rufus_Da_Doofus
12-02-2007, 08:55 AM
Yeah, UMS (User Made Software) Is probably the best in my opinion. Its normally created by people who think the same as you about the game and so have created a modd in order to suit your needs, the internet is a beutiful thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
12-02-2007, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
Although I can agree with what you're saying about it making more financial sense to allow a game to cater for casual gamers you also forget that it's the hardcore gamers that pushed developers to reach such high standards in the first place...

Based on what evidence? I think it depends on what you mean by 'hardcore'. By one definition I'm a hardcore gamer - I buy and play games all the time. But I'm not a hardcore gamer in the sense of needing high difficulty in a game. I don't care about that at all. Players who buy lots of games definitely pushed game development to reach high standards, but they aren't necessarily players who like high levels of difficulty.

As for your assertion that standards are dropping, again, where's your evidence. Lack of a really tough challenge is not evidence of a drop in standards. Ultra-high difficulty came into the game industry because standards of storyline had FALLEN. Adding tough difficulty is a fast, cheap and dirty way of making a mediocre game seem interesting, but the consequence of that is that it runs the risk of alienating folks who prefer low or medium difficulty and a good story, which is a much bigger percentage of the playerbase than the 'veterans' who demand a high level of gameplay challenge. The dropping of super-hard difficulty indicates to me that, far from falling, game standards are rising again and developers are concentrating on the parts of games that interest all niches of the market rather than just 'veteran' gamers, as you call them.

But having said that, I still think that games should have higher difficulty levels for the veterans. I mean why not have difficulty options when their inclusion hurts no one and appeals to a certain percentage of the market? I don't need high difficulty in arcade style games - I never use it, but I recognise that some people need it, and adding high difficulty is a cheap and easy way to keep those challenge-hungry veterans happy - well, as happy as those fanatical, disrespectful (of other playstyles) and sneering folks can get.

This brings up another point - the attitude of these 'veterans' has always been bad. Part of me enjoys the fact that these challenge-hungry folks are getting stiffed by this game. I mean whenever the 'veterans' or 'leets' come into contact with casual gamers I get the impression that they regard them with utter contempt. I think part of the problem is that 'leets' aren't very well liked, either by other gamers or by developers. I mean they just don't do much to project a friendly or inclusive attitude, so it doesn't come as much of a surprise when developers get tired of their whining and basically exclude them from a game.

To be brutally frank, if 'leets' had more respect for other players and for developers, maybe they'd get more attention paid to their needs. Again, the fact that leet needs (high difficulty) and developer needs (the cheapness and ease of including high difficulty) coincided does not mean that the leets are the most important players in the market. In fact they're probably a quite unimportant minority that neither developers or other gamers would miss if they went away.

The thing is, if this game comes to the PC I'm the kind of guy, with a bunch of major mods under my belt for games like Battleground Waterloo, Red Baron 3D, B-17 II: The Mighty Eighth, Silent Hunter III and IV, who can mod the game to add high difficulty, but my experience with the leet attitude is such that I have no desire whatsoever to do anything at all for them. If I feel that way then I'm sure some developers feel that way too. The point is, leets need to understand that they would catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Alienating everyone outside their group isn't helping their cause.

midna1
12-02-2007, 09:35 AM
Its good that developers are thinking more about the whole difficulty, reward, frustration thing. Like I heard in ninja gaiden 2 if Ryu gets his arm chopped off on level 1 ..... then you play the whole game with one arm. And if you fall off a building it breaks Ryu's legs. But he can still crawl. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif And if you die it resets the game data.

Rufus_Da_Doofus
12-02-2007, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
Although I can agree with what you're saying about it making more financial sense to allow a game to cater for casual gamers you also forget that it's the hardcore gamers that pushed developers to reach such high standards in the first place...

Based on what evidence? I think it depends on what you mean by 'hardcore'. By one definition I'm a hardcore gamer - I buy and play games all the time. But I'm not a hardcore gamer in the sense of needing high difficulty in a game. I don't care about that at all. Players who buy lots of games definitely pushed game development to reach high standards, but they aren't necessarily players who like high levels of difficulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what Shadow meant by that is that it is the loyal video game fan base (namely hardcore gamers) who make up the main gaming market. People who will buy games again and again are, by your own definition, hardcore gamers. I believe that shadow was stating that the gaming market is aimed at these people, as they are financially a better market to aim at, as a company does not want to sell just one of its products, it wants to sell as many as possible.

Therefore, people who play games a lot are the people who have, for the most part (at least before the invention of casual consoles), shaped games into what they are today, and so it is hardcore gamers who have helped to create AC, as they are the people who have governed what games are succesful and what games are not. Therefore the financial market is still geared towards the hardcore market (even though consoles like the Wii are beggining to break this trend), and as the two consoles this game is currently out on are what may be called hardcore gaming machines. I believe this is the 'evidence' Shadow has 'based' his prosthesus on.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
12-02-2007, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
Although I can agree with what you're saying about it making more financial sense to allow a game to cater for casual gamers you also forget that it's the hardcore gamers that pushed developers to reach such high standards in the first place...

Based on what evidence? I think it depends on what you mean by 'hardcore'. By one definition I'm a hardcore gamer - I buy and play games all the time. But I'm not a hardcore gamer in the sense of needing high difficulty in a game. I don't care about that at all. Players who buy lots of games definitely pushed game development to reach high standards, but they aren't necessarily players who like high levels of difficulty.

As for your assertion that standards are dropping, again, where's your evidence. Lack of a really tough challenge is not evidence of a drop in standards. Ultra-high difficulty came into the game industry because standards of storyline had FALLEN. Adding tough difficulty is a fast, cheap and dirty way of making a mediocre game seem interesting, but the consequence of that is that it runs the risk of alienating folks who prefer low or medium difficulty and a good story, which is a much bigger percentage of the playerbase than the 'veterans' who demand a high level of gameplay challenge. The dropping of super-hard difficulty indicates to me that, far from falling, game standards are rising again and developers are concentrating on the parts of games that interest all niches of the market rather than just 'veteran' gamers, as you call them.

But having said that, I still think that games should have higher difficulty levels for the veterans. I mean why not have difficulty options when their inclusion hurts no one and appeals to a certain percentage of the market? I don't need high difficulty in arcade style games - I never use it, but I recognise that some people need it, and adding high difficulty is a cheap and easy way to keep those challenge-hungry veterans happy - well, as happy as those fanatical, disrespectful (of other playstyles) and sneering folks can get.

This brings up another point - the attitude of these 'veterans' has always been bad. Part of me enjoys the fact that these challenge-hungry folks are getting stiffed by this game. I mean whenever the 'veterans' or 'leets' come into contact with casual gamers I get the impression that they regard them with utter contempt. I think part of the problem is that 'leets' aren't very well liked, either by other gamers or by developers. I mean they just don't do much to project a friendly or inclusive attitude, so it doesn't come as much of a surprise when developers get tired of their whining and basically exclude them from a game.

To be brutally frank, if 'leets' had more respect for other players and for developers, maybe they'd get more attention paid to their needs. Again, the fact that leet needs (high difficulty) and developer needs (the cheapness and ease of including high difficulty) coincided does not mean that the leets are the most important players in the market. In fact they're probably a quite unimportant minority that neither developers or other gamers would miss if they went away.

The thing is, if this game comes to the PC I'm the kind of guy, with a bunch of major mods under my belt for games like Battleground Waterloo, Red Baron 3D, B-17 II: The Mighty Eighth, Silent Hunter III and IV, who can mod the game to add high difficulty, but my experience with the leet attitude is such that I have no desire whatsoever to do anything at all for them. If I feel that way then I'm sure some developers feel that way too. The point is, leets need to understand that they would catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Alienating everyone outside their group isn't helping their cause. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We obviously have our wires and definitions crossed here. I don't need a game to be endlessly difficult to feel satisfied with it and neither do most hardcore or veteran or "leet" gamers. They want a game to be challenging and have depth to it and it's this standard that's missing from this game. That's why alot of them are dissaspointed with this game because it provided no real challenge. Everything's mapped out for you. Where to go and what you have to do. Nothing changes throughout the game that forces you to adapt apart from the number of guards that appear in battles and their difficulty towards the end of the game. They just throw loads of guards at you and expect that to provide a challenge. That cheap aspect of gaming was grand back in metroid and mega man days when the simple "I have to do this" attitude to gaming applies, but that's not the only way to provide a challenge in gaming these days.

It's an easy game, not because of difficulty settings and damage control but because it takes you by the hand and shows you exactly what to do the whole time without giving you any real chance to figure it out for yourself, which is what an Assassin is supposed to do. It even does things for you at the right time when you press the button at the wrong time.

IMO that's not good gaming. If people are happy with it then good for them, long may they enjoy their nerfed up zero challenge gaming experience and button bashing. I myself prefer to think things through and feel rewarded because I solved something complex and not an endless amount of simple challenges.

Destrier
12-02-2007, 01:54 PM
I dont think its about difficulty, its about variation as is anything in life. Making something tough to do doesnt always make it better. Rather making something varied makes it more fun.

There is no denying that they dropped lots from the game due to time constraints, i cant be arsed searching for evidence, just look through the old press releases, the old vids and forums info its clear. This game got pushed back a while they were so pressed, and has been released with a major bug on ps3.

I understand this will happen most all the time on games which try to be so clever, its inevitable the thing is the things they could have done to make the game better are not that hard.

*Voice acting*

Just record more voice acting, this takes no time for developers, just costs more money to get people recording it. It has a massive impact in my opinion. When i first booted the game up, to hear the same speech from the same guy when i saved him was such a massive letdown!!

** More skins**

Ok, so again im not going to find evidence of this for certain people but they stated there were a lot of different types of people. Now, i know for game reasons they need to put the purse on the side of a person to show you where it is but is this necessary? Could they not have just made it so you pickpocket some and it does nothing "Empty pockets!"

Could they not have made the people look different instead of all thugs being virtually the same. All drunks EXACTLY the same. All beggers the same etc etc. Again, it just takes a guy paid to make more skins. Map them onto the same body if need be.

** Day and night**

Lots of people would love this, and it can be done simply if need be, doesnt need a moving starscape like Eldar scrolls. Just dark and light.

** More blends **

Yes more ways to sneak would be just the same thing in different clothes but isnt everything in life the same thing in different clothes?
Changing guns in a shooter is fun, but you are still just shooting someone. So should all shooters just have one gun? No thats dumb.

If they had put in lots of ways to hide in the city, again the game would have more depth and be more amazing. Put in varied places to hide, water fountains you can jump in and submerge. Flower beds you can dive into. Houses with curtained doors you duck into, varied groups to blend into.

There was even talk of groups helping and hindering you in game, this was also dropped and made into just the thugs who help you.


Understand im not expecting a perfect game. Im not expecting near it. But its not that hard to improve the game.

The thing for me is i think the biggest fans of the games are not those who say "STFU idiot, this game rocks" or "There is nothing wrong with it, its as they wanted it GIVE ME PROOF ITS WRONG!!"

For me the biggest fans are the ones who say, hell this game is good, but why didnt they do this? Or why didnt they put in this they talked about?

Finally, i know in the end its not the fault of the programmers, because they would most likely work to perfection. Its not even Jade and the rest of the Lead team, its you and me for demanding games on time (though i could wait another 6 months for it) and UBI for forcing them to be made on certain budgets and within time frames.

Amazing games can be made and are out there. I think most people are clearly saying, this game is great. It makes me wow at points, the graphics are flawless, movement amazes. Im still wowed by the dark clouds shading the ground, its just not what the fans wanted.

Wow, i typed that over about 2 hours while playing minesweeper and chatting on msn lol, im so sad... sorry to go on so long

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
12-02-2007, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Metal-Dragon:
I dont think its about difficulty, its about variation as is anything in life. Making something tough to do doesnt always make it better. Rather making something varied makes it more fun.

There is no denying that they dropped lots from the game due to time constraints, i cant be arsed searching for evidence, just look through the old press releases, the old vids and forums info its clear. This game got pushed back a while they were so pressed, and has been released with a major bug on ps3.

I understand this will happen most all the time on games which try to be so clever, its inevitable the thing is the things they could have done to make the game better are not that hard.

*Voice acting*

Just record more voice acting, this takes no time for developers, just costs more money to get people recording it. It has a massive impact in my opinion. When i first booted the game up, to hear the same speech from the same guy when i saved him was such a massive letdown!!

** More skins**

Ok, so again im not going to find evidence of this for certain people but they stated there were a lot of different types of people. Now, i know for game reasons they need to put the purse on the side of a person to show you where it is but is this necessary? Could they not have just made it so you pickpocket some and it does nothing "Empty pockets!"

Could they not have made the people look different instead of all thugs being virtually the same. All drunks EXACTLY the same. All beggers the same etc etc. Again, it just takes a guy paid to make more skins. Map them onto the same body if need be.

** Day and night**

Lots of people would love this, and it can be done simply if need be, doesnt need a moving starscape like Eldar scrolls. Just dark and light.

** More blends **

Yes more ways to sneak would be just the same thing in different clothes but isnt everything in life the same thing in different clothes?
Changing guns in a shooter is fun, but you are still just shooting someone. So should all shooters just have one gun? No thats dumb.

If they had put in lots of ways to hide in the city, again the game would have more depth and be more amazing. Put in varied places to hide, water fountains you can jump in and submerge. Flower beds you can dive into. Houses with curtained doors you duck into, varied groups to blend into.

There was even talk of groups helping and hindering you in game, this was also dropped and made into just the thugs who help you.


Understand im not expecting a perfect game. Im not expecting near it. But its not that hard to improve the game.

The thing for me is i think the biggest fans of the games are not those who say "STFU idiot, this game rocks" or "There is nothing wrong with it, its as they wanted it GIVE ME PROOF ITS WRONG!!"

For me the biggest fans are the ones who say, hell this game is good, but why didnt they do this? Or why didnt they put in this they talked about?

Finally, i know in the end its not the fault of the programmers, because they would most likely work to perfection. Its not even Jade and the rest of the Lead team, its you and me for demanding games on time (though i could wait another 6 months for it) and UBI for forcing them to be made on certain budgets and within time frames.

Amazing games can be made and are out there. I think most people are clearly saying, this game is great. It makes me wow at points, the graphics are flawless, movement amazes. Im still wowed by the dark clouds shading the ground, its just not what the fans wanted.

Wow, i typed that over about 2 hours while playing minesweeper and chatting on msn lol, im so sad... sorry to go on so long

Very good point. Alot of people on here get defensive when they're told the game isn't up to scratch. It is a good game, but heck, so is solitaire lol

But kidding aside, what you say is true that most of the people on here complaining are asking why didn't they just put a little more effort and variety into their flawless looking world to make it that much better. I mean, everyone takes their hats off to Ubi Montreal for creating those fantastic cities, but they're wasted by the limitations that you're placed under while free running around in them.

But fans demanding games on time isn't really the issue. They'll buy the title no matter when it's released (within reason) but I'm pretty sure that this game was rushed to release for Christmas!

Pr0metheus 1962
12-02-2007, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Metal-Dragon:
There is no denying that they dropped lots from the game due to time constraints, i cant be arsed searching for evidence, just look through the old press releases, the old vids and forums info its clear. This game got pushed back a while they were so pressed, and has been released with a major bug on ps3.

Look, if you make an accusation the burden is on you to prove it. 'Can't be arsed' is not a valid reason not to have to prove your accusations. As far as old vids I've seen nothing that shows that AC was meant to be anything more than it is now. As for forums, forum posts from fans don't really count as 'proof' of what a game is meant to be, and anyway, if developers posted with details of what the game was meant to be we still need proof. Anyone can say that there was evidence showing that the game was intended to be more, but without proof such assertions are meaningless.


to hear the same speech from the same guy when i saved him was such a massive letdown!!

Sure, variations would be nice, but that's just chrome - it doesn't add meaningful gameplay. I'd much rather keep a real feature than dump one just in order to add more chrome.


they stated there were a lot of different types of people.

There ARE a lot of different types of people. Again, more variations are nice, but again they are just chrome and don't add materially to the game experience.


Again, it just takes a guy paid to make more skins...

LOL, if only it just took a guy paid to make more skins. Heck, maybe they could hire a guy off the street for $5/hour, but somehow I don't think the results would be inspiring, and without some other work the results wouldn't get in the game. It also takes disc space that other features might need, plus it requires the creation of a game mechanic that determines which of the skins go on which character - and that requires more disc space, plus the extra graphics and the extra draw-time impact framerates, and in a graphics-heavy game like this such framerate considerations are very important.


** Day and night**

Lots of people would love this, and it can be done simply if need be, doesnt need a moving starscape like Eldar scrolls. Just dark and light.

Again, it's not at all simple. Variations of light occurring in real time impact a great deal of the graphics. Transitions from dark to light cut down on framerates and impact the game in many different ways - the developer has to test luminosity of buildings and windows; he has to make multiple layers for each graphic so that they appear correct in all light conditions, which once more impacts framerates. Windows have to shine with light at night - and not all windows - just enough to make a city look lived-in, so that means even more graphics for lit windows and dark windows. You also need, at the very least, a starfield texture for your night sky which means another hit on framerates during the transition. Then you have to light torches correctly for night and day, etc., etc., etc. What you're asking for seems simple but it's actually one of the most time intensive things to achieve in a game.


more ways to sneak would be just the same thing in different clothes but isnt everything in life the same thing in different clothes?

Sure, but the same thing in different clothes is just chrome - if it ends in the same result all the developer is really doing is adding chrome at a great cost in terms of developer time just to add a small amount of variation. Again, there are framerate issues - more models and more graphics mean slower framerates; AI needs to be tested for avoidance routines and usage routines; programming needs to be done so that the main character can use the feature well; then you may need to hire someone for a longer period to do the motion capture; then you need to test the feature and debug it. It's a lot more complicated than just adding a way to sneak would seem.


If they had put in lots of ways to hide in the city, again the game would have more depth and be more amazing. Put in varied places to hide, water fountains you can jump in and submerge. Flower beds you can dive into. Houses with curtained doors you duck into, varied groups to blend into.

Again, HUGE amounts of resources are needed to make those things happen, and again, framerates are impacted. These are not simple issues at all and even if such features are desired, and even if the developers have the time, manpower and budget necessary, there's the question of whether the game has enough disc space available. All of these issues will affect the decision to include such features.


There was even talk of groups helping and hindering you in game, this was also dropped and made into just the thugs who help you.

Groups DO help and hinder you in the game. There are drunks and beggars hindering you and soldiers block off areas of the city. Even the crowd is a hindrance. As for help, it's not just thugs who help by giving access to knives, but citizens and scholars help you. That's seven separate groups helping and hindering you. I mean what other game gives this level of casual NPC interaction? I can't think of any game that even comes close.


Understand im not expecting a perfect game. Im not expecting near it. But its not that hard to improve the game.

As I've shown it's a LOT harder than you seem to think.

dirtybird21
12-02-2007, 05:36 PM
I haven't read much of the newer posts 'cept someone said "it's easy 2 improve"

I doubt they even have enough room 2 improve much, It seems like they've almost broken the ammount of information you can put on a disk, Which might explain some of the glitches... Don't take my word for it though.