PDA

View Full Version : Death-chat gone?



oOAltairOo
06-12-2011, 05:18 PM
In AC:1, i always had a "near-death-dialogue" with my targets after assassinating them.
This was usually a very intriguing conversation, and it sort of fleshed out the characters and explained their motives more.

Why was this removed in the later games?

(On a second thought, maybe there weren't really any assassination targets to chat with in AC:B http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ...)

phil.llllll
06-12-2011, 05:22 PM
It was removed in AC2/B and replaced with a short and contrived dialogue so that Ezio could spout some random aphorism.

It's worse in Brotherhood as they didn't even try for anything meaningful and instead it's just there as an excuse for him to say Requiescat in Pace.

cless711
06-12-2011, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by oOAltairOo:
In AC:1, i always had a "near-death-dialogue" with my targets after assassinating them.
This was usually a very intriguing conversation, and it sort of fleshed out the characters and explained their motives more.

Why was this removed in the later games?

(On a second thought, maybe there weren't really any assassination targets to chat with in AC:B http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ...)

This is one of the things that really bugged me in AC2 and AC:B. Those death-chats made the targets seem more realistic in my opinion.

albertwesker22
06-12-2011, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:
It was removed in AC2/B and replaced with a short and contrived dialogue so that Ezio could spout some random aphorism.

It's worse in Brotherhood as they didn't even try for anything meaningful and instead it's just there as an excuse for him to say Requiescat in Pace.

I agree, some of Ezio's last rites make me sick lol

Like when he said to Dante and Silvio "Fear not the darkness – but welcome it's embrace"

Or when you kill Ericole "May you know the truth in death"

If it were made clear in the game that Ezio is a Christian, I would understand it. He seems to be an athiest though(speculation) so the words seem very calous rather than respectful.

john63
06-12-2011, 05:55 PM
I remember back before AC2, people were complaining that a person who'd just been stabbed in the throat wouldn't be able to talk for as long as they did in AC1. Ubisoft just can't win, lol

cless711
06-12-2011, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by john63:
I remember back before AC2, people were complaining that a person who'd just been stabbed in the throat wouldn't be able to talk for as long as they did in AC1. Ubisoft just can't win, lol

XD Well those people do have a point. Its not a big deal as I am already used to it.

Assassin_M
06-12-2011, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by john63:
I remember back before AC2, people were complaining that a person who'd just been stabbed in the throat wouldn't be able to talk for as long as they did in AC1. Ubisoft just can't win, lol
^ THIS, I mean WTF ????, srry Ubisoft your teasing has gone through your fanbase`s heads

twangling
06-13-2011, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by john63:
I remember back before AC2, people were complaining that a person who'd just been stabbed in the throat wouldn't be able to talk for as long as they did in AC1. Ubisoft just can't win, lol
What's so LOL-able in that? Just because some fans complaint about the death chat, doesn't mean others can't like it. And when Ubi listened to some fans and cut down the chat, they must have expected the rest --those who have appreciated "the chat" all along-- to complain in turn. So I would rather say Ubi can never lose. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It all comes down to which bunch of fans they decide to please, the ones who prefer philosophical exchange of words that add to the depth of the story, or the ones who would rather skip such blabber and move onto the next target as soon as possible.

KZarr
06-13-2011, 04:09 AM
In AC1 the character had real human traits. I can still name every one of the 9 characters I killed from the top of my head. Do I remember any from AC2/ACB? Uhm... no because they were as real as cardboard cutouts. They have zero personality so it's impossible for them to have a intriguing conversation.




Originally posted by john63:
I remember back before AC2, people were complaining that a person who'd just been stabbed in the throat wouldn't be able to talk for as long as they did in AC1. Ubisoft just can't win, lol
Nobody complained about them being able to talk, they complained about not being able to skip the scene.

RzaRecta357
06-13-2011, 08:10 AM
No glitches. No moving cutscenes. No good facial animations during kill cam. The conversations after deaths sucked.


Another reason AC1 was better. Let alone atmosphere and just the way they talked without their lady killing hands all the time was better.

iN3krO
06-13-2011, 08:17 AM
And remember... the score for Ac1 was 80/100 and for Ac2/B 90 and 91 over 100...

Do you really think that reviwers are important for AC? they only made the game suck more at each release... (the most important aspects from Ac1 were removed while the less important things were improved)...

Why ubisoft can't do 2 good things at same time instead of 1 good and 1 bad? -..-

albertwesker22
06-13-2011, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by KZarr:
In AC1 the character had real human traits. I can still name every one of the 9 characters I killed from the top of my head. Do I remember any from AC2/ACB? Uhm... no because they were as real as cardboard cutouts. They have zero personality so it's impossible for them to have a intriguing conversation.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by john63:
I remember back before AC2, people were complaining that a person who'd just been stabbed in the throat wouldn't be able to talk for as long as they did in AC1. Ubisoft just can't win, lol
Nobody complained about them being able to talk, they complained about not being able to skip the scene. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, they have completely turned into comic book villains. The Templars are supposed to seek peace(in their own sense) but now they have become ridiculous in their actions. Like when Rodrigo kills Jacapo for something he couldn't help.

I couldn't help but think, this(Borgia) is the man all the Templars are working for? What d!ckhe@d works for someone who is likely to kill you for no other reason than his own childlike ego.

In short they have completely dehumanized the Templars. AC 1 showed you their motives, why they were doing what they were doing. Ganier is the best example, he breaks a mans legs brutally and then you see him tenderly nursing his patients. It always puts that air of remorse just before you kill him.

iN3krO
06-13-2011, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by albertwesker22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KZarr:
In AC1 the character had real human traits. I can still name every one of the 9 characters I killed from the top of my head. Do I remember any from AC2/ACB? Uhm... no because they were as real as cardboard cutouts. They have zero personality so it's impossible for them to have a intriguing conversation.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by john63:
I remember back before AC2, people were complaining that a person who'd just been stabbed in the throat wouldn't be able to talk for as long as they did in AC1. Ubisoft just can't win, lol
Nobody complained about them being able to talk, they complained about not being able to skip the scene. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, they have completely turned into comic book villains. The Templars are supposed to seek peace(in their own sense) but now they have become ridiculous in their actions. Like when Rodrigo kills Jacapo for something he couldn't help.

I couldn't help but think, this(Borgia) is the man all the Templars are working for? What d!ckhe@d works for someone who is likely to kill you for no other reason than his own childlike ego.

In short they have completely dehumanized the Templars. AC 1 showed you their motives, why they were doing what they were doing. Ganier is the best example, he breaks a mans legs brutally and then you see him tenderly nursing his patients. It always puts that air of remorse just before you kill him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this

Crouching.Tiger
06-13-2011, 10:38 AM
Yeah, I liked how your victims in the first game would first commit some horrible atrocity, and then have a long philosophical discussion with their killer.
However, I never quite understood whether these long dialogues were supposed to literally take place in the seconds between them being stabbed in the heart, which were clearly the case in ACII and Brotherhood (where it usually went like this: Victim: "Gah, you bastard, you just stabbed me in the heart!" —dies— Ezio: "Requiescat in Pace."
In the first game, Altaïr would be able to talk several minutes to his victim, often in a crowd of guards at that! But if you experienced a "glitch moment", you could see the victim up walking and clearly unstabbed.
Of course this could mean that the discussion had really taken place earlier, but then the question rises; why did the obvious Assassin Altaïr and that creepy Templar have a friendly chat, presumably over a cup of tea and some scones, when they're both after the other's skin?

If they can answer these questions I'd like to see the chats back.

AMuppetMatt
06-13-2011, 10:56 AM
You can't really complain about realism, you are in a device that let's you view memories stored in DNA, effectively proteins. Unless these proteins now contain neurons with which to store "memories", this isn't going to happen...

I mean I can see where you're coming from when you say "It's a bit random" (or words to that effect) but I think it's a lovely way to actually humanise the character that you've been sent to kill. The order has come from someone that acts completely inhuman (Al Mualim) with how he speaks and the emotions he shows, to someone that yes, is commiting cruel acts, but there is always another side to the story, one you can relate, understand and empathise with. Maybe not agree, but empathise.

I'm afraid to say that the loss of the death cutscene was probably caused by the "L33t n00bz" gamers that walk around saying things like
"That's SICK!"
"You mean cool?"
"Nah, Sick BRUV"

Sort of people with IQs in the mid teens and any moment spent not attempting to decapitate essentially innocent guards a waste of their time. As far as they're concerned listening to some guy they've just killed is pointless, "I just want to keep owning these n00bz" their most likely response to something as thought provoking and intellectually stimulating as a one minute discussion.

They should have kept them in, simple as that. They worked as a way to make the characters more human and in turn made the game better. The only character I remember from AC2 was Dante. Why? Because he was being taken advantage of by that other guy and had brain damage. I felt sorry for him. Hang on, emotion induces memory? And better memory of something means you're more likely to like it more? Hang on! What an ingenious marketing idea... if we get people to REMEMBER our games and villains, that will be better!

Not sure how Ubi haven't figured this out yet :/

I can't even remember ANYONE from AC:B. What a waste http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

piratprince
06-13-2011, 11:10 AM
The new Mocam system is already there. For this its a pity to not to use these advantages . bring it back. I liked those conversations. Finally they have some depth.

Edit:At least add flashbacks and show us the most important thing, their motives.

Ezio : in the end i'll be the last thing you see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Inorganic9_2
06-13-2011, 11:31 AM
I'm afraid to say that the loss of the death cutscene was probably caused by the "L33t n00bz" gamers that walk around saying things like
"That's SICK!"
"You mean cool?"
"Nah, Sick BRUV"

Sort of people with IQs in the mid teens and any moment spent not attempting to decapitate essentially innocent guards a waste of their time. As far as they're concerned listening to some guy they've just killed is pointless, "I just want to keep owning these n00bz" their most likely response to something as thought provoking and intellectually stimulating as a one minute discussion.

This. This. Thoroughly this. This again.

This is just terrible, but so true.

albertwesker22
06-13-2011, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by AMuppetMatt: I can't even remember ANYONE from AC:B. What a waste http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

This may just be me, but I felt a tad bit sorry for the Baron De Valois. The part were he says "Perhaps you are right...I need more time" brought on very sudden sensation of sadness for me.

Probably the only "death chat" that I didn't dislike from ACB.

PhiIs1618033
06-13-2011, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by AMuppetMatt:
They should have kept them in, simple as that. They worked as a way to make the characters more human and in turn made the game better. The only character I remember from AC2 was Dante. Why? Because he was being taken advantage of by that other guy and had brain damage. I felt sorry for him. Hang on, emotion induces memory? And better memory of something means you're more likely to like it more? Hang on! What an ingenious marketing idea... if we get people to REMEMBER our games and villains, that will be better!
For remembering dreams it's called the salience hypothesis: the more emotionally salient (ie. the more you experience an event as emotionally shocking), the more likely you are to remember the dream. There is some evidence to back this up. It makes sense as well. I assume the same holds true for real memories.

AMuppetMatt
06-13-2011, 12:20 PM
There we go, there's even a sciency name for it, it MUST be true! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In all seriousness though if one half wit on an internet forum can comprehend that emotion= better memory and then another more intelligent half wit (I jest) can come along and offer the scientific word and explanation for such a thing (salience, I shall ensure I remember it forever), then how come the big wigs and we can only assume omniscient CEOs and Devs at Ubi not notice this?

Appealing to the more moronic fanbase is my only conclusion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
(As a side, nice to see and hear from you again Inorganic, I always DID like your posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif )

Assassin8me
06-13-2011, 12:27 PM
oh god... you dont have to find explanations for everything... "LOLWUT WHY IZ HE TALKIN I TABBEZ HIM!!!" or "BODIES CANT WALKK!!11" or "WHEREZ DA GUARDS AT?".
Ubisoft wanted to make the death conversations kinda phlilosophical- like Altair looks into his victims eyes ,and in a sec can undrstand

AnthonyA85
06-13-2011, 02:48 PM
Personally, I really liked the death chat sequences in ACT, the only ones from AC2 that i found particularly useful, or even necisarry, were was the one from that "Two birds one blade" mission, and the end, where you fight Rodrigo

And in ACB, the only sequence that was really necisarry was the end one with Cesare