PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else worried?



agitatedchimp
10-28-2011, 09:19 AM
Anyone else worried? i have been watching quite a few videos of the new game play features and i'm concerned that assassins creed is becoming too open. I was watching some of the Assassins den defence gameplay and i'm worried that the game is loosing the 'assassination' concept of it.
Brotherhood had similar changes but the gameplay features actually had some relevance as to how to assassinate your enemies, i extremely disliked how i could kill every single enemy around me with an effortless push of a button.
I highly hope it will not return. i dont want assassins creed to turn into a more warfare/strategical game and i would prefer them to focus on the story and assassinations. Ubisoft claims 'The greatest strength of the series is the freedom it gives to the player' - which i agree to some extent. i like the freedom it gives us to accomplish our objectives and the various possibilities of assassinating. but what i strongly disagree with is giving the player freedom to do things which aren't relevant to the core gameplay mechanics, if i wanted freedom i would play GTA or saints row. my favorite thing about the series is without a doubt the story.
What are your opinions? all of this is my opinion and i was wondering what you guys thought.

Pistol_Chimp
10-28-2011, 09:46 AM
You don't like that you are given more freedom? Even though you can still play the way YOU want. You can be all sneaky and quiet and assassin like if you want. Just because you have the option not to or to do a bit of both is not a negative.

It sounds like your more worried about how other people are going to play the game."no they have to do it the way I say and experience the game the way I do for it to be any good!"

Well people are going to play similar to the way you think it should...and people are just going to kill everything and blow stuff up. Nothing wrong with either cas its a video game...

If the developers wanted no new game play mechanic and just wanted to progress the story..then they would just do nothing but DLC. I guessing they didn't think that was a good idea because maybe people would get bored of the exact same stuff and the exact same ways of doing it over and over again.

LightRey
10-28-2011, 10:04 AM
Freedom is one of the most important reasons I like AC. Besides, games without freedom are really just movies.

dxsxhxcx
10-28-2011, 10:32 AM
I'll wait until I play the game to give a final opinion about the den defense mini game, but based on what I already saw, it isn't what I was expecting...

when they talked about the possibility of the templars attack our dens I thought we would be seeing a street full of templars and assassins fighting each other in front of the Den and then we would arrive and help the assassins, but then they released the videos showing this new feature and what I saw was a tower defense game that has nothing to do with the gameplay style I was used to, we just see Ezio standing there giving orders to the other assassins, depending of how often the attacks to our dens will happen, I believe I'll get bored of that pretty fast...

Blind2Society
10-28-2011, 10:33 AM
Instead of asking for less freedom here, you should go to the PoP boards and ask for a hood and a hidden blade.

<sub>Sorry PoP fans, but it's true, your beloved game has no freedom at all.</sub> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RzaRecta357
10-28-2011, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
I'll wait until I play the game to give a final opinion about the den defense mini game, but based on what I already saw, it isn't what I was expecting...

when they talked about the possibility of the templars attack our dens I thought we would be seeing a street full of templars and assassins fighting each other in front of the Den and then we would arrive and help the assassins, but then they released the videos showing this new feature and what I saw was a tower defense game that has nothing to do with the gameplay style I was used to, we just see Ezio standing there giving orders to the other assassins, depending of how often the attacks to our dens will happen, I believe I'll get bored of that pretty fast...

Ezio is to old for that and they want him to give off a commander of the field with the den defense.

Anyway, once you get a master assassin i've read that you can send them to guard dens so it doesn't happen anymore.

So it's on you.

YuurHeen
10-28-2011, 11:12 AM
well you dont even have to defend it. you only cant use the shops anymore. who needs them anyway.

tjbyrum1
10-28-2011, 11:47 AM
Originally, Ubisoft set out to design a very close-to-accurate video game about the Hashshashin Order from the Middle East during the times of Crusades. They designed it perfectly - nearly. The game actually resembled the life of a Hashshashin Assassin. It was a near-perfect Hashshashin simulator.

But it received a lot of complaining. Too repetitive, few features, one-button combat, etc... but the game was actually pretty successful in what it tried to do. However, Ubisoft knew the franchise wouldn't survive if they kept down the road they was on. So they scrapped the idea of 'Hashshashin Simuulator'.

AC II was made. The ability to buy more weapons, night and day, new assassination moves, more fighting options, mission variety, etc. They also tried to start off fresh. A new Assassin, new story, new setting, new idea, and new concept. With all the changes, it was evident Ubisoft had abandoned the whole 'Hashshashin Simulator' idea. With the loss of the Hashshashin ideas, Ubisoft began moving away from Assassinations (Which was the intended goal of the first game).

In AC Brotherhood, they added more features. A lot of the features are to make the game look cooler. Seriously, you cannot complain that the Execution Streaks are NOT cool, because they're very cool actually. However, I can understand it makes it easier.

So to put it simple, Ubisoft started out wanting to make a game revolving around the Hashshashin and Assassination. Unfortunately, the game was criticized for this, and therefore Ubisoft had to change it.

MostJadedGamer
10-28-2011, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by agitatedchimp:
Anyone else worried? i have been watching quite a few videos of the new game play features and i'm concerned that assassins creed is becoming too open.

There is no such thing as too open. The more open the better.


I was watching some of the Assassins den defence gameplay and i'm worried that the game is loosing the 'assassination' concept of it.

I am glad that the assassination concept is becoming less, and less, and less of a focus with every game. I am not a fan of stealth at all, and thus am not really a fan of assassinations either.


i extremely disliked how i could kill every single enemy around me with an effortless push of a button.

I totally agree with you here. The complete lack of challenge, and absolutely terrible AI really ruined both AC2, and Brotherhood. Ubisoft must do something about the complete lack of challenge.


i dont want assassins creed to turn into a more warfare/strategical game

I DO want AC to turn into more a warefare/strategical. This would add so much for the game, and would put the game on a much more epic scale.


Ubisoft claims 'The greatest strength of the series is the freedom it gives to the player' - which i agree to some extent. i like the freedom it gives us to accomplish our objectives and the various possibilities of assassinating. but what i strongly disagree with is giving the player freedom to do things which aren't relevant to the core gameplay mechanics

Wow that is a hypocrital statement if I ever saw one. You only want freedom if it benefits your play style. You don't understand the meaning of freedom then.

Freedom means other people can do stuff you don't like. It means other people can play the game is ways you don't like.


if i wanted freedom i would play GTA or saints row. my favorite thing about the series is without a doubt the story.

AC SHOULD have as much freedom as GTA or Saints Row. AC has always been a Open World/Free Roam game. Now Ubisoft is giving us more and more stuff to do in that world, and more, and more different types of gameplay which is a very, very, very GOOD thing. Ubisoft is going in the right direction with the AC franchise.

lukaszep
10-28-2011, 12:22 PM
I always found the stealth so much more exciting than running around sword out swinging at every guard i see.
I agree that the game is open, and you CAN play in whatever style you choose, but they seem to be adding tonnes of features to the open, action, mindless killing style and pretty much no new features for a stealth style. (Bombs don't count as stealth, no matter how much they try to tell us otherwise).

MostJadedGamer
10-28-2011, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
I'll wait until I play the game to give a final opinion about the den defense mini game, but based on what I already saw, it isn't what I was expecting...

when they talked about the possibility of the templars attack our dens I thought we would be seeing a street full of templars and assassins fighting each other in front of the Den and then we would arrive and help the assassins, but then they released the videos showing this new feature and what I saw was a tower defense game that has nothing to do with the gameplay style I was used to, we just see Ezio standing there giving orders to the other assassins, depending of how often the attacks to our dens will happen, I believe I'll get bored of that pretty fast...

Thats why you have 4 different options. You are not at all forced to play the den defense game.

#1. You can place master assassin on your den. Which means you never lose your den.

#2. You can send assassin recruits to defend your den. Though you are not guaranted victory with this option.

#3. You can choose to let the templars have you den, and then just retake it in the normal way

#4. You play the den defense mini game.

So again there is plenty of options, and you are not at all forced to play the tower defense mini game.

MostJadedGamer
10-28-2011, 12:27 PM
but they seem to be adding tonnes of features to the open, action, mindless killing style and pretty much no new features for a stealth style. (Bombs don't count as stealth, no matter how much they try to tell us otherwise).

I wouldn't consider the den defense gameplay mindless killing. You need to actually use your brain, and think strategically, and tactically.

Nothing new needs to be added to the stealth instead it should keep becoming less, and less of a focus of the AC franchise.

iN3krO
10-28-2011, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Pistol_Chimp:
You don't like that you are given more freedom? Even though you can still play the way YOU want. You can be all sneaky and quiet and assassin like if you want. Just because you have the option not to or to do a bit of both is not a negative.

It sounds like your more worried about how other people are going to play the game."no they have to do it the way I say and experience the game the way I do for it to be any good!"

Well people are going to play similar to the way you think it should...and people are just going to kill everything and blow stuff up. Nothing wrong with either cas its a video game...

If the developers wanted no new game play mechanic and just wanted to progress the story..then they would just do nothing but DLC. I guessing they didn't think that was a good idea because maybe people would get bored of the exact same stuff and the exact same ways of doing it over and over again.

Ok so i'm going to tell everything again:

There are 2 type of freedom,

Mission wise freedoom where you are given a mission and you have to decide how to do it, it was present in ac1, it was still present in ac2 but not as well as in ac1 and it was completly removed from acB.

GamePlay Wise freedmon where you can chose whatever you want to do, use a sword, a bomb, a crossbow, etc, etc...

Until that i agree with you that having more freedom is good.

Then we have the realistic side that ubisoft wanted from Ac1. For me that realistic came mostly in combat mechanics, it was not perfect or even near to it, at first look ac2/B combats looks way more realistic but when you look depper at them, ac1 was just way more realistic. Altair was not overpowered character so he could only do the same thing guards do, only that the player choses how often he do things, guards were based on skill and this changed the probabibly of doing each action, in ac2/b archtypes guards were just set to ALWAYS do samething screwing up the whole combat, besides, in Ac1 if you weren't good enough you could not use the fastest way (combat agresivly) so you would be using a slower and easier way (combat defensvly), due to the lack of skill in the first playthoughts players used to focus more on stealth and defensive combat when failling. What happens in Ac2 is that the guards AI was completly dumb down, which could be easly fixed in AcB but, instead, they just add even a more restrict archtype guards (dumbing them down further) while adding more features, maybe they are, let's say, ok... the only problem was the really not-skilled based chain kills that was what for me ruined the whole combat mechanics (and the kicks that needed no skill at all too).
It made that what before was only availiable only to players that have knowledge of the combat system and that knows how to use them be availiable for everyone. It's still ok for me, i don't care about what you do. The problem is that when in-game i always search for the faster option which usually is the harder one, that's how i challenged my self in ac1 in the 3rd playthough (i have now 7 playthoughts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)... but in AcB it's not like that. In AcB the faster is the easiest and this makes the improvements in stealth useless. I know there are many dumb ppl that don't like to take the effrot of "losing" some time learning how to play properly to then use the mechanics properly but i'm an hardcore gamer and i love to master the mechanics of the games and that's why i'm always asking for a more BALANCED combat system that would incentivate unskilled players to be stealth, this would make me think twice if i go in battle of stealth depending on my health, ammo, skill and enemies number/skill, making me have a more wide gaming experience.

Before i used to ask to do it and unskilled player would be forced to play combat defensively and/or stealth.
As i see ubisoft is not doing that, and i understand them, becuz they would be losing many fans (that in my opinion are just ******ed ppl that can't even master the easiest mechanics ever made in games), i just ask them to have at least 2 type of dificults, Recruiter and Assassin.

Recruiter would be just like it's right now, you can do whatever you want that you will always succed, it would be a dificult setting where players could have fun testing different things etc etc

Assassin would be just BALANCED as it was in Ac1 but with the current features, it wouldn't be hard to balance it in my opinion.

Since i know that it's too late for AcR, i hope that ubisoft has been reading my posts in the last 2 years and that they take in consideration to, at least, make a dificult setting to please all hardcore gamers that love Ac story.

With all my respect (and sorry for saying my thoughts on you guys :X)

dxsxhxcx
10-28-2011, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by dennis580:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
I'll wait until I play the game to give a final opinion about the den defense mini game, but based on what I already saw, it isn't what I was expecting...

when they talked about the possibility of the templars attack our dens I thought we would be seeing a street full of templars and assassins fighting each other in front of the Den and then we would arrive and help the assassins, but then they released the videos showing this new feature and what I saw was a tower defense game that has nothing to do with the gameplay style I was used to, we just see Ezio standing there giving orders to the other assassins, depending of how often the attacks to our dens will happen, I believe I'll get bored of that pretty fast...

Thats why you have 4 different options. You are not at all forced to play the den defense game.

#1. You can place master assassin on your den. Which means you never lose your den.

#2. You can send assassin recruits to defend your den. Though you are not guaranted victory with this option.

#3. You can choose to let the templars have you den, and then just retake it in the normal way

#4. You play the den defense mini game.

So again there is plenty of options, and you are not at all forced to play the tower defense mini game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know I'm not forced to play the mini game, I just posted my opinion regarding the matter, just because I'm not forced to play it, doesn't mean I should like it...

just to make things clear, that was just my first impression about the den defense mini game, I still can change my mind after I play it...

iN3krO
10-28-2011, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dennis580:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
I'll wait until I play the game to give a final opinion about the den defense mini game, but based on what I already saw, it isn't what I was expecting...

when they talked about the possibility of the templars attack our dens I thought we would be seeing a street full of templars and assassins fighting each other in front of the Den and then we would arrive and help the assassins, but then they released the videos showing this new feature and what I saw was a tower defense game that has nothing to do with the gameplay style I was used to, we just see Ezio standing there giving orders to the other assassins, depending of how often the attacks to our dens will happen, I believe I'll get bored of that pretty fast...

Thats why you have 4 different options. You are not at all forced to play the den defense game.

#1. You can place master assassin on your den. Which means you never lose your den.

#2. You can send assassin recruits to defend your den. Though you are not guaranted victory with this option.

#3. You can choose to let the templars have you den, and then just retake it in the normal way

#4. You play the den defense mini game.

So again there is plenty of options, and you are not at all forced to play the tower defense mini game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know I'm not forced to play the mini game, I just posted my opinion regarding the matter, just because I'm not forced to play it, doesn't mean I should like it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello GTA:SanAndreas, Good Buy Assassin's creed.
Forgot to mention that, this is a copy of the GTA:SA system that i never liked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

agitatedchimp
10-28-2011, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by dennis580:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by agitatedchimp:
Anyone else worried? i have been watching quite a few videos of the new game play features and i'm concerned that assassins creed is becoming too open.

There is no such thing as too open. The more open the better.


I was watching some of the Assassins den defence gameplay and i'm worried that the game is loosing the 'assassination' concept of it.

I am glad that the assassination concept is becoming less, and less, and less of a focus with every game. I am not a fan of stealth at all, and thus am not really a fan of assassinations either.


i extremely disliked how i could kill every single enemy around me with an effortless push of a button.

I totally agree with you here. The complete lack of challenge, and absolutely terrible AI really ruined both AC2, and Brotherhood. Ubisoft must do something about the complete lack of challenge.


i dont want assassins creed to turn into a more warfare/strategical game

I DO want AC to turn into more a warefare/strategical. This would add so much for the game, and would put the game on a much more epic scale.


Ubisoft claims 'The greatest strength of the series is the freedom it gives to the player' - which i agree to some extent. i like the freedom it gives us to accomplish our objectives and the various possibilities of assassinating. but what i strongly disagree with is giving the player freedom to do things which aren't relevant to the core gameplay mechanics

Wow that is a hypocrital statement if I ever saw one. You only want freedom if it benefits your play style. You don't understand the meaning of freedom then.

Freedom means other people can do stuff you don't like. It means other people can play the game is ways you don't like.


if i wanted freedom i would play GTA or saints row. my favorite thing about the series is without a doubt the story.

AC SHOULD have as much freedom as GTA or Saints Row. AC has always been a Open World/Free Roam game. Now Ubisoft is giving us more and more stuff to do in that world, and more, and more different types of gameplay which is a very, very, very GOOD thing. Ubisoft is going in the right direction with the AC franchise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? you judge me of hypocrisy? I want freedom with things that are relevant to the game itself. I now understand why the tower defence game is good addition to the game and how its relevant to the main plot of the game thats why i asked for YOUR opinion. maybe i understand freedom maybe i don't, but i dont think you understand my statement.
I can accept the fact that other people play the game much differently i understand that, infact i like the idea of it.
but remember this is ASSASSINS creed, i don't mean to sound ignorant honestly i don't but why buy ASSASSINS creed if you don't like stealth or the assassination concept? what do you expect to play?
I know a mini-game isn't going to ruin the whole series i actually think it looks really kool myself and i'll enjoy playing it, i just do not want ubisoft to move away from the main subjective ideal of the game which is assassinations. sounds to me like you should go and play command and conquer because from your opinon it sounds like your ideal assassins creed.
Or you should wait for warfares creed to come out, sounds like it would meet your expectations.

LightRey
10-28-2011, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by agitatedchimp:
Really? you judge me of hypocrisy? I want freedom with things that are relevant to the game itself. I now understand why the tower defence game is good addition to the game and how its relevant to the main plot of the game thats why i asked for YOUR opinion. maybe i understand freedom maybe i don't, but i dont think you understand my statement.
I can accept the fact that other people play the game much differently i understand that, infact i like the idea of it.
but remember this is ASSASSINS creed, i don't mean to sound ignorant honestly i don't but why buy ASSASSINS creed if you don't like stealth or the assassination concept? what do you expect to play?
I know a mini-game isn't going to ruin the whole series i actually think it looks really kool myself and i'll enjoy playing it, i just do not want ubisoft to move away from the main subjective ideal of the game which is assassinations. sounds to me like you should go and play command and conquer because from your opinon it sounds like your ideal assassins creed.
Or you should wait for warfares creed to come out, sounds like it would meet your expectations.
They're not called Assassins because they kill in stealthy ways. In fact, the original Assassins were not even known for stealth, just killing specific (political) targets. Even in modern-day use it's still not reserved for stealthy killings, just for the killings of specific (political) targets, just like those of the original assassins. The word itself in its actual meaning in no way implies any form of stealth.

Jexx21
10-28-2011, 02:18 PM
ACtually, Command and Conquer isn't a Tower Defense game. I'd suggest Defense Grid for a Tower Defense game.

But I like the Den Defense, it sounds awesome.

Sarari
10-28-2011, 02:58 PM
Why the hell are you guys saying "you don't want freedom" when he clearly says that he does, but to an extent.

I agree with this guy. It's sad though how there are very few of us who think about this. The game is becoming a little to open. It's an un-explainable reason. I'm not to good with explaining stuff to begin with.

So what I have to say is this:
1. The game has becoming more unrealistic. One man taking down a whole port of ships by himself with a flame thrower, which I bet didn't even work so well at their time. And if it did, don't try explaining that it did. Focus on the main point here. That's one of many examples.

2. It's becoming a part strategic game.

3. It has become way to easy. Some of you might say that even AC1 was easy, but guys, ACB (and possibly ACR) are above and beyond easy. You don't even have to try. People say because they want you to feel like you're an unstoppable assassin. While this is true, they shouldn't make it so easy. They should make the killing streak a little harder.

4. It has become to complicated with the 2 weapon wheels.

5. They've focused more on the gameplay and less on the story in ACB (I hope that doesn't happen in ACR).

6. They need to focus on the people you're assassinating more and give them more of a very miniature story like the ones in AC1 and kinda like AC2. In brotherhood, the templars were just evil for the sake of being evil. They wanted the apple for no purpose but to rule the world. But the people in AC1 all had different reasons.

LightRey
10-28-2011, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Why the hell are you guys saying "you don't want freedom" when he clearly says that he does, but to an extent.


i'm concerned that assassins creed is becoming too open.

This is the kind of freedom we're discussing and it's the kind of freedom AC is known for and it's something most fans very much like.

iN3krO
10-28-2011, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Why the hell are you guys saying "you don't want freedom" when he clearly says that he does, but to an extent.

I agree with this guy. It's sad though how there are very few of us who think about this. The game is becoming a little to open. It's an un-explainable reason. I'm not to good with explaining stuff to begin with.

So what I have to say is this:
1. The game has becoming more unrealistic. One man taking down a whole port of ships by himself with a flame thrower, which I bet didn't even work so well at their time. And if it did, don't try explaining that it did. Focus on the main point here. That's one of many examples.

2. It's becoming a part strategic game.

3. It has become way to easy. Some of you might say that even AC1 was easy, but guys, ACB (and possibly ACR) are above and beyond easy. You don't even have to try. People say because they want you to feel like you're an unstoppable assassin. While this is true, they shouldn't make it so easy. They should make the killing streak a little harder.

4. It has become to complicated with the 2 weapon wheels.

5. They've focused more on the gameplay and less on the story in ACB (I hope that doesn't happen in ACR).

6. They need to focus on the people you're assassinating more and give them more of a very miniature story like the ones in AC1 and kinda like AC2. In brotherhood, the templars were just evil for the sake of being evil. They wanted the apple for no purpose but to rule the world. But the people in AC1 all had different reasons.

And a better aim, in ac1 they all aimed to help humanity but with another method that we (assassins) do not agree to be a good method.

I love the dialogue that ezio makes in ac2 DLC, it just explains why templars are doing it thought a bad method.

Actually, i dont think we are a minority, it's just fun how i have much more friends that prefered altair and that balanced gameplay over ezio and his overpowerness... i just think that ppl with my taste don't come like to share their opinion in forums or can't speak english to do so... sadly :x

xx-pyro
10-28-2011, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Why the hell are you guys saying "you don't want freedom" when he clearly says that he does, but to an extent.

I agree with this guy. It's sad though how there are very few of us who think about this. The game is becoming a little to open. It's an un-explainable reason. I'm not to good with explaining stuff to begin with.

So what I have to say is this:
1. The game has becoming more unrealistic. One man taking down a whole port of ships by himself with a flame thrower, which I bet didn't even work so well at their time. And if it did, don't try explaining that it did. Focus on the main point here. That's one of many examples.

2. It's becoming a part strategic game.

3. It has become way to easy. Some of you might say that even AC1 was easy, but guys, ACB (and possibly ACR) are above and beyond easy. You don't even have to try. People say because they want you to feel like you're an unstoppable assassin. While this is true, they shouldn't make it so easy. They should make the killing streak a little harder.

4. It has become to complicated with the 2 weapon wheels.

5. They've focused more on the gameplay and less on the story in ACB (I hope that doesn't happen in ACR).

6. They need to focus on the people you're assassinating more and give them more of a very miniature story like the ones in AC1 and kinda like AC2. In brotherhood, the templars were just evil for the sake of being evil. They wanted the apple for no purpose but to rule the world. But the people in AC1 all had different reasons.

OK let's tackle these in order;

1. The game really hasn't dropped too much realistically; killing guards has always been easy, and it was only harder in AC1 because you had less weapons. Some people enjoy kill streaks, some don't. They aren't forced, you don't get a medal for killstreaking every guard in Italy, you can dispatch them in your preferred style. And really, the killstreaks are as realistic as a guard in AC1 covering his mouth coughing (which only an idiot would do) while fighting a master Assassin. The fact is, city guards were never trained well, they were basically a mob with some loose structure to it, an Assassin trained to kill would have no trouble with them.

2. The game has always been strategic, since AC1. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. If it lost it's strategic aspects, that's when I would say we would be going downhill.

3. I won't say it hasn't gotten easier, because it has. Fact of the matter is, all the games have been easy. I'd rather have an easy game and 30 different ways to kill a target, than a slightly harder but still easy game with only 5 or 6 ways to kill a target. That's my personal preference though.

4. I haven't personally played ACR, so I can't say it's too complicated with two weapon wheels. If you have, you can state that as an opinion, if you haven't played it, you can't comment on an assumption.

5. While I agree with this (which is one of the negative's I hold for ACB,) fact of the matter is they stuck historically to what happened. To me, I would feel that leaving Rodrigo alive after AC2, and not even mentioning Cesare would be a disastrous cliffhanger to Ezio's story, and the fact is that (I believe) that part of the story needed to be told. I agree it could have been extended a bit, but filler gameplay is rarely interesting anyways (ie. Kingdom in AC1)

6. I agree with this point as well, except for the part where you said AC1 had better backstories than AC2. AC2 had a lot more of a backstory to characters than AC1, which I absolutely loved, and hope they can somehow manage to continue in ACR. The datebase entries and videos were great, and really helped me understand the characters a bit better; problem is they can hardly have Shaun explaining to Desmond the significance of certain people while he's in a coma.

LightRey
10-28-2011, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by xx-pyro:
OK let's tackle these in order;

1. The game really hasn't dropped too much realistically; killing guards has always been easy, and it was only harder in AC1 because you had less weapons. Some people enjoy kill streaks, some don't. They aren't forced, you don't get a medal for killstreaking every guard in Italy, you can dispatch them in your preferred style. And really, the killstreaks are as realistic as a guard in AC1 covering his mouth coughing (which only an idiot would do) while fighting a master Assassin. The fact is, city guards were never trained well, they were basically a mob with some loose structure to it, an Assassin trained to kill would have no trouble with them.

2. The game has always been strategic, since AC1. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. If it lost it's strategic aspects, that's when I would say we would be going downhill.

3. I won't say it hasn't gotten easier, because it has. Fact of the matter is, all the games have been easy. I'd rather have an easy game and 30 different ways to kill a target, than a slightly harder but still easy game with only 5 or 6 ways to kill a target. That's my personal preference though.

4. I haven't personally played ACR, so I can't say it's too complicated with two weapon wheels. If you have, you can state that as an opinion, if you haven't played it, you can't comment on an assumption.

5. While I agree with this (which is one of the negative's I hold for ACB,) fact of the matter is they stuck historically to what happened. To me, I would feel that leaving Rodrigo alive after AC2, and not even mentioning Cesare would be a disastrous cliffhanger to Ezio's story, and the fact is that (I believe) that part of the story needed to be told. I agree it could have been extended a bit, but filler gameplay is rarely interesting anyways (ie. Kingdom in AC1)

6. I agree with this point as well, except for the part where you said AC1 had better backstories than AC2. AC2 had a lot more of a backstory to characters than AC1, which I absolutely loved, and hope they can somehow manage to continue in ACR. The datebase entries and videos were great, and really helped me understand the characters a bit better; problem is they can hardly have Shaun explaining to Desmond the significance of certain people while he's in a coma.
I very much agree with this.

iN3krO
10-28-2011, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by xx-pyro:
3. I won't say it hasn't gotten easier, because it has. Fact of the matter is, all the games have been easy. I'd rather have an easy game and 30 different ways to kill a target, than a slightly harder but still easy game with only 5 or 6 ways to kill a target. That's my personal preference though.


I think you don't understand what ppl like me are saying... i'm not saying REMOVE the features, i'm saying BALANCE... other words? make the fastest/coolest ways only be availiable if you can handle good timmings pressing attack buttons... counter/combo timmings should be taken back to ac2 timmings, when the guards parry still be able to do combos (like in ac2) but make it with an harder timming (cuz they are parrying you). Press attack button in the correct time to do a killstreak (have the same timming as it's needed to do combo to guards that are parrying you). Make every guard random (make normal gaurds able to parry, counter, grab, etc, etc but with a small chance and remove spearmans always parrying or agile always dodge, just make it as percentages so it looks more real and challlenge cuz it's umpredictable).

With this changes you could still have those "20" ways of kill instead of 5/6 and it would still be a bit harder, realistic and logical.

What do you have against the suggestion i've made now?

PS - Ac has always been about strategy but not RTS, i just think it's awfull that system to defend den, i was thinking you could place assassins defending it and then when it's attacked you only play as ezio helping the assassins defending, but not, you can only place assasins defending during the battle and you don't use ezio normally....

Sarari
10-28-2011, 04:42 PM
Ok, you proved my wrong on some of my points.

Let me start with the strategic gameplay. When I said that, I meant with the tower defense. Ik a lot of you guys out there are looking forward to that. I feel like it's a bit pointless, considering Ezio can take down a whole army in a blink of an eye. I sort of have an on and off feeling for the tower defense, but as an overall feeling, I'd much rather fight an army of templars with my assassin friends than do the Halo Wars kind of gameplay.

Now with the realisticness. When I say that, I'm talking more of the cut-scenes, and partially the gameplay. I'm gonna list some examples from some cut-scenes we've seen so far.

Ex.1- When Ezio was sliding on the ground while holding onto the carriage was very unrealistic. It's kinda like being tied from your legs onto the back of a car going high speed, but probably not that fast of course. But my point is that It's nearly impossible for someone to get injured from that.

Ex.2- When Ezio goes flying off the carriage and slams his arm onto the canyon rocks and falls down the rocky hills and still has the strength to climb up and fight off 3 guards. Although I find this super epic lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ex.3- This is where I get into the gameplay. There are some moves that are so overdone that they are not physically possible for man to do. I'm exaggerating of course. But they make Ezio (and possibly Altair) look super human, which makes the game just feel like some sort of super hero game.

It might sound like I'm hating on the series now, but I'm truly in love with it. These are just things I think Ubisoft should improve. If they don't, It's not like I'm gonna stop. I just hope they don't over do everything. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

xx-pyro
10-28-2011, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Ok, you proved my wrong on some of my points.

Let me start with the strategic gameplay. When I said that, I meant with the tower defense. Ik a lot of you guys out there are looking forward to that. I feel like it's a bit pointless, considering Ezio can take down a whole army in a blink of an eye. I sort of have an on and off feeling for the tower defense, but as an overall feeling, I'd much rather fight an army of templars with my assassin friends than do the Halo Wars kind of gameplay.

Now with the realisticness. When I say that, I'm talking more of the cut-scenes, and partially the gameplay. I'm gonna list some examples from some cut-scenes we've seen so far.

Ex.1- When Ezio was sliding on the ground while holding onto the carriage was very unrealistic. It's kinda like being tied from your legs onto the back of a car going high speed, but probably not that fast of course. But my point is that It's nearly impossible for someone to get injured from that.

Ex.2- When Ezio goes flying off the carriage and slams his arm onto the canyon rocks and falls down the rocky hills and still has the strength to climb up and fight off 3 guards. Although I find this super epic lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ex.3- This is where I get into the gameplay. There are some moves that are so overdone that they are not physically possible for man to do. I'm exaggerating of course. But they make Ezio (and possibly Altair) look super human, which makes the game just feel like some sort of super hero game.

It might sound like I'm hating on the series now, but I'm truly in love with it. These are just things I think Ubisoft should improve. If they don't, It's not like I'm gonna stop. I just hope they don't over do everything. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

First off let me address daniel_gervide, since there's not a multiquote function and I'm way too lazy to copy paste separate quotes into one post.

Whilst I definitely would enjoy a better enemy AI, or at least leveled AI's meaning there is an easy, medium and a hard (or hell, even a slider like Oblivion), it's definitely going to remain an easy game regardless. It doesn't take any sort of skill to learn to pattern combat to specific times, it would be harder for about 2 fights until you learn the technique and precise timing. Example 1: AC1; countering with the hidden blade is a lot harder for people starting the game, but once you use the hidden blade only for about 3 fights you learn exactly when to press [insert counter buttons on your platform here] and counter the attack. After that, it's a rarity for you to miss.

I definitely agree the games are easy, but fact of the matter is without innovating the entire combat system, it will be too easy to adapt to whatever features they add or remove and the game will remain easy. The only thing that I can see making any sort of difference is if they made it so each health diamond is treated as a whole, and only takes 1 hit to kill. I realize this isn't a very good description, but what I mean is when you have 1 health diamond left, it doesn't get halved, then halved again, then you get that fuzzy/animus screen when you are 1 hit away from dying. If you just get hit once with 1 diamond left and you die, I think that's really the only way to truly add any sort of difficulty to the system. You can't adapt to the health bar, you can adapt to any minor combat innovations they create.

OK, now onto Sarari;

I definitely am not looking forward to Tower Defense, so I agree on that, but I'm not going to knock it until I try it out and see for myself what it's like. Tower Defense is probably the easiest RTS game out there (and I assume Assassin's Creeds version won't vary), so I'm not too bugged. I'd rather have a guard captain that I have to assassinate take the place of it though. Either way, it's a completely optional minigame, so if I really don't like it then I'll let my dens be captured and assassinate a guard or whatever it takes to take the den back.

Secondly, I see no problem with cut-scenes as long as they don't take the place of gameplay. More cut-scenes to me is better, because through cut-scenes (not gameplay) is the story told. As long as they don't pull a Brotherhood Sequence 9, I'll be quite happy (and am quite happy) to hear that this game has a lot of cut-scenes. That's personal opinion though.

As for cut-scenes where they do impossible things, I don't mind them really. I mean, people use Brotherhood war machines as a typical example of what you are trying to say, when those machines were all in fact real designs and would function if he could build them properly. If you live in Ontario, go to the Science Center, they have an entire exhibit on Leonardo's Workshop for the next few months, and it's definitely worth the hefty ticket price. They have 3D models of every machine in ACB, and a lot more things that Leonardo designed that really expand your vision on how smart the man actually was. While I agree that the scene where Ezio is behind the carriage/is basically hitching on it is a little over-the-top, I feel sometimes those scenes are necessary to instill a feel of 'epicness.' As long as they aren't done too often, those cut-scenes are very entertaining sporadically.

As for your realistic examples, the only move that Ezio does that is unrealistic is his air assassinations. I guess Altair couldn't do those, so that makes Altair more realistic, but I'd rather be able to assassinate people from above than not- all because players wanted mot realistic moves in the game. I see both Ezio and Altair as definitely above mere human capabilities, considering their higher concentration of TWCB DNA, although as long as they don't use that to explain why Ezio and Altair suddenly can fly/don't take damage from anything/achieve laser vision, I'm fine with the moves in the game.

iN3krO
10-28-2011, 05:25 PM
xx-pyro i never said it would be hard to master those balanced features, did i? I just say that thought it would still be easy, if you were to lazy you would not do them losing time, such as in ac1.... I don't have any fun combating in AcB but i have in Ac1. Ac1 also has an easy combat system but it was much more entreteinment to me and i know that AcB combat system with some changes to balance it would be much more entreteinment then ac1 is. The problem is that disagree when i say combat system in ac1 was much more entreteinment then the current one and this is why i ask for them to have 2 dificults settings, 1 balanced and one as it's now, umbalanced.

Do you get what i mean with it? Or do you think it wouldn't be better for having it balanced rather then everything super easy?

MostJadedGamer
10-28-2011, 05:26 PM
I agree with this guy. It's sad though how there are very few of us who think about this. The game is becoming a little to open. It's an un-explainable reason. I'm not to good with explaining stuff to begin with.

Sasari there is a very good reason you cann't explain it. Because there is no such thing as to open in video games. The more open the better. A game can never be to open.




but remember this is ASSASSINS creed, i don't mean to sound ignorant honestly i don't but why buy ASSASSINS creed if you don't like stealth or the assassination concept? what do you expect to play?

I don't know about you, but I don't buy games because of the name on the box. The selling point of AC games for me has always been about playing in a Open World/Free Roam game in a Epic Historical Setting.

In fact if AC3 is mostly in a modern setting then it will be the first AC game I will NOT buy. I will NOT buy or play AC3 if it ends up being in mostly a modern setting.


i just do not want ubisoft to move away from the main subjective ideal of the game which is assassinations.

That is where we disagree


sounds to me like you should go and play command and conquer because from your opinon it sounds like your ideal assassins creed.
Or you should wait for warfares creed to come out, sounds like it would meet your expectations.

The concept of AC is a lot closer to what I want then about 99.5% of the games out there. AC continues to move in the direction I want. I have no interest in command, and conquer.

xx-pyro
10-28-2011, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
xx-pyro i never said it would be hard to master those balanced features, did i? I just say that thought it would still be easy, if you were to lazy you would not do them losing time, such as in ac1.... I don't have any fun combating in AcB but i have in Ac1. Ac1 also has an easy combat system but it was much more entreteinment to me and i know that AcB combat system with some changes to balance it would be much more entreteinment then ac1 is. The problem is that disagree when i say combat system in ac1 was much more entreteinment then the current one and this is why i ask for them to have 2 dificults settings, 1 balanced and one as it's now, umbalanced.

Do you get what i mean with it? Or do you think it wouldn't be better for having it balanced rather then everything super easy?

There's no such thing as balance when you set up a master Assassin and he fights a militia guard. I understand what you are saying perfectly fine in terms of game play mechanics, but the problem is that what you want is a temporary respite from easy combat, before it becomes easy again. Changing the times back to AC1 times for counters, etc, will not make the game any more difficult than it is, because it takes 3 fights with 4 guards each to get used to the mechanic over again. There is no "balance" in AC1's combat system, so I don't know why you throw that word around so often. All the games are unbalanced, the only balanced game would involve giving guards the ability to do everything you can do, and giving guards all of your weapons.

If you said you wanted a "more balanced" game, then you would be making more sense, but as I've mentioned throughout my last two posts that is impossible with the current combat system, unless you either make the Assassin a 1 or 2 hit kill (which would infuriate almost everybody). Assuming the changes from ACR to AC3 will be as large as the changes from AC1 to AC2, that is when you will possibly get your more balanced system, because they might throw some completely new concepts and mechanics at us to use.

EDIT: As for the thread, something I am slightly worried about is the emphasis they are placing on bombs possibly foreshadowing to grenades or similar items in Desmond sequences in future titles. Hopefully they find better ways to give us modern gameplay after ACR than that.

Jexx21
10-28-2011, 06:09 PM
I wouldn't mind grenades, as long as we only have a small stock of them and can't make them like Ezio.

But the fact that Desmond doesn't have a hidden gun, poison blade, or even a second hidden blade tells me that they aren't setting up Desmond to have all of the awesome weapons.

Bipolar Matt
10-28-2011, 06:09 PM
An open game means you have the freedom to be as stealthy as you want. You can enforce restrictions on yourself even if the game doesn't. I agree in that I try to be as stealthy and non-descript as possible when I play. I also understand that Ubi designed the games in such a way that it is my choice how I play the game.

At any rate, stealth won't always be an option, and strategy is equally important. I like the den defense game and thing it will be a plus to what's shaping up to be a great game.

agitatedchimp
10-28-2011, 07:54 PM
In fact if AC3 is mostly in a modern setting then it will be the first AC game I will NOT buy. I will NOT buy or play AC3 if it ends up being in mostly a modern setting.

^ That my friend if where we agree on something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

MostJadedGamer
10-28-2011, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by agitatedchimp:
In fact if AC3 is mostly in a modern setting then it will be the first AC game I will NOT buy. I will NOT buy or play AC3 if it ends up being in mostly a modern setting.

^ That my friend if where we agree on something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Ubisoft would be risking a lot of sales if they done that. Playing in a epic historical setting is the major selling point for a lot of people.

Sarari
10-28-2011, 08:37 PM
Am Actually very happy that we have more freedom, because that means more stealth.

I remember I was playing ACB and there was a Borgia captain under one of those hallow courtyards with the roofs on top. So what I did was grab the guy from the roof and threw him off so the captain would come out of the courtyard so I would air assassinate him. But he didn't come out. So I literally waited there for like 5 minutes just holding on a ledge waiting for him lol.

I refuse to be non-stealthy :P

Jexx21
10-28-2011, 09:30 PM
was that the one where the tower was positioned right above a haybale in a small courtyard in the middle of some tunnel sections?

What I did for that one was I jumped in the hay bale, hid behind a pillar, waiting for the patrol to come over, and once they started to turn back around I snuck out and stabbed the captain, making all the other guards run away. Then I looted the corpse for his florins.

Sarari
10-28-2011, 09:36 PM
Haha not that one. The one infront of the restricted bridge. But I think the one you're talking about, I jumped out of the hay and stack the captain under the tunnels and ran from the guards. I had the most epic ninja moment in my whole entire life like no joke hahahahaha.

Jexx21
10-28-2011, 09:39 PM
I love the Borgia Towers. I wish I could replay them in Brotherhood.

But that's a benefit of the Den Defense. The Templars attack, and you can let them take over just so you can experience the taking down of towers. :P

God, I'm so gonna love ACR.

Sarari
10-28-2011, 09:43 PM
IKR! I really wish they let us replay it. I recently found out that you couldn't after I felt like playing one. It saddened me. But that's why I'm gonna just let them take it over in ACR, for the experience once again.

Jexx21
10-28-2011, 09:51 PM
I love that instead of burning the tower down and rebuilding it it's just going to be a retreat signal.

Sarari
10-28-2011, 09:53 PM
Ik, it's much more realistic this way.

Jexx21
10-28-2011, 10:08 PM
Oh, and the Galata Tower. I love it, it's awesome that our hideout is underneath it.

iN3krO
10-29-2011, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by xx-pyro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
xx-pyro i never said it would be hard to master those balanced features, did i? I just say that thought it would still be easy, if you were to lazy you would not do them losing time, such as in ac1.... I don't have any fun combating in AcB but i have in Ac1. Ac1 also has an easy combat system but it was much more entreteinment to me and i know that AcB combat system with some changes to balance it would be much more entreteinment then ac1 is. The problem is that disagree when i say combat system in ac1 was much more entreteinment then the current one and this is why i ask for them to have 2 dificults settings, 1 balanced and one as it's now, umbalanced.

Do you get what i mean with it? Or do you think it wouldn't be better for having it balanced rather then everything super easy?

There's no such thing as balance when you set up a master Assassin and he fights a militia guard. I understand what you are saying perfectly fine in terms of game play mechanics, but the problem is that what you want is a temporary respite from easy combat, before it becomes easy again. Changing the times back to AC1 times for counters, etc, will not make the game any more difficult than it is, because it takes 3 fights with 4 guards each to get used to the mechanic over again. There is no "balance" in AC1's combat system, so I don't know why you throw that word around so often. All the games are unbalanced, the only balanced game would involve giving guards the ability to do everything you can do, and giving guards all of your weapons.

If you said you wanted a "more balanced" game, then you would be making more sense, but as I've mentioned throughout my last two posts that is impossible with the current combat system, unless you either make the Assassin a 1 or 2 hit kill (which would infuriate almost everybody). Assuming the changes from ACR to AC3 will be as large as the changes from AC1 to AC2, that is when you will possibly get your more balanced system, because they might throw some completely new concepts and mechanics at us to use.

EDIT: As for the thread, something I am slightly worried about is the emphasis they are placing on bombs possibly foreshadowing to grenades or similar items in Desmond sequences in future titles. Hopefully they find better ways to give us modern gameplay after ACR than that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In ac1 is i despite my self doing anything else beside playing i end up being injured by guards, in acb it never happened, i only get injured when i jump down builds.

Even if it's easy i would need to be a bit more focused in the game and would apreciate it better, just like in ac1.

Ac1 was balanced cuz the faster way was the harder and the slower way the easiest. Need a draw?

Now i'm sure you didn't understand me!

Anyway, this is a lost war, i will never have Ac as good as it could be for me. Best story ever as a franchise but not best gameplay :X

LightRey
10-29-2011, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
In ac1 is i despite my self doing anything else beside playing i end up being injured by guards, in acb it never happened, i only get injured when i jump down builds.

Even if it's easy i would need to be a bit more focused in the game and would apreciate it better, just like in ac1.

Ac1 was balanced cuz the faster way was the harder and the slower way the easiest. Need a draw?

Now i'm sure you didn't understand me!

Anyway, this is a lost war, i will never have Ac as good as it could be for me. Best story ever as a franchise but not best gameplay :X
You get injured by guards because you already bet injured when they don't even hit you. You already lose sync bars when they hit your sword and you don't deflect. Besides, in AC1 getting hurt meant nothing since it only takes a few seconds to regenerate.

agitatedchimp
10-29-2011, 05:24 AM
I surpose what we can learn from this is that, Ubisoft should consider putting a difficulty setting on the game, which would do things like... restrict the sync bar's length and make the IA speed faster and more aggressive etc.
I think that they should also add some diversity to the templar persona, to avoid any people complaining that it they are becoming 'cliche', Similar to how they were in AC1

LightRey
10-29-2011, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by agitatedchimp:
I surpose what we can learn from this is that, Ubisoft should consider putting a difficulty setting on the game, which would do things like... restrict the sync bar's length and make the IA speed faster and more aggressive etc.
I think that they should also add some diversity to the templar persona, to avoid any people complaining that it they are becoming 'cliche', Similar to how they were in AC1
We can learn nothing from this. This thread covers the opinions of about 4 people. Hardly a good sample to base conclusions on.

And again, it's not that easy to just add a difficulty system to a game like AC.

YHHTQ
10-29-2011, 05:39 AM
The only thing I'm worried about is HOW to handle the wait until the release of Revelations; The novels and the previous games can only take me so far, especially having in mind I finished them all at least three times, with 100% sync.

Other than that, having in mind the footage, I've seen I have no reasons to be worried at all with the way the franchise is being managed.

Also, some people need to lay back a bit and relax... It's like AC is their baby or something.

iN3krO
10-29-2011, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by agitatedchimp:
I surpose what we can learn from this is that, Ubisoft should consider putting a difficulty setting on the game, which would do things like... restrict the sync bar's length and make the IA speed faster and more aggressive etc.
I think that they should also add some diversity to the templar persona, to avoid any people complaining that it they are becoming 'cliche', Similar to how they were in AC1
We can learn nothing from this. This thread covers the opinions of about 4 people. Hardly a good sample to base conclusions on.

And again, it's not that easy to just add a difficulty system to a game like AC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it would be pretty easy to do what i ask them to do, only kill chains would require a bit more work but not that much... anyway, do whatever want to, i won't enjoy this gameplay, if you like to feel so ******ed that u can't even master a well timming attack then it's up to you, if you are so stupid that u can't understand that adding that timming attack system do killchains would not change the animations and the badass that ezio would be then it's also your fault... you don't understand what i mean when ac1 was better so i won't waste my keyboard speaking with you.

YHHTQ
10-29-2011, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by agitatedchimp:
I surpose what we can learn from this is that, Ubisoft should consider putting a difficulty setting on the game, which would do things like... restrict the sync bar's length and make the IA speed faster and more aggressive etc.
I think that they should also add some diversity to the templar persona, to avoid any people complaining that it they are becoming 'cliche', Similar to how they were in AC1
We can learn nothing from this. This thread covers the opinions of about 4 people. Hardly a good sample to base conclusions on.

And again, it's not that easy to just add a difficulty system to a game like AC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it would be pretty easy to do what i ask them to do, only kill chains would require a bit more work but not that much... anyway, do whatever want to, i won't enjoy this gameplay, if you like to feel so ******ed that u can't even master a well timming attack then it's up to you, if you are so stupid that u can't understand that adding that timming attack system do killchains would not change the animations and the badass that ezio would be then it's also your fault... you don't understand what i mean when ac1 was better so i won't waste my keyboard speaking with you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not aimed at me but regardless of that, petty insults won't get you nowhere; Quite the opposite.

Either way, as LightRey already pointed out, this topic serves NO PURPOSE whatsoever. Ciao.

LightRey
10-29-2011, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by agitatedchimp:
I surpose what we can learn from this is that, Ubisoft should consider putting a difficulty setting on the game, which would do things like... restrict the sync bar's length and make the IA speed faster and more aggressive etc.
I think that they should also add some diversity to the templar persona, to avoid any people complaining that it they are becoming 'cliche', Similar to how they were in AC1
We can learn nothing from this. This thread covers the opinions of about 4 people. Hardly a good sample to base conclusions on.

And again, it's not that easy to just add a difficulty system to a game like AC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it would be pretty easy to do what i ask them to do, only kill chains would require a bit more work but not that much... anyway, do whatever want to, i won't enjoy this gameplay, if you like to feel so ******ed that u can't even master a well timming attack then it's up to you, if you are so stupid that u can't understand that adding that timming attack system do killchains would not change the animations and the badass that ezio would be then it's also your fault... you don't understand what i mean when ac1 was better so i won't waste my keyboard speaking with you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you know this of course because you're a master programmer that has actually examined the code of the AC games and knows how they work? AC wasn't designed to have a difficulty system. That generally means that it'd be hard to implement such a system, especially considering how complicated the games already are.

iN3krO
10-29-2011, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by agitatedchimp:
I surpose what we can learn from this is that, Ubisoft should consider putting a difficulty setting on the game, which would do things like... restrict the sync bar's length and make the IA speed faster and more aggressive etc.
I think that they should also add some diversity to the templar persona, to avoid any people complaining that it they are becoming 'cliche', Similar to how they were in AC1
We can learn nothing from this. This thread covers the opinions of about 4 people. Hardly a good sample to base conclusions on.

And again, it's not that easy to just add a difficulty system to a game like AC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it would be pretty easy to do what i ask them to do, only kill chains would require a bit more work but not that much... anyway, do whatever want to, i won't enjoy this gameplay, if you like to feel so ******ed that u can't even master a well timming attack then it's up to you, if you are so stupid that u can't understand that adding that timming attack system do killchains would not change the animations and the badass that ezio would be then it's also your fault... you don't understand what i mean when ac1 was better so i won't waste my keyboard speaking with you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you know this of course because you're a master programmer that has actually examined the code of the AC games and knows how they work? AC wasn't designed to have a difficulty system. That generally means that it'd be hard to implement such a system, especially considering how complicated the games already are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When they have things already working it's easy to make dificult system and change things already created, since they own the code then they know better then modders how to change it.

I'm no programmer but i have some knowledge (not that much but enough for what i need)

LightRey
10-29-2011, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
When they have things already working it's easy to make dificult system and change things already created, since they own the code then they know better then modders how to change it.

I'm no programmer but i have some knowledge (not that much but enough for what i need)
No it's not. AC has a huge amount of code. Just changing one parameter requires a huge number of changes throughout the entire code. I don't know how much experience you have with programming, but even with small programs with only a few hundred lines of code it's very hard to change a simple mechanic if the program wasn't designed to have that mechanic changed. With programming a task that one could expect to do in a few minutes very often turns out to take hours or even days.

Dagio12
10-29-2011, 07:45 AM
Actually it would be pretty easy to do what i ask them to do, only kill chains would require a bit more work but not that much... anyway, do whatever want to, i won't enjoy this gameplay, if you like to feel so ******ed that u can't even master a well timming attack then it's up to you, if you are so stupid that u can't understand that adding that timming attack system do killchains would not change the animations and the badass that ezio would be then it's also your fault... you don't understand what i mean when ac1 was better so i won't waste my keyboard speaking with you.

First of all, why do you constantly have to use the words "******", "stupid", "lazy", ...etc.. No offense, but thats rude and if you ever hope Ubi listens to you, you should probably knock that off, cause its hard to take you seriously.

Secondly, nobody here is "lazy" or "stupid" because they dont want or can't "master" the timing, trust me, most of us have played AC1, we've done it, we've been there.... it wasn't that hard, nor did it make it that much more balanced. What AC1 did do however, was limit you abilities for half the game, and then once you got all your abilities, you still didnt have that much to work with. Creating a system that many found pretty lackluster after a while.

Again, this is your opinion ( so dont push it off like its the way it HAS to be)... and there are many out there who disagree with you. I loved AC1, and for what it was, it was fine, however for me, the combat was not the most enjoyable for me.

Taking what BroHood has to offer and maybe making the guards a little more aggressive and/or unpredictable would be all I would care for... but really, the combat is the least of my worries.

Sarari
10-29-2011, 07:58 AM
One thing I don't like about the combat in ACB is that they always tell you who's going to attack you next. And that they ALWAYS throw dust at you, which never ever ever ever made sense to me.

I find fights in AC1 more enjoyable, because as we all know the combat in AC1 is slower, but once I kill like 30 of them in one place, it get this feeling that I'm the ultimate b.a. of the city and I feel accomplished.

With ACB though, if I kill like 50 guards it will go by in a blink of an eye and I won't feel as proud.

dxsxhxcx
10-29-2011, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Sarari:
One thing I don't like about the combat in ACB is that they always tell you who's going to attack you next. And that they ALWAYS throw dust at you, which never ever ever ever made sense to me.

I find fights in AC1 more enjoyable, because as we all know the combat in AC1 is slower, but once I kill like 30 of them in one place, it get this feeling that I'm the ultimate b.a. of the city and I feel accomplished.

With ACB though, if I kill like 50 guards it will go by in a blink of an eye and I won't feel as proud.

throw dust at us isn't the problem, the problem is not take advantage of that, what do they do once they throw dust at our face?! Wait until we clean our face to continue the battle instead of attack us.. :P

I think the combat style in ACB is good, it just need some balance, why killstreaks are 1HKO, IMO they should add a chance to an attack in a killstreak 1HKO our enemies (based on their health and class maybe), giving them the chance to defend/dodge or take less damage of a hit from a killstreak, in AC1 there were some guards that Altair couldn't kill with just one counter, so what he did was punch them away, this is something I don't see in AC2/B that they should bring back too...

they should do something about the medicine too, don't make it instantly heal "x" amount of our health, they should make medicine affect the speed the game automatically regenerate our health, making possible to our health to regenerate slowly during the battle and speed the process when we are out of battle, only a doctor should be able to heal large amounts of health instantly...