PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed and Guns



DLTyrus
01-06-2010, 06:13 PM
So what with having completed Assassin's Creed 2 after I got it for christmas, the end sequence got me thinking.


[WARNING - SPOILERS} (Just in case)



As you'll know if you've completed it, at the end of the game as the credits roll you fight some Abstergo lackies who just have some sticks. Now, this makes sense since of course Abstergo still want Desmond and don't want him dead, so it didn't really matter that they just fought with sticks.

But it made me think, surely the next game must have a significant amount of Desmond using his newly learned skills in the present day, and personally I'm hoping for the majority of the game to be set in the present but I'm guessing they still want to use the Animus and travel to the past and stuff, but it made me wonder just how the modern day assassins life would be due to the presence of guns. Bows and Arrows are one thing, but you'd think if you were trying to break into a place that guys with guns would make all that melee combat you learnt not all that useful, not to mention potentially changing the whole dynamic of the game in terms of if you attract a guards' attention you can't just run away or you'll take a bullet in the back.

Personally I hope its planned well and whenever they finally do make a game set with the majority in the present that it doesn't just feel like they've tried to come up with some excuses so that guns aren't a deciding factor. I think the coolest way to deal with it would just be simply take it head on and make it a gameplay mechanic that you have to use your free running abilities to get up close to guys before you can be shot. How do you guys reckon they plan to handle guards with guns if they have a game set in the present?

N3V30
01-06-2010, 06:27 PM
Same way you deal with archers probably.

sgt_brent
01-06-2010, 08:03 PM
I hope in AC3, they don't use guns much.. I, personally, believe AC should remain a blade and sword type of game.. The pistol on AC2 was cool - gadgets like that are sick.. But to have the game evolve around nothing but shooting elements I think would be a wrong move by Ubisoft; But frankly, I tihnk they know this, and wouldn't go down firearm road..

Psyantifik
01-06-2010, 08:15 PM
Yeh if they were to use guns it would be better titled "Splinter Cell - Desmond Theory" lol

They'll find away around it... just hope that doesn't mean some kind of knock-off "bullet-time" if guns are a factor.

Personally... in ACII you have that warehouse boasting climbing means, but what will become of the maps in the present. cause not many buildings these days are climbing friendly... (especially if they go with that modern, futuristic look like at Abstergo) e.g the swinging/freerunning poles lol

RoGi10
01-06-2010, 09:36 PM
There's a simple way with dealing with guns....


You're an assassin, don't get caught.

TheEpicWolf
01-06-2010, 09:41 PM
The climbing in the 3rd may be only in specific areas's on buildings which would mean they would have to put things on every building that may not fit with a futuristic look. But when you look out the windows in AC2 you see what looks like Florence style roofs, so maybe they will set in in places that have more Parkour friendly buildings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sgt_brent
01-07-2010, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by rogi10:
There's a simple way with dealing with guns....


You're an assassin, don't get caught.

Yeah, but then it would seem more of a Splinter Cell type game.. And that is NOT what, I think, fans of Assassins Creed want.. I know I don't..

With the exception of Splinter Cell, I don't like being constricted by the "don't get caught" aspect of games.. I think the way around contacting with guns in the next game will be extended time in the animus again.. I'm just guessing, of course.. Then maybe just free-running and limited close quarters combat between animus sessions.. But, I know - Then the gun issue again.. I dunno!!

caswallawn_2k7
01-07-2010, 07:19 AM
also another thing is if you use Desmond as the main person in AC3 you have two things the devs said they didn't like about games.

firstly you die and either re spawn or have to reload a previous save taking away a lot of the reality of the game, in the past 2 games you have never died you just de synced from the memory and it got reset.

secondly you bring in guns as in open world combat no1 in this time would chase a person using only close combat weapons, and due to it being 2012 (similar technology to us) they would also have helicopters, cars and bikes so it may as well just be re branded GTA (grand theft assassin)

sgt_brent
01-07-2010, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
also another thing is if you use Desmond as the main person in AC3 you have two things the devs said they didn't like about games.

firstly you die and either re spawn or have to reload a previous save taking away a lot of the reality of the game, in the past 2 games you have never died you just de synced from the memory and it got reset.

secondly you bring in guns as in open world combat no1 in this time would chase a person using only close combat weapons, and due to it being 2012 (similar technology to us) they would also have helicopters, cars and bikes so it may as well just be re branded GTA (grand theft assassin)

I don't like this either.. Just thought of something.. Maybe is Desmond travelled to somewhere like Rio De Janeiro.. Think the missions in MW2 free running over those rooftops.. It's modern - And Rio sure does have some religious ties.. Could very well work for me as far as a current day story goes, for Desmond..

DLTyrus
01-07-2010, 10:47 AM
also another thing is if you use Desmond as the main person in AC3 you have two things the devs said they didn't like about games.

firstly you die and either re spawn or have to reload a previous save taking away a lot of the reality of the game, in the past 2 games you have never died you just de synced from the memory and it got reset.

secondly you bring in guns as in open world combat no1 in this time would chase a person using only close combat weapons, and due to it being 2012 (similar technology to us) they would also have helicopters, cars and bikes so it may as well just be re branded GTA (grand theft assassin)

Agree with this, essentially the concerns I had for the game when trying to think of how a modern-day setting might work.

The problem is though, they have to set one game majorly in the future, atleast IMO, or I will be severly dissapointed if we only ever see short spans of Desmond's life in between Animus time. The first game set the scene and uncovered the starts of the tempalr conspiracy, but this game not only skyrocketed the conspiracy to reveal a greater destiny for Desmond in the present day, and also spent time specifically training Desmond with Ezio's abilities, so that Desmond can fight.

They can maybe get away with one more game set with the majority in the Animus before the idea is going to get old IMHO, or atleast before the plot starts to not make sense that Desmond keeps looking in the past in spite of (Spoilers)<span class="ev_code_GREY"> <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> the need for him to track down the temples that Minerva spoke of to prevent the apparent impending doom presented by the Solar Flare. </pre></span>(End Spoilers).

But the fact that the enemy could now use helicopters, cars, guns, etc. would certainly massively impact on the gameplay. I am certain that Desmond won't use guns himself, because for one he never had training in guns from the Animus and two it doesn't seem to be the Assassin's style.

Perhaps the Helicopter thing won't be an issue, though, because Abstergo is still secretive about its evil doing, right? It can't afford to pull a full blown manhunt for Desmond and co. without attracting a lot of attention, and things like Helicopters could either be left out entirely for that reason or just used in very specific places where their presence doesn't spoil the gameplay.

I think if a game is set in the future, then becoming Notorious will be a LOT worse than it is in the current games. As it stands even if you get exposed and are surrounded by about 10 or 15 guards, once you have mastered the combat system then you can just fight them all off with no issue or flee and quickly escape.

I think it would be an interesting dynamic if getting caught suddenly became a big threat because you could be shot, and they could make it a gameplay point that if you get attacked by a gun-wielding guard then you have to dive behind cover immediately or you'll get shot.

They could do other things too, like have missions whereby you have one of the other guys with you, and make it a team effort whereby they distract a guard and you have to get to them and kill them or something, there's several ways they could deal with it so that the game is still the same.

Remember, as well, that the original concept of Assassin's Creed was the use of social stealth, aka, hiding in plain site and sneaking past guards that way. Sadly, the sheer effectiveness of your combat skills and free running abilities mean that most of the time running across the rooves is much faster and more effective. I think it would be a cool dynamic if suddenly staying hidden is more essential to staying alive, and they could make more use of disguises and such.

As for the thing about dying and restarting, well, I do agree that being in the Animus and having the whole "desync" thing instead of dying is an interesting idea, and definitely a good way of explaining dying and I can see why they are reluctant to drop that and resort to more old fashioned "respawning", but I really cannot see how maintaining a unique concept around not really dying can be more important than having a game in the present so we can finally get to be Desmond and do what he needs to do.

icrash
01-07-2010, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by DLTyrus:
Perhaps the Helicopter thing won't be an issue, though, because Abstergo is still secretive about its evil doing, right? It can't afford to pull a full blown manhunt for Desmond and co. without attracting a lot of attention, and things like Helicopters could either be left out entirely for that reason or just used in very specific places where their presence doesn't spoil the gameplay.


Ah, but they could put on a full blown hunt & get away with it. Simply take a page from the assassins's book & hide it all in plain sight. All vehicles used are a different make/model/color (including any helos) with no company markings. Unless something monumentally stupid or unlucky occurs, who would ever know?

caswallawn_2k7
01-07-2010, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by icrash:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DLTyrus:
Perhaps the Helicopter thing won't be an issue, though, because Abstergo is still secretive about its evil doing, right? It can't afford to pull a full blown manhunt for Desmond and co. without attracting a lot of attention, and things like Helicopters could either be left out entirely for that reason or just used in very specific places where their presence doesn't spoil the gameplay.


Ah, but they could put on a full blown hunt & get away with it. Simply take a page from the assassins's book & hide it all in plain sight. All vehicles used are a different make/model/color (including any helos) with no company markings. Unless something monumentally stupid or unlucky occurs, who would ever know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
or they just get people inside the police to allow them control of the force. they obviously have a lot of money they could obviously buy (bribe) a police force and keep it quiet.

DLTyrus
01-07-2010, 12:08 PM
True enough, they could make you out to be criminals and get the police on you, but it seems pretty evident with the plot in the modern day of AC2 that the Templars are prefectly capable of tracking down people without going on an all out manhunt, no? After all they

<spoiler>

find your hideout finally at the end of the game, with no indication they did anything like get the police involved etc.

</spoiler>

Anyway, I think they could get away with omiting the fact that Abstergo might search using cars or helicopters without it seeming too silly, if its inclusion would too badly distract from the gameplay they want, but guns are kind of harder to ignore since it there would be little reason for them not to be used. You could say, perhaps, they wouldn't use guns out on the streets etc. perhaps not to draw attention and might just chase you and try to catch you, but as soon as you infiltrate some kind of office or something then surely armed guards would be present - but then, you might be able to get close enough to disarm them then, who knows.

icrash
01-07-2010, 01:07 PM
I guess one of the biggest reasons for excluding guns would be the fact Abstergo still wants Desmond alive. The only thing that would change this is if they no longer needed Desmond. Remember in AC1, Vidic gave Desmond the choice to cooperate or get put into a coma, used & then disposed of.

bladencrowd
01-07-2010, 04:24 PM
The chance of getting away from the police is extremely minimal. Killing one police officer would make you a wanted criminal no matter what. You can't simply bribe/threaten multiple witness or policemen. Once the media knows your as good as dead. Also, the police would send a helicopter to follow you (high-speed chase) if you made an attempt to escape by vehicle. Escaping by foot would be suicide.

Guns would also ruin the game (3+ men with guns should kill a master assassin without a gun.) ;unless Ubisoft makes Desmond become Spider-man. I pray they won't make some cheap knock-off such as "Eagle Sense".

Fenro
01-08-2010, 01:47 AM
Perhaps in the third instalment if desmond goes into field missions, they have one apple of eden secured and can use this to make the guns jammed and useles :P just a thought.

itsamea-mario
01-08-2010, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by TheEpicWolf:
The climbing in the 3rd may be only in specific areas's on buildings which would mean they would have to put things on every building that may not fit with a futuristic look. But when you look out the windows in AC2 you see what looks like Florence style roofs, so maybe they will set in in places that have more Parkour friendly buildings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ys but (and i think someone has already said this) its likely that desmond will be travelling the world, to find pieces of eden and temples n stuff, so could travel to more parkour friendly places. also mirrors edge managed to be succsesful in a modern city.

itsamea-mario
01-08-2010, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by bladencrowd:
The chance of getting away from the police is extremely minimal. Killing one police officer would make you a wanted criminal no matter what. You can't simply bribe/threaten multiple witness or policemen. Once the media knows your as good as dead. Also, the police would send a helicopter to follow you (high-speed chase) if you made an attempt to escape by vehicle. Escaping by foot would be suicide.

Guns would also ruin the game (3+ men with guns should kill a master assassin without a gun.) ;unless Ubisoft makes Desmond become Spider-man. I pray they won't make some cheap knock-off such as "Eagle Sense".

well i dont think youll fight cops. mainly abstergo ppl.

Why do i just think this game will be a copy of splinter cell, with an assassins creed glaze.

reviewers will have to pay me to use that when the game comes out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

vI Demon Iv
01-08-2010, 12:43 PM
Guns do not belong in AC, period.

If AC3 is solely in, or very heavily in, present day, I will not buy it. AC is about old world.

Due to images seen in the end, I'm guessing/hoping/praying AC3 will be in the time of the Mayans, running around their cities.

DLTyrus
01-08-2010, 12:51 PM
AC isn't about old world, though, the only reason we've gone back to the past is to find out what we need to know about the present. The plot is far more important than maintaining the nice and unique medieval atmosphere that the games are popular for, atleast IMO.

itsamea-mario
01-08-2010, 12:53 PM
ppl are sayin they wont buy it if its all modern day and they want another pointless history one, well i wont buy it unless it is in the modern day, maybe visit ancestors, for short periods, either through the animus or from the bleeding effect.

vI Demon Iv
01-08-2010, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by DLTyrus:
AC isn't about old world, though, the only reason we've gone back to the past is to find out what we need to know about the present. The plot is far more important than maintaining the nice and unique medieval atmosphere that the games are popular for, atleast IMO.
Putting the game in the present will change it fundamentally. Climbing skyscrapers is just too much.
Both the AC games have been my favorite games ever, next to FF7. I will not buy an AC that's in present day, I will just hold on to my fond memories of the past. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way, but I'm also sure many agree with you. In the end it's up to Ubisoft, we can only voice our opinions.

DLTyrus
01-08-2010, 05:22 PM
I personally will buy it regardless, but I will be dissapointed if its not in the present day, or atleast 50/50, and I will start to have serious concerns that the plot will ever progress if they prove to be unwilling to leave the Animus.


Remember, though, (spoilers)



Minerva says this in the final scene with Ezio in the Vault:


Minerva: Be quick! For time grows short. And guard against the cross - for there are many who will stand in your way.

Do we really have time to spend another entire game digging through the Animus? Unless the game is set over a short period of time, say, a week, then wasting time looking through the Animus will surely lead them to fail at finding the temples in time. There simply must be a significant amount of present-day gameplay in order for the ending of AC2 to make any sense in my mind.

Datashocker
01-09-2010, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by DemonI81:
...In the end it's up to Ubisoft, we can only voice our opinions.
Yes, but your opinions have an effect on the final product. Look how much they changed AC2 based on consumers opinions of the first game.

vI Demon Iv
01-09-2010, 11:33 AM
I don't think the story must be set heavily/entirely in the present to fully work out the plot.
It's all about how they handle the story. There could simply be very little story to tell in the present. For example, the piece of Eden could've been lost long ago and now they're still looking for it in the present. You spend most of the time in the Animus, find where it is, go to the present and get it. The entire part of the story in the present could be done in a couple/few memory sequences worth of play.
AC2 had 12 memory sequences (14 but 2 were missing, can't wait for them in DLC). If they made AC3 the same length or a little longer, they could dedicated 1/5-1/4 of the memory sequences to the present and that would, if done correctly, be more than enough.
Then again they could do the story much differently and need the vast majority of the game, if not the entire game, to be in the present.
This is what I meant when I said, in the end it's up to Ubisoft. From looking at other forums discussing the location/time period of AC3, it seems to be pretty much split down the middle between old world and present. The devs will be the tie breaker here. I'm sure they already know exactly where and when it will be, they're just not going to tell us for another year or so.

DLTyrus
01-09-2010, 12:46 PM
Yes, but your opinions have an effect on the final product. Look how much they changed AC2 based on consumers opinions of the first game.

Thats true, which is why it worries me that so many people say they won't play a game thats set in the present, because I can't see how the series can progress without it.


I don't think the story must be set heavily/entirely in the present to fully work out the plot.
It's all about how they handle the story. There could simply be very little story to tell in the present. For example, the piece of Eden could've been lost long ago and now they're still looking for it in the present. You spend most of the time in the Animus, find where it is, go to the present and get it. The entire part of the story in the present could be done in a couple/few memory sequences worth of play.
AC2 had 12 memory sequences (14 but 2 were missing, can't wait for them in DLC). If they made AC3 the same length or a little longer, they could dedicated 1/5-1/4 of the memory sequences to the present and that would, if done correctly, be more than enough.
Then again they could do the story much differently and need the vast majority of the game, if not the entire game, to be in the present.
This is what I meant when I said, in the end it's up to Ubisoft. From looking at other forums discussing the location/time period of AC3, it seems to be pretty much split down the middle between old world and present. The devs will be the tie breaker here. I'm sure they already know exactly where and when it will be, they're just not going to tell us for another year or so.

The story has progressed beyond simply finding the pieces of Eden, though, and I'm assuming here you've seen the end scene of AC2, but if not, don't read on.



With another impending solar flare, Desmond needs to find the temples to stop it, which are situated all over the globe, which you see on the map after you find all the Codex pieces. The only way we could still spend most of the time in the Animus and still find the temples is if we find, like, one per game. IMO, though, that would suck and cause this part of the story to drag out too long, and the only benefit of doing this is to maintain the advantages to the gameplay that being in the Animus presents.

Story > Gameplay, atleast in a single player game like this. If the story starts to lose momentum or become silly, the game might well become boring for a lot of people.

vI Demon Iv
01-09-2010, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by DLTyrus:
With another impending solar flare, Desmond needs to find the temples to stop it, which are situated all over the globe, which you see on the map after you find all the Codex pieces. The only way we could still spend most of the time in the Animus and still find the temples is if we find, like, one per game. IMO, though, that would suck and cause this part of the story to drag out too long, and the only benefit of doing this is to maintain the advantages to the gameplay that being in the Animus presents.
I agree that would drag the story out way too long and become boring. What I don't agree with is that Desmond has to go to the temples in the present.
Why couldn't he find one in the Animus then the people in the real world go to the temple, while Desmond stays in the Animus finding the next one?
Is this a good idea? I have no idea, I'm just pulling stuff off the top of my head, I really haven't thought that much about it. I'm just trying to say, there's ways it could be done without becoming just another present day, city crawler. We have more than enough of those games.
What happens to this game if it goes completely present day, the weapons for example? Are you gonna be running around with an M16? .50 cal sniper rifle? Again, we have enough of those games. My fear is that AC is going to lose everything that makes it unique.

alexgrimaudo_94
01-09-2010, 03:10 PM
I think if they put guns in the game, and if it is set in the modern day, then the game will be too much like gta.

nitres15
01-09-2010, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by alexgrimaudo_94:
I think if they put guns in the game, and if it is set in the modern day, then the game will be too much like gta.

a ubisoft montreal game..... GTA`s creed

BK-110
01-09-2010, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by DemonI81:

I agree that would drag the story out way too long and become boring. What I don't agree with is that Desmond has to go to the temples in the present.
Why couldn't he find one in the Animus then the people in the real world go to the temple, while Desmond stays in the Animus finding the next one?


Sure he has to do something in the present. The point of Desmond visiting Ezio's memories in the first place in Assassin's Creed II, was for him to learn Ezio's skills to make him a real Assassin. That alone implies, that we will get to play as him. And remember that one conversation between Desmond and Lucy after the revelation that the Assassins were losing the war and that they wanted to train Desmond for that reason:

Desmond: But I'm only one man!
Lucy: Sometimes that's all you need.

This and pretty much everything said by (spoiler)<span class="ev_code_WHITE">Minerva</span>(/spoiler) implies heavily that Desmond will play a significant role in the present.

DLTyrus
01-09-2010, 05:09 PM
I never said, or thought, that Desmond or the Assassin's would use guns, let alone assault rifles. My original point about guns was just how Ubisoft would handle the fact that security guards in the present day would use guns, whether pistols or SMGs, it would be hard to keep coming up with convenient excuses for why they only ever used stun-sticks or something.

I agree that the assassin's should not use guns, thats not their style, but I think it would be silly to entirely ignore the presence of guns in the present day just because it presents some gameplay issues with the Assassin's melee fighting style.

@DemonI81

Minerva seemed pretty adamant that it was Desmond's destiny to find the temples, and given the way the game works so far, he might NEED to be the one to find them because chances are they'll be like Assassin's Tombs, or atleast, they won't open for anyone but Desmond or something like that. I think it would be very anti-climatic if all Desmond's role was in the end was to go and watch his Ancestors find these temples - thats assuming he even has an ancestor that visited each one.

caswallawn_2k7
01-09-2010, 05:26 PM
every1 is over looking one fact, the entire assassin faction in the future is trying to save the world. were by them saying Desmond is the key all it means is he is central to finding/using the devices to save the world.

now what if the key was by reliving a much much older ancestor he could back to when these temples were being created/designed and find out the locations/entrances/operation of each temple then the assassins just need to send out a team to each with the entrance location and operation instructions to activate the tomb and then the story resolves it's self in very little real world story.

in the future you would only need a bit interaction, deploying teams and relaying the info and maybe just to make it interesting have the central temple held by the templars and Desmond must make his way in and activate it before the rest of the stations will work.

the story still resolves and the vast majority of the game could be set in a past time and since the temples would be enclosed areas the chance of ranged combat would be much smaller allowing them to negate the use of guns, also due to it being mainly in the past you don't have the free run problems that a modern city would have.

hewkii9
01-09-2010, 07:09 PM
If we get a contemporary city to run around in for AC3, it won't be New York. Places that still have the right buildings to climb and jump around on would be places where you're unlikely to find the same amount of guards with guns as we got guards with swords. Most guards could have things like bobby sticks or tasers, and guns could be introduced to the player as a bigger menace, like the brutes.

Also, since Lucy wanted to train Desmond to be an assassin using the same methods that an assassin five hundred years ago used, they must clearly be relevant today as well.

InfernalTyrant
01-09-2010, 07:22 PM
It would be worth it to have it in Dubai, just so you could climb this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Burj_Dubai-Dubai3214.JPG/308px-Burj_Dubai-Dubai3214.JPG

DLTyrus
01-09-2010, 08:26 PM
every1 is over looking one fact, the entire assassin faction in the future is trying to save the world. were by them saying Desmond is the key all it means is he is central to finding/using the devices to save the world.

now what if the key was by reliving a much much older ancestor he could back to when these temples were being created/designed and find out the locations/entrances/operation of each temple then the assassins just need to send out a team to each with the entrance location and operation instructions to activate the tomb and then the story resolves it's self in very little real world story.

in the future you would only need a bit interaction, deploying teams and relaying the info and maybe just to make it interesting have the central temple held by the templars and Desmond must make his way in and activate it before the rest of the stations will work.

the story still resolves and the vast majority of the game could be set in a past time and since the temples would be enclosed areas the chance of ranged combat would be much smaller allowing them to negate the use of guns, also due to it being mainly in the past you don't have the free run problems that a modern city would have.


Well, I can't necessarily say this plot idea doesn't work, but I can that if this is the direction they took the game then it would, for me personally, go from "one of the best storylines I've ever played" to "meh."

Though, your idea doesn't really explain why they trained Desmond to be able to fight, if he never uses it.

Datashocker
01-09-2010, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
Most guards could have things like bobby sticks or tasers, and guns could be introduced to the player as a bigger menace, like the brutes.
This is the best idea I've seen so far. And we already have a dodge ability, so why not make an animation with whoever has the gun bringing it up to fire, and if you press the button at the right time then you move out of the way right before he shoots you. Also, if Desmond uses guns, then I think it should be a similar system to AC2's pistol. The entire reason you had to hold the button down was so that Ezio could aim the pistol correctly. If you just pressed the button it would fire horribly inaccurately, to the point of being useless. I don't see why this same system cant be applied to AC3, at least for single fire and semi-automatic weapons. I don't know how machine guns would work in an AC environment though.

DeSabellis
01-09-2010, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by DLTyrus:
I agree that the assassin's should not use guns, thats not their style, but I think it would be silly to entirely ignore the presence of guns in the present day just because it presents some gameplay issues with the Assassin's melee fighting style.


I was pretty disappointed that in the transition between AC 1 and AC 2, the same security guards who shot and killed Assassins that were trying to rescue Desmond, suddenly only had batons. To me, I think the most unrealistic aspect of Assassins Creed is the fact that no firearms seem to exist in 2012. It doesn't fit with the times- in the same manner that automobiles eventually replaced horses, firearms eventually replaced melee weapons. In all honesty, why wouldn't anyone chose a firearm over a baton and/or knife?

Even the hidden blade that Desmond gets at the end of the game doesn't have the hidden gun on it (if it is Ezio's). Seriously, no one would pass up a Remington 870 for a nightstick.

extrajuicy
01-10-2010, 04:50 AM
thats a pretty good idea demon, mayans, world's end and 2012 it makes sense

itsamea-mario
01-10-2010, 05:37 AM
well hell be looking for temples probably, these could be located in climable areas, and people want the past, maybe desmond passes out and goes into an ancestors memory, and maybe finds a way to fight the templars, and save the world. and for guns, well he probably already knows how to use guns and its not that hard to learn, hell probably go to poorer areas, were militias will be located, these could be allied, and as for getting shot, nobody seems to have a quarrel with bieng shot with an arrow, which is almost as deadly, and in close combat they could would use pistols, (which could be disarms) tazersticks, and knives, desmond will probably use to stealth more than weve seen, and you might find allies who could dispose of helicopters, you might be able to get people to jam signals, or even use pieces of eden for that. and cars cant go up buildings. also are we all forgetting that mirrors edge was very succsesful in the city.

vI Demon Iv
01-10-2010, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
every1 is over looking one fact, the entire assassin faction in the future is trying to save the world. were by them saying Desmond is the key all it means is he is central to finding/using the devices to save the world.

now what if the key was by reliving a much much older ancestor he could back to when these temples were being created/designed and find out the locations/entrances/operation of each temple then the assassins just need to send out a team to each with the entrance location and operation instructions to activate the tomb and then the story resolves it's self in very little real world story.

in the future you would only need a bit interaction, deploying teams and relaying the info and maybe just to make it interesting have the central temple held by the templars and Desmond must make his way in and activate it before the rest of the stations will work.

the story still resolves and the vast majority of the game could be set in a past time and since the temples would be enclosed areas the chance of ranged combat would be much smaller allowing them to negate the use of guns, also due to it being mainly in the past you don't have the free run problems that a modern city would have.
This is what I was trying to say, but you said it much better, thank you.

"also are we all forgetting that mirrors edge was very succsesful in the city."
That was Mirror's Edge, not AC. I'm looking at it kinda like this: Imagine Bethesda deciding that the next Oblivion would be send in present day. In my mind AC was designed to be a game set in much older times, changing that, in my opinion, would change the game, it would no longer be AC.
That's not to say there should be no present day play, there should, just very little.

I must admit, I have a soft spot for the Mayans. I've been to Chichen Itza, I've been on many of the buildings there (I went during the solstice though so no one was allowed to climb the main pyramid that day, but I got to see the snake shadow running down the pyramid). I want to play AC there, with the city in its fully glory and all.

BK-110
01-10-2010, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by DemonI81:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
every1 is over looking one fact, the entire assassin faction in the future is trying to save the world. were by them saying Desmond is the key all it means is he is central to finding/using the devices to save the world.

now what if the key was by reliving a much much older ancestor he could back to when these temples were being created/designed and find out the locations/entrances/operation of each temple then the assassins just need to send out a team to each with the entrance location and operation instructions to activate the tomb and then the story resolves it's self in very little real world story.

in the future you would only need a bit interaction, deploying teams and relaying the info and maybe just to make it interesting have the central temple held by the templars and Desmond must make his way in and activate it before the rest of the stations will work.

the story still resolves and the vast majority of the game could be set in a past time and since the temples would be enclosed areas the chance of ranged combat would be much smaller allowing them to negate the use of guns, also due to it being mainly in the past you don't have the free run problems that a modern city would have.
This is what I was trying to say, but you said it much better, thank you.

"also are we all forgetting that mirrors edge was very succsesful in the city."
That was Mirror's Edge, not AC. I'm looking at it kinda like this: Imagine Bethesda deciding that the next Oblivion would be send in present day. In my mind AC was designed to be a game set in much older times, changing that, in my opinion, would change the game, it would no longer be AC.
That's not to say there should be no present day play, there should, just very little.

I must admit, I have a soft spot for the Mayans. I've been to Chichen Itza, I've been on many of the buildings there (I went during the solstice though so no one was allowed to climb the main pyramid that day, but I got to see the snake shadow running down the pyramid). I want to play AC there, with the city in its fully glory and all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if you say that, it doesn't change the fact that the primary reason Desmond was put into the Animus in ACII was for him to become trained as an Assassin! Why would he be trained to become a super Assassin, why would that conversation between Desmond and Lucy, that I mentioned earlier, have taken place, if Desmond was just to be used as a Human GPS anyway? That would take all meaning out of Desmond being trained. Seeing as Desmond is seemingly incredibly important, with the Assassins seeming to see him as a savior and training him to be ready to face his enemies in the present and save the world from impending doom, I can't see how there wouldn't have to be considerable amount of gameplay in the present.

How about going going with an ancestor to a PoE location in the past, either using the animus or the bleeding effect (which could be interesting, as we could change between a location in past and present at any time) and then finding this location in the present, changing circumstances due to differences in enemies, weapons and changed environments and thereby creating a lot of diversity. This way we could travel to many places in a variety of different times with a variety of different ancestors.

Just a suggestion of mine. In the end, I agree visiting the past should still be an important part of the game, but there should be quite an amount of present gameplay as well.