PDA

View Full Version : Speculations about AC2 *****SPOILERS*****



OSnailsO
11-28-2009, 08:03 PM
Weren't we promised more cities and bigger maps? It seems like florence and venice are the biggest and they only have like... 3 districts! It doesn't count as a district if it's outside of the city because no one would run around there because there is barely anything to do! What happened to our map sizes, our masquerae[sp] (It was only one little part of venice, with 1 mission quickly seperated into 4, while the rest of Venice didn't have any), Our missions that would change based on what we did, and our multiple flying machine missions! To me AC2, while being a good sequel, was a dissapointment. Also the graphics weren't as good. Just admit it they weren't, it didn't look good when you closed up to the assassination target, the water looked sub-par, and even the Ezio and Altair didn't look as good (even when they showed the mission with Altair he didn't look as good as AC1 Altair). Also we weren't able to walk around durring sequences (I can understand parts where you need to interact but there were only like 7 parts with that out of like 200 sequences!)

OSnailsO
11-28-2009, 08:03 PM
Weren't we promised more cities and bigger maps? It seems like florence and venice are the biggest and they only have like... 3 districts! It doesn't count as a district if it's outside of the city because no one would run around there because there is barely anything to do! What happened to our map sizes, our masquerae[sp] (It was only one little part of venice, with 1 mission quickly seperated into 4, while the rest of Venice didn't have any), Our missions that would change based on what we did, and our multiple flying machine missions! To me AC2, while being a good sequel, was a dissapointment. Also the graphics weren't as good. Just admit it they weren't, it didn't look good when you closed up to the assassination target, the water looked sub-par, and even the Ezio and Altair didn't look as good (even when they showed the mission with Altair he didn't look as good as AC1 Altair). Also we weren't able to walk around durring sequences (I can understand parts where you need to interact but there were only like 7 parts with that out of like 200 sequences!)

TooLazy4Name
11-28-2009, 09:30 PM
i agree with most of this aside from the graphics. the graphics were a huge improvment, on the non-character-model part. up close to character models werent to good. but the environment was a huge improvement.

Edengoth
11-28-2009, 11:59 PM
I thought the graphics were just drastically *different*. Certain details were improved, others sacrificed. For the characters, they looked a little more...it's hard to put one's finger on it, but I keep thinking of Antonio's mustache. That sort of detail was absent in AC1. But then you look at Desmond and his face looks smushy this time around. (I guess there was no way to exercise in Abstergo.)

Anyway, I liked not being able to walk around during cutscenes. It meant Ezio was actually DOING things. The cutscenes were usually shortened to make way for more interactive exposition anyway (like that memorable "tailing the Templars that must be blind or something and are all eventually blade-fodder" mission that ends at the Rialto Bridge).

NuclearFuss
11-29-2009, 06:03 AM
^ In that mission when the four of them started talking outside the basilica, you could see Ezio in the camera shot. I found that hilarious because even I noticed him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

OSnailsO
11-29-2009, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Edengoth:
I thought the graphics were just drastically *different*. Certain details were improved, others sacrificed. For the characters, they looked a little more...it's hard to put one's finger on it, but I keep thinking of Antonio's mustache. That sort of detail was absent in AC1. But then you look at Desmond and his face looks smushy this time around. (I guess there was no way to exercise in Abstergo.)

Anyway, I liked not being able to walk around during cutscenes. It meant Ezio was actually DOING things. The cutscenes were usually shortened to make way for more interactive exposition anyway (like that memorable "tailing the Templars that must be blind or something and are all eventually blade-fodder" mission that ends at the Rialto Bridge). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no reason for ANYTHING to be sacrificed. The character models sucked as I put in (Playing as altair again wasn't so good because
1. He didn't look as good
2. He couldn't kill
3. He didn't talk
Yeah!)

thekyle0
11-29-2009, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OSnailsO
Weren't we promised more cities and bigger maps? It seems like florence and venice are the biggest and they only have like... 3 districts! It doesn't count as a district if it's outside of the city because no one would run around there because there is barely anything to do! What happened to our map sizes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You must not be capable of counting or listening. The developers never said they were doing more than three districts for Florence, and it still had bigger districts than the cities of AC1. Also, Venice had 5 districts. All of them, except Dosoduro, was bigger than any district from AC1. That can barely be counted though because San Polo district alone was almost the size of an entire city from AC1.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OSnailsO
Our missions that would change based on what we did </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Missions did change based on what you did. For example, if you screwed up and became exposed then you had to chase down your target. The mission just went from "use stealth to reach the target" to "chase down the target". &gt;_&gt;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OSnailsO
our multiple flying machine missions! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you quote a developer saying that we would do multiple missions with the flying machine? I don't know why you'd want to do it again anyway. In my opinion, that was the worst level of the game.
A) The flying machine handled like it was dragging a pregnant elephant.
B) Most of the time was spent flying in a straight line to the next fire. Even kicking the archers off the rooftops was stupid because to lock onto them you had to fly toward them at just the right angle. And of course, that angle was the ideal position for you to be in so they could tear you to shreds with arrows.
C) Then the mission ends with a ****-easy chase around the palace courtyard.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OSnailsO
Also the graphics weren't as good. Just admit it they weren't, it didn't look good when you closed up to the assassination target, the water looked sub-par, and even the Ezio and Altair didn't look as good (even when they showed the mission with Altair he didn't look as good as AC1 Altair)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>The graphics were just fine. They weren't the best I've ever seen, but then again, we weren't promised the best graphics we've ever seen. So it isn't really a "lie about AC2". Also, Ezio wasn't in AC1 so I'm a little confused about what you're comparing him to. Also, did you consider that Altair looked different because Desmond wasn't in the animus? Everything looked filmy and foggy in the mission for a reason. If they made it crystal clear then it wouldn't be emphasizing the point that Desmond is reliving an ancestor's life without the animus.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OSnailsO
Playing as altair again wasn't so good because
2. He couldn't kill
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>You could kill as Altair, I was even able to make him to the air assassination from the hieght that Ezio can.

If you want to talk about "lies" then you should mention that there was never a scene where Ezio explains why he kills people to Leonardo. Patrice even said that was one of his favorite scenes, but it wasn't in the final game.

EDIT: Aaah, I just noticed that you changed the title from "Lies about AC2" to "Speculations about AC2" Just pointing this out so certain parts of my post still make sense.

OSnailsO
11-29-2009, 01:43 PM
1. The cities were smaller the outside was bigger though. I was just saying 3 as sarcasm (or how ever you say it). When you look at the map you can tell how small the districts are. It took me 7 min. to get across a city in AC1 and with Florence it take me more like 3.

2. My expectations for missions changing were a little more advanced than that... I meant something better than the original. It isn't that high tech that if you are caught someone runs.

3. It would have been nice to get the choice (I hated the flying machine too)

4. The graphics should improve not go lower (That is a pretty basic thing to understand). I meant how he looked like they half @$$ed him this time, Maria looked fine but Altair didn't.

5. Well blow me down... &gt;.&gt;

thekyle0
11-29-2009, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OSnailsO:
The cities were smaller the outside was bigger though. I was just saying 3 as sarcasm (or how ever you say it). When you look at the map you can tell how small the districts are. It took me 7 min. to get across a city in AC1 and with Florence it take me more like 3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I promise that Florence is bigger than any city from AC1. If you're able to move through the environment more quickly it's because of the way they were set up in AC2, not because they were smaller. There were at really long chains of posts, poles, and scaffolding at the sides of the buildings and hanging over the streets this time. These "free-running highways" make it easy to speed right through the environment. There wasn't as many of these in AC1. But I doubt the times you posted are authentic anyway.

OSnailsO
11-29-2009, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekyle0:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OSnailsO:
The cities were smaller the outside was bigger though. I was just saying 3 as sarcasm (or how ever you say it). When you look at the map you can tell how small the districts are. It took me 7 min. to get across a city in AC1 and with Florence it take me more like 3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I promise that Florence is bigger than any city from AC1. If you're able to move through the environment more quickly it's because of the way they were set up in AC2, not because they were smaller. There were at really long chains of posts, poles, and scaffolding at the sides of the buildings and hanging over the streets this time. These "free-running highways" make it easy to speed right through the environment. There wasn't as many of these in AC1. But I doubt the times you posted are authentic anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I run on buildings... It makes me feel like an eagle...