PDA

View Full Version : Give me back my Freedom. :(



UnHoly__One
11-27-2010, 10:58 AM
This is a plea to Ubisoft for the next installment of Assassin's Creed. (Minor quest spoilers below)

Please return some of the freedom that we had in AC1 and AC2. The restrictions in this game were beyond ridiculous.

Missions with asinine requirements like "Don't Be Detected, and Don't Kill Anyone". C'mon, seriously?? When did this become "Pacifism Creed"??

There are so many missions with ludicrous ways to fail them, I couldn't wait for the game to be over with so I could see the end of the story and never play the single player game again.

Follow a dude into a restricted area without being detected by him or the guards. Have your recruits kill the person he just talked to, but wait until he is gone before you do it or they will be detected and you will fail. Then chase him down before he gets away, do this 2 more times, then go into a play in disguise, but never mind that you can walk directly to your target and kill him, we force you to first walk to this specific spot with a time limit, then to another spot, then a third. Ok, now you can go kill the guy even though nothing could have really stopped you the first time anyway other than an arbitrary desynchronization.

What happened to the freedom of the original where you gave us a target and just set us loose? Let US figure out how to get to him, and if we screw up we fight our way out and chase him down, we don't insta-fail and go back to a checkpoint because we didn't do everything exactly how you wanted us to do it.

But the missions aren't the only thing that had it's freedom removed. Any quest-related platforming is also mostly just a single path to the top. The Castel Sant'Angelo comes to mind. We are just forced along a path with no choice of deviating from it.

Even the chase scenes are scripted and there is no way to catch your target until the designated "end" of the chase area.

It's ridiculous. I love the AC series more than anything but I've never seen a game ruined like what was done to AC:B.

I feel like I had more freedom playing Heavy Rain, and that was just an interactive cut-scene.

I'm not trolling or trying to start a flame war here, I just felt I should at least make an attempt to make my feelings known to the guys behind the game. Anyone who agrees with me that this game was a little to "On Rails", please post your feelings here as well.

UnHoly__One
11-27-2010, 10:58 AM
This is a plea to Ubisoft for the next installment of Assassin's Creed. (Minor quest spoilers below)

Please return some of the freedom that we had in AC1 and AC2. The restrictions in this game were beyond ridiculous.

Missions with asinine requirements like "Don't Be Detected, and Don't Kill Anyone". C'mon, seriously?? When did this become "Pacifism Creed"??

There are so many missions with ludicrous ways to fail them, I couldn't wait for the game to be over with so I could see the end of the story and never play the single player game again.

Follow a dude into a restricted area without being detected by him or the guards. Have your recruits kill the person he just talked to, but wait until he is gone before you do it or they will be detected and you will fail. Then chase him down before he gets away, do this 2 more times, then go into a play in disguise, but never mind that you can walk directly to your target and kill him, we force you to first walk to this specific spot with a time limit, then to another spot, then a third. Ok, now you can go kill the guy even though nothing could have really stopped you the first time anyway other than an arbitrary desynchronization.

What happened to the freedom of the original where you gave us a target and just set us loose? Let US figure out how to get to him, and if we screw up we fight our way out and chase him down, we don't insta-fail and go back to a checkpoint because we didn't do everything exactly how you wanted us to do it.

But the missions aren't the only thing that had it's freedom removed. Any quest-related platforming is also mostly just a single path to the top. The Castel Sant'Angelo comes to mind. We are just forced along a path with no choice of deviating from it.

Even the chase scenes are scripted and there is no way to catch your target until the designated "end" of the chase area.

It's ridiculous. I love the AC series more than anything but I've never seen a game ruined like what was done to AC:B.

I feel like I had more freedom playing Heavy Rain, and that was just an interactive cut-scene.

I'm not trolling or trying to start a flame war here, I just felt I should at least make an attempt to make my feelings known to the guys behind the game. Anyone who agrees with me that this game was a little to "On Rails", please post your feelings here as well.

tyrce111
11-27-2010, 11:04 AM
it is prety stupid when it says: catch the dude! but you cant lock onto him so that you can shoot him...

E-Zekiel
11-27-2010, 11:04 AM
I will sum up my opinions to say this:


I disagree with you. These were supposed to be respectable people who didn't kill just to kill, they weren't bloodthirsty murderers - they had a purpose, and supported the common will of the people.

Even in AC2 and AC:B Both, I would, as often as I possibly could, try to knock guards out (IE using bare hands) if I could manage it without getting too messed up, myself. I have done so many stealth knockouts in AC:B It's ridiculous.

All in all, I just don't care, sorry. I like that they want us to play this way. There are still a ton of ways and variables to spice things up, even like this.

That said, I do agree with you about the wall climbing though. In AC1 it felt the most free. There were ways to climb up just about any wall, almost none of them just had 1 set path. In AC2, most were like this, but they were starting to lean toward puzzle solving a little bit.

I think in AC:B they made too much of it. When I want to run up a wall, I would rather just run up it and climb it. I don't really want wall climbing to be a puzzle, even if it would be IRL. The feel of free running is speed and acrobatics and awesomeness - having to solve a puzzle to climb a wall honestly breaks my immersion.


But aside from that point, yeah. I really disagree with you.

shadowoflax2
11-27-2010, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:

Even in AC2 and AC:B Both, I would, as often as I possibly could, try to knock guards out (IE using bare hands) if I could manage it without getting too messed up, myself. I have done so many stealth knockouts in AC:B It's ridiculous.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I purposely bring my short sword out and slice them from behind....

But in other news, I do agree with your point of the scripted kills. In all honesty there was no reason you need to touch the ground during the play sequence. You could have just shot him with a crossbow. The disappointing thing with the game, minus the lack of creativity in terms of customization with the assassins, would be the fact that you do not have the freedom to kill as you want to kill. There should be no reason that being detected causes you to lose the game. If you are detected, then a chase sequence (such as the one in the two earlier games) should ensue that allows you to track and kill as you see fit.

Nick1021
11-27-2010, 12:49 PM
Agreed. I really wanted to do things my way which would of been cooler and more fun.

And I understand they wanted to make it more difficult but their is a thin line between hard and just irritating.

Like the tank mission. Never get hit while in the tank. But if we get hit once we have start the mission all over. Why not just a checkpoint.
And I hate the castello missions. One stupid jump, one miscalculated shot and you have to start allll over.

Why not checkpoints? It's still hard but not irritating.

rb2610
11-27-2010, 12:54 PM
You know all the "kill 'x' in 'this' way" sort of objectives are just optional for full sync, you can do most of the missions however you want, they're just an extra challenge if you want to go for 100%

BloodyMoon1
11-27-2010, 12:55 PM
Well, most of the stuff like not killing people is just for the 100% so you don't HAVE to do it. But there are some missions that you can't be detected, but that's mostly when you're inside of a enemy fortress of some kind, so when you're detected, you'd pretty much be locked in and surrounded. Besides, how assassin-like would it be if you run through a crowd of people flailing around a sword?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rb2610:
You know all the "kill 'x' in 'this' way" sort of objectives are just optional for full sync, you can do most of the missions however you want, they're just an extra challenge if you want to go for 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^Exactly^

Nick1021
11-27-2010, 12:57 PM
But I want 100% sync.

I can deal with the silly objectives restricting my freedom, even though I want them gone. But all I want is checkpoints so I don't have to start over because of some stupid camera angle messing up my jump.

Keksus
11-27-2010, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Pacifism Creed" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you play an assassin ... no warrior. So you should only assassinate your assigned targets. And freedom in AC2? That made me laugh.

BloodyMoon1
11-27-2010, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Keksus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Pacifism Creed" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you play an assassin ... no warrior. So you should only assassinate your assigned targets. And freedom in AC2? That made me laugh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's got a point. John Wilkes Booth only killed Lincon, it's not like he ran in there with a sword slicing everyone to ribbons.

Nick1021
11-27-2010, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BloodyMoon1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Keksus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Pacifism Creed" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you play an assassin ... no warrior. So you should only assassinate your assigned targets. And freedom in AC2? That made me laugh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's got a point. John Wilkes Booth only killed Lincon, it's not like he ran in there with a sword slicing everyone to ribbons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What if he did? Do you have any proof he didn't?

BloodyMoon1
11-27-2010, 01:14 PM
Yea, all the recorded stuff about him shooting Lincon. That was a stupid question. He cut someone's arm during the escape, but didn't kill him.

BloodyMoon1
11-27-2010, 01:16 PM
I'm guessing next you're gonna say Kennedy was killed by someone wielding a scimitar?

Nick1021
11-27-2010, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BloodyMoon1:
I'm guessing next you're gonna say Kennedy was killed by someone wielding a scimitar? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you would know how?

E-Zekiel
11-27-2010, 01:24 PM
Clearly the point this imbeciles are making is that every assassin in the history of assassin goes through fantastic chases unscathed to kill a target that is running for their life with a large number of nearby allies. Said assassin cuts down as many people as possible or as they like on the way to killing their target and is unstoppable.

Sorry. I'm glad for the restrictions. A level of professionalism makes the game better.

BloodyMoon1
11-27-2010, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick1021:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BloodyMoon1:
I'm guessing next you're gonna say Kennedy was killed by someone wielding a scimitar? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you would know how? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You REALLY wanna argue that one? Go to youtube and look up JFK Zapruder Film Closeup. I'm not going to post a link of him getting shot because it's kinda graphic at the end, but if you really wanna argue that assassin's should kill everything, this proves you wrong. 1 target, 1 shot.

BloodyMoon1
11-27-2010, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
Clearly the point this imbeciles are making is that every assassin in the history of assassin goes through fantastic chases unscathed to kill a target that is running for their life with a large number of nearby allies. Said assassin cuts down as many people as possible or as they like on the way to killing their target and is unstoppable.

Sorry. I'm glad for the restrictions. A level of professionalism makes the game better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I guess some people just aren't good enough to do it like we are. Only one I need 100% on now is the tank, which sucks because if you get hit you have to start all over &gt;.&lt;

X10J
11-27-2010, 01:28 PM
Yea, Lee Harvey Oswald is the first recorded user of the Mk3 Scimitar Launcher. greatest sniper rifle of all time.

Nick1021
11-27-2010, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BloodyMoon1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick1021:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BloodyMoon1:
I'm guessing next you're gonna say Kennedy was killed by someone wielding a scimitar? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you would know how? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You REALLY wanna argue that one? Go to youtube and look up JFK Zapruder Film Closeup. I'm not going to post a link of him getting shot because it's kinda graphic at the end, but if you really wanna argue that assassin's should kill everything, this proves you wrong. 1 target, 1 shot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That doesn't proove anything. Even if tha video was real it could of been a miniture scimtar.

E-Zekiel
11-27-2010, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BloodyMoon1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
Clearly the point this imbeciles are making is that every assassin in the history of assassin goes through fantastic chases unscathed to kill a target that is running for their life with a large number of nearby allies. Said assassin cuts down as many people as possible or as they like on the way to killing their target and is unstoppable.

Sorry. I'm glad for the restrictions. A level of professionalism makes the game better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I guess some people just aren't good enough to do it like we are. Only one I need 100% on now is the tank, which sucks because if you get hit you have to start all over &gt;.&lt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Good" enough? lol. Apples and oranges, sir. You are trying to compare good combat play to good stealth play. They're not the same and can't really be compared.

One of the tenants of the creed is discretion, and Altair was even punished for revealing himself before he struck. That, to me, has always been key - revealing yourself before striking, to the extent of allowing an escape attempt. Not an all out escape, but just the attempt itself.

Live by the creed, imo.

BloodyMoon1
11-27-2010, 01:38 PM
My style is more kill the target undetected and then just fight my way out for the run of it.

nukelukespuke34
11-27-2010, 02:06 PM
I fully agree with the TC. A lot of you are forgetting that its not just the assassinations that have ridiculous restrictions, but also leading up to it. The passion play infiltration the TC gave was an excellent example.

First they want you to climb up the Colosseum. So I go in, make my way to the very top on the outer wall without getting spotted. Then I look around for the yellow marker that tells you where you're supposed to go, and its all the way near the bottom!! See, this is the kind of thing that makes terrible game design. They basically want you to climb the outer edge first, then checkpoint, then climb to another spot, then checkpoint, and so on until you get to the top. Why not just let me get to the top the way I want? I didn't kill any guards or get detected. And that's literally what it says on the screen, "Climb to the top of the Colosseum." But then they throw in these stupid markers like they don't think you can make it to the top on your own. This kind of hand-holding is absurd, annoying, and completely unnecessary.

E-Zekiel
11-27-2010, 02:15 PM
I do actually agree when it comes to climbing and running.

The assassinations themselves are fine as they are. Not being detected, not doing unnecessary kills, etc.

Kaxen6
11-27-2010, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nukelukespuke34:
I fully agree with the TC. A lot of you are forgetting that its not just the assassinations that have ridiculous restrictions, but also leading up to it. The passion play infiltration the TC gave was an excellent example.

First they want you to climb up the Colosseum. So I go in, make my way to the very top on the outer wall without getting spotted. Then I look around for the yellow marker that tells you where you're supposed to go, and its all the way near the bottom!! See, this is the kind of thing that makes terrible game design. They basically want you to climb the outer edge first, then checkpoint, then climb to another spot, then checkpoint, and so on until you get to the top. Why not just let me get to the top the way I want? I didn't kill any guards or get detected. And that's literally what it says on the screen, "Climb to the top of the Colosseum." But then they throw in these stupid markers like they don't think you can make it to the top on your own. This kind of hand-holding is absurd, annoying, and completely unnecessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, it was a bit frustrating when they make you follow a very specific path.

X10J
11-27-2010, 03:31 PM
Freedom was one of my favorite things from AC1, I killed each of my targets 100 differant ways.

Also: hey look, it's Kaxen.

gossimer76
11-27-2010, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rb2610:
You know all the "kill 'x' in 'this' way" sort of objectives are just optional for full sync, you can do most of the missions however you want, they're just an extra challenge if you want to go for 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

UM that's a BIG N O. Look some of the race missions are the worst IMO, its a race over rooftops not a freaking race track for godsake! I have to agree with the first post, in that the freedom about being an assassin is the ability to manuever as WE see fit to hit our mark. Not the other way around. Oh and a little tid bit i figured out lol, if you have to chase after any one in the game thru some guards lets say for instance, just shoot them with a poison tip dart and they dont get very far after that! Just remember to shoot them right out of the gate so to speak lol. I would also like to say that some of the time constraints for these missions are so UBER unrealistc, I refused to do 2 quests because I have tried every means possible to make it with in the allotted time and it just can't be done.

My example would be the prostitute quest that you have to steal the antidote from the doc UNDETECTED and get back to the sick girl ALL with in 2:30 Seconds. IT TAKES ME ALMOST 1:30 seconds on my freakin HORSE to get to the doctor then i have to, steal the stuff and not kill him for 100% Sync BTW. UGH its not possible!!!

Kaxen6
11-27-2010, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X10J:
Freedom was one of my favorite things from AC1, I killed each of my targets 100 differant ways.

Also: hey look, it's Kaxen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finished the game yesterday, so I came back. @_@ I have so many fan comics to finish doodling.

X10J
11-27-2010, 03:43 PM
Nice to have you back. I just started reading Daring the Wind.

xsatanicjokerx
11-27-2010, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gossimer1976:
I would also like to say that some of the time constraints for these missions are so UBER unrealistc, I refused to do 2 quests because I have tried every means possible to make it with in the allotted time and it just can't be done.

My example would be the prostitute quest that you have to steal the antidote from the doc UNDETECTED and get back to the sick girl ALL with in 2:30 Seconds. IT TAKES ME ALMOST 1:30 seconds on my freakin HORSE to get to the doctor then i have to, steal the stuff and not kill him for 100% Sync BTW. UGH its not possible!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure that was hard but not impossible. I did it without the horse with 9 seconds to go. Its just strategy.

GOKARU
11-27-2010, 05:28 PM
I agree with the 1st top poster a lot, but I don't wanna wait till the next instalment to enjoy that. I would really like them to do a patch that also includes:

<LI>Please allow saves while using cheats especially after attaining 100% synch in al. sequences.
<LI>Please create new patch for those of us that have completed the game, can REPLAY the WHOLE campaign again but with cheats this time and ability TO SAVE!! trophies can be locked that don't bother me. This is also for those of us that bought this game JUST 4 the single player & not the online, as I'm playing other online games.

please ubi seriously CONSIDER this to add a MORE AWESOMENESS to a cool cool cool game!!!

IMO

sFX_usa
11-28-2010, 01:27 AM
I think a bit of linearity makes perfect sense in a nerrative point of view.
I think what they were trying to do is put you in those epic situations in the main missions, which they can't do without guiding your hand a bit. and give you the freedom to take whatever approach you want for the side missions like assassination contracts etc.
if you look at the colosseum as an example,
think about it. they take the time and put this huge detailed landmark, of course they want you to climb to the very top of it. they want to make you experience everything about it. what would be the point of it being there if you're just gonna walk in, stun the guards with somoke bombs and shoot your target with a crossbow.

RomanDozer
11-28-2010, 01:43 AM
I did notice a lot of freedom being removed and I was forced into a strictly linear role of performing an action.

For the full sync's, I loved the challenge but this got way too repetitive when failing and having to do the whole sequence/ mission from scratch. (Leads to frustration and boredom and slows the game tempo down)

Climbing, the Castelo was extremely linear going up but I didn't mind this so much, it rattled me a little but I was ok with it, only because it seemed to be the only building of great importance in the game that only had one access route to the top.

I will agree, AC had the most free-form play, allowing us to tackle challenges our way. AC2 took away a little from this whereas ACB was definitely a lot more restricting. Those that disagree, I say to you, go re-play those games, it's so very obvious.

mad_god87
11-28-2010, 01:59 AM
After reading this thread I would have to agree to dissagree with some points....did any of you ever stop to think that maby they were just trying to get you to controll Ezio the way he is supposed to be....Desmond in the animus follwing his ancestors exact footsteps....that right there sets a LOT of restrictions on what anyone can do.
If i were to complain about anything it would be the exclusion of checkpoints and how we free run up walls now.

Sparty2020
11-28-2010, 02:09 AM
I cannot believe that so many people are having so much difficulty with the restrictions of the game that they are crying for a patch. 95% of people wanted AC to be less combat and more stealth, and now that Ubi has finally added stealth people are complaining? Personally if you're complaining about a mission then man up and keep trying or shut up and be happy with 50%. They added a genuine challenge to this game and that's the way I like it. God, feels like I'm back at the Ninja Gaiden forums before Ninja Dog was added.

RomanDozer
11-28-2010, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sparty2020:
I cannot believe that so many people are having so much difficulty with the restrictions of the game that they are crying for a patch. 95% of people wanted AC to be less combat and more stealth, and now that Ubi has finally added stealth people are complaining? Personally if you're complaining about a mission then man up and keep trying or shut up and be happy with 50%. They added a genuine challenge to this game and that's the way I like it. God, feels like I'm back at the Ninja Gaiden forums before Ninja Dog was added. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy tiger. I think what people are mostly referring to (and myself) is the lack of being able to decide how to tackle situations, not just the Rom tombs or guild quests. Through the main story there was a lot of forced character progression where we had to do something the developers way and not our own. Anyone can see this clearly, having played the prior two titles. That's what we are refferencing. While I understand Ezio did things a certain way and was "by the people, for the people", how would that have anything to do with letting us take out a target how we wanted?
It seems to me that some of the areas of the game during the story and character to plot NPC interaction were very linear/ limited. I didn't mind this so much because I loved the story. But I'd be a fool for not noticing this and being concerned. Otherwise this series turns into what, another God of War, Dante's Inferno, Tomb Raider, etc... /yawn /yawn /yawn

Jack-Reacher
11-28-2010, 02:46 AM
I agree with this as well, the missions are so scripted its ridiculous. I enjoyed reading the part with the assassination at the play, that was by far the most scripted piece of **** I have ever played, I bet if everyone filmed themselves we would have thousands of identical videos. It literally made you walk from spot to spot in a certain time ilmit, made you follow a certain path, gave you barely any freedom.

I dont mind the full synch stuff, I just go back and re do them later, but the rest of it was horrible.

Sparty2020
11-28-2010, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DespondentSoul:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sparty2020:
I cannot believe that so many people are having so much difficulty with the restrictions of the game that they are crying for a patch. 95% of people wanted AC to be less combat and more stealth, and now that Ubi has finally added stealth people are complaining? Personally if you're complaining about a mission then man up and keep trying or shut up and be happy with 50%. They added a genuine challenge to this game and that's the way I like it. God, feels like I'm back at the Ninja Gaiden forums before Ninja Dog was added. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy tiger. I think what people are mostly referring to (and myself) is the lack of being able to decide how to tackle situations, not just the Rom tombs or guild quests. Through the main story there was a lot of forced character progression where we had to do something the developers way and not our own. Anyone can see this clearly, having played the prior two titles. That's what we are refferencing. While I understand Ezio did things a certain way and was "by the people, for the people", how would that have anything to do with letting us take out a target how we wanted?
It seems to me that some of the areas of the game during the story and character to plot NPC interaction were very linear/ limited. I didn't mind this so much because I loved the story. But I'd be a fool for not noticing this and being concerned. Otherwise this series turns into what, another God of War, Dante's Inferno, Tomb Raider, etc... /yawn /yawn /yawn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand these points completely. I'm addressing everyone who is whining over the ones in which stealth are mandatory (such as the when you're trailing Micheletto and the Castel d'SantAngelo) because they can't stay undetected and those who are whining about a time limit (such as the guild missions) because they can't navigate the city fast enough.

UnHoly__One
11-28-2010, 11:41 AM
I think some of you are misinterpreting my original post.

I wasn't talking about full synch. I ignored a lot of the full synch requirements once I realized that they didnt seem to matter, as well as removing even more freedom/fun from the game.

I was also not complaining about difficulty. I completed the game just fine. Everything but the flags which I will go back for later when my anger over the game fades.

I'm strictly talking about the restrictive nature of mission requirements themselves. Not that they were too hard, just that it made them annoying/un-fun. What is the point of replaying the game when it is going to force you to repeat your actions every time exactly the same way?

I replayed the original AC 5 or 6 times, I certainly won't be doing that with this game. The reason I could replay that one so much is that I could approach most of the assassinations differently each time. Name one, other than a side mission, where you have ANY options in this game.

Another person commented that people were clamoring for more stealth in AC1. I was not one of those people. Not because I wanted to go in all willy nilly and throw caution to the wind, just because AC1 had as much or as little stealth as you chose to use. The majority of the targets in AC1 could be reached without ever revealing yourself, IF you chose to put in the time and effort to scout the situation.

But like I said, I didn't come here to argue about it, just to bring it up so that hopefully my voice could be heard. If you disagree I respect your opinion, I knew I would get responses on both sides of the fence.

Haywood92
11-28-2010, 11:54 AM
I actually don't mind the 100% synchronization restrictions. They add a challenge to the game. What I AM annoyed about is if you fail these restrictions, you have to start the whole mission again. Can't you update the game so it enables you to restart at the next checkpoint if you fail these, Ubisoft?

Edit: Oh, I misunderstood you. Well again, I kind of like these restrictions on certain missions, it does make sense half of the time. And you're not much of an 'Assassin' if you go in guns blazing, are you?

Acharel
11-28-2010, 12:03 PM
If people aren't complaining about there being "no incentive" to be stealthy when you have the ability to slice your way to your target, guess what they're complaining about? Not being able to slice your way to the target because you're REQUIRED to be stealthy.. Jeez. I understand that the OP wants the freedom to do either as he pleases, but there's always going to be an added degree of satisfaction when the game recognizes you for doing something (either by not failing you or the "100% synch"-thing) as opposed to doing something (like being stealthy) just because you like it that way.

And AC1? Please. You could've replayed the whopping nine targets you had available in every manner you saw fit until you puked, and still not seen 10% of the variety of assassination gameplay you get in ONE playthrough of ACII/Brotherhood..

PhiIs1618033
11-28-2010, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UnHoly__One:
I think some of you are misinterpreting my original post.

I wasn't talking about full synch. I ignored a lot of the full synch requirements once I realized that they didnt seem to matter, as well as removing even more freedom/fun from the game.

I was also not complaining about difficulty. I completed the game just fine. Everything but the flags which I will go back for later when my anger over the game fades.

I'm strictly talking about the restrictive nature of mission requirements themselves. Not that they were too hard, just that it made them annoying/un-fun. What is the point of replaying the game when it is going to force you to repeat your actions every time exactly the same way?

I replayed the original AC 5 or 6 times, I certainly won't be doing that with this game. The reason I could replay that one so much is that I could approach most of the assassinations differently each time. Name one, other than a side mission, where you have ANY options in this game.

Another person commented that people were clamoring for more stealth in AC1. I was not one of those people. Not because I wanted to go in all willy nilly and throw caution to the wind, just because AC1 had as much or as little stealth as you chose to use. The majority of the targets in AC1 could be reached without ever revealing yourself, IF you chose to put in the time and effort to scout the situation.

But like I said, I didn't come here to argue about it, just to bring it up so that hopefully my voice could be heard. If you disagree I respect your opinion, I knew I would get responses on both sides of the fence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know about you, but I found the restrictions rather refreshing and definitely not annoying. You have to understand the mechanics of the game to get them, and then it's a lot of fun.
Not having those restrictions would've made the game way to easy. Getting a bazillion guards on you isn't a problem because you can fight them all off, so there would be no restrictions at all.
The colloseum climbing thing was dumb, to be honest. I would've preferred to be given the objective and then choose my own path.
Also, the problem with this scripting is that it replaced the information gathering in AC1. My main concern with AC2 was that you just got dropped into a situation and you had to figure out a way to do it.

My proposition: bring back information gathering in a more fun way, instead of all the linearity (according to most people), then you can drop people into a mission and have them figure out how and what.

DavisP92
11-28-2010, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
I will sum up my opinions to say this:


I disagree with you. These were supposed to be respectable people who didn't kill just to kill, they weren't bloodthirsty murderers - they had a purpose, and supported the common will of the people.

Even in AC2 and AC:B Both, I would, as often as I possibly could, try to knock guards out (IE using bare hands) if I could manage it without getting too messed up, myself. I have done so many stealth knockouts in AC:B It's ridiculous.

All in all, I just don't care, sorry. I like that they want us to play this way. There are still a ton of ways and variables to spice things up, even like this.

That said, I do agree with you about the wall climbing though. In AC1 it felt the most free. There were ways to climb up just about any wall, almost none of them just had 1 set path. In AC2, most were like this, but they were starting to lean toward puzzle solving a little bit.

I think in AC:B they made too much of it. When I want to run up a wall, I would rather just run up it and climb it. I don't really want wall climbing to be a puzzle, even if it would be IRL. The feel of free running is speed and acrobatics and awesomeness - having to solve a puzzle to climb a wall honestly breaks my immersion.


But aside from that point, yeah. I really disagree with you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know its funny that i tried to do the knockout thing (i'm good at it) but it still counts as killing. They should change it so u can actually non lethally knock someone out or kill them with ur hands. that would be cool.

assassinato_862
11-28-2010, 12:51 PM
I disagree in a sense. The "don't be detected" and "don't kill anyone besides your target" are just fine and just as realistic, per se. But, the only thing I disagree with are the time limtis, I really like to look around and when it's eight minutes it's really stupid. But everything else is fine. "DOn't lose any health" is fine, except fot the part where you have the apple, and that's it. You wouldn
t just barge into Castel St. Angelo killing everyone would you? A castle, really? That would be stupid.

E-Zekiel
11-28-2010, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Acharel:
If people aren't complaining about there being "no incentive" to be stealthy when you have the ability to slice your way to your target, guess what they're complaining about? Not being able to slice your way to the target because you're REQUIRED to be stealthy.. Jeez. I understand that the OP wants the freedom to do either as he pleases, but there's always going to be an added degree of satisfaction when the game recognizes you for doing something (either by not failing you or the "100% synch"-thing) as opposed to doing something (like being stealthy) just because you like it that way.

And AC1? Please. You could've replayed the whopping nine targets you had available in every manner you saw fit until you puked, and still not seen 10% of the variety of assassination gameplay you get in ONE playthrough of ACII/Brotherhood.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, exactly. i loved AC1 though.

But aside from that, totally agree with you. The fans of this game (not including myself, and those like me, apparently) are so whiney it's ridiculous. If you don't do it one way, they complain about it. If you do it that way, they find something to complain about like that too.

Why be stealthy!?!?! This game needs more stealth!!!


*puts in more stealth*

YOU'RE RUINING MY FUN BY RESTRICTING MY KILLS PLEASE DON'T DO THAT



Combat is all about counter kills! Please stop making it all about counter kills!

*puts in more incentive to fight offensively*

Combat is too easy! Please stop making it soo easy!


You people really annoy me with this crap.

Kraftmyself
11-28-2010, 03:27 PM
What we are asking for is to get back that level of creativity from AC1 and 2 that went into tracking down a target and using your environment and equipment to hunt the target down. This isn't about professionalism or 100% sync, this isn't about being a steathly ninja or a bloodthirsty assassin, this is about freedom to do what we want as an assassin in an open world. I thought we left behind the day's of punishing games where checkpoints (if any) were far and few in between and being restricted to a boring sense of linearity through what used to be an 'anyway you do it as long as you do it' (the creed itself states that everything is acceptable) type of game. What difference does it make if I throw the captain into the scaffolding or not? Or if I'm detected in the prison when I'm trying to rescue Sforza? What I'm trying to say is, why should we be made to suffer for unnecessary restrictions or being detected and sent back to the start of the mission (completely ignoring the point of checkpoints) or being told that even though we are assassins in an open world we can no longer do things the way we want?

PWNcracker
11-28-2010, 03:34 PM
My understanding of "synch" is that you're doing things how Ezio did it. The closer you do it to how he did it, the higher your synchronization with the ancestor.

And as has been said before, you don't have to get 100% synch. If they just said "Do the mission however you want and you get 100% synch anyway" there'd be no point in it. It adds replayability, it adds a challenege.

Just my opinion.

UnHoly__One
11-28-2010, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PWNcracker:
My understanding of "synch" is that you're doing things how Ezio did it. The closer you do it to how he did it, the higher your synchronization with the ancestor.

And as has been said before, you don't have to get 100% synch. If they just said "Do the mission however you want and you get 100% synch anyway" there'd be no point in it. It adds replayability, it adds a challenege.

Just my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please stop talking about synch. I have already stated more than once I am talking about MISSION FAILURE RESTRICTIONS.

I understand how it may be advisable not to be detected in an enemy castle, but tell me how it should be a mission failure when a guy sees me for 1/2 a second before I kill him, and there is nobody else in the room to hear or see him die?

I totally understand how some things were necessary to make a mission play out in a certain way, but the majority of them were just an annoyance and only there to create a false sense of difficulty and a "trial and error" style of gameplay.

galenwolf
11-28-2010, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UnHoly__One:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PWNcracker:
My understanding of "synch" is that you're doing things how Ezio did it. The closer you do it to how he did it, the higher your synchronization with the ancestor.

And as has been said before, you don't have to get 100% synch. If they just said "Do the mission however you want and you get 100% synch anyway" there'd be no point in it. It adds replayability, it adds a challenege.

Just my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please stop talking about synch. I have already stated more than once I am talking about MISSION FAILURE RESTRICTIONS.

I understand how it may be advisable not to be detected in an enemy castle, but tell me how it should be a mission failure when a guy sees me for 1/2 a second before I kill him, and there is nobody else in the room to hear or see him die?

I totally understand how some things were necessary to make a mission play out in a certain way, but the majority of them were just an annoyance and only there to create a false sense of difficulty and a "trial and error" style of gameplay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see where you are coming from as it happened to me too. I once waited for a guard to walk up to an entrance I was hidden around the corner of, and then walked about a corner and used my hidden blade on a guard as he got the the entrance. He must have seen me for all of .5 of a second and I got mission failure....

What exactly can you do in 0.5 second? Nothing thats what. It would have been *surprised look* then dead. Now if he had managed to yell, then I could accept that.


Also, what I don't get is that on a mission where I had to not be detected i could fire my loud as a jackhammer gun and it was fine. You'd think a gun shot in the 15th century in a castle would have been a rather big deal.

The other one was with the banker. In one attempt I actually had all 6 apprentice assassins having a MASSIVE BATTLE in the middle of the party and I didn't get detected. WTF?!


A better way might have been a multiple path to assassinate the target which also had objectives within them that where not that badly programmed (like the getting to the top of the Colosseum being a specific route, getting the top should have been enough).

Say you had to kill a Templar that was in a fortress. You could either 1) Go over the walls as an assassin, stealth kill your way to the guy and kill him in a fight. 2) Knock out a guard that Ezio could pass for, learn beforehand any passwords needed and get into the castle that way and poison the Templars food, 3) waylay a foreign noble seeing the Templar, learn everything about the noble and get into a private meeting then stealth kill the Templar. and have the one Ezio actually did and pulled off perfectly open up a memory (increase sync).

E-Zekiel
11-28-2010, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by galenwolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UnHoly__One:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PWNcracker:
My understanding of "synch" is that you're doing things how Ezio did it. The closer you do it to how he did it, the higher your synchronization with the ancestor.

And as has been said before, you don't have to get 100% synch. If they just said "Do the mission however you want and you get 100% synch anyway" there'd be no point in it. It adds replayability, it adds a challenege.

Just my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please stop talking about synch. I have already stated more than once I am talking about MISSION FAILURE RESTRICTIONS.

I understand how it may be advisable not to be detected in an enemy castle, but tell me how it should be a mission failure when a guy sees me for 1/2 a second before I kill him, and there is nobody else in the room to hear or see him die?

I totally understand how some things were necessary to make a mission play out in a certain way, but the majority of them were just an annoyance and only there to create a false sense of difficulty and a "trial and error" style of gameplay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see where you are coming from as it happened to me too. I once waited for a guard to walk up to an entrance I was hidden around the corner of, and then walked about a corner and used my hidden blade on a guard as he got the the entrance. He must have seen me for all of .5 of a second and I got mission failure....

What exactly can you do in 0.5 second? Nothing thats what. It would have been *surprised look* then dead. Now if he had managed to yell, then I could accept that.


Also, what I don't get is that on a mission where I had to not be detected i could fire my loud as a jackhammer gun and it was fine. You'd think a gun shot in the 15th century in a castle would have been a rather big deal.

The other one was with the banker. In one attempt I actually had all 6 apprentice assassins having a MASSIVE BATTLE in the middle of the party and I didn't get detected. WTF?!


A better way might have been a multiple path to assassinate the target which also had objectives within them that where not that badly programmed (like the getting to the top of the Colosseum being a specific route, getting the top should have been enough).

Say you had to kill a Templar that was in a fortress. You could either 1) Go over the walls as an assassin, stealth kill your way to the guy and kill him in a fight. 2) Knock out a guard that Ezio could pass for, learn beforehand any passwords needed and get into the castle that way and poison the Templars food, 3) waylay a foreign noble seeing the Templar, learn everything about the noble and get into a private meeting then stealth kill the Templar. and have the one Ezio actually did and pulled off perfectly open up a memory (increase sync). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be plausible if you weren't synching with your ancestral memories. But you are, so you somewhat have to stay in line with what really went down.

mx.brmn
11-28-2010, 09:49 PM
I agree with unholy one. I hate it when I make one tiny mistake, but I have to restart and do 15 minutes of mission over because when I jumped on the guy for an assassination, he detected me as I stabbed him. It's a waste of time. Missions need checkpoints so if we fail to fully sync, we can go back just a bit. Like the tank mission. i get hit one time, but instead of just say, going back to when I got in the tank, I have to redo everything. Stupid.

E-Zekiel
11-28-2010, 09:55 PM
I just did that mission and FINALLY got 100% tonight lol. Took 8 retries.

kriegerdesgottes
11-28-2010, 10:05 PM
I hate to say it but I have to agree. I like the concept of synching with ezio but it was way to frustrating and difficult. It needs to be done better to make it less freaking impossible. I especially had problems with sequence 6 and that friken 60 second race with that thief. I kept my neighbors up playing that f'ing round. Please just make it easier ubisoft. Like oh ezio used the hidden blade for this ok that's cool and easy. but saying oh you have 2 seconds to kill 5 people without being detected makes you want to throw your tv out the window.

E-Zekiel
11-28-2010, 10:12 PM
I think a happy medium with detection would be that if it's only one guard and you can incapacitate (knockout or kill) them within like 3 seconds, you don't fail.

I admit it is annoying when you kill a guard right as they turn around and see you, sometimes you fail and it's like...Detected huh? so who, in that split second that he saw me before I stabbed him in the throat, did he tell?

Oatkeeper
11-28-2010, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Keksus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Pacifism Creed" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you play an assassin ... no warrior. So you should only assassinate your assigned targets. And freedom in AC2? That made me laugh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This.

recklesschords
11-29-2010, 02:20 AM
It wasn't so bad for me at first, but then I eventually got to the point where I was screaming at my television screen because I'd just found about a hundred different ways not to kill a target with the lovely little side effect of de-syncing and having to do it all over again. I agree with what you're saying; it felt like this game had a lot less freedom than the others. There wasn't a single time I decided to forge a straight path towards a target, but my carefully thought out plans were not those the game had intended. Everything from scaling the wrong building, to killing the wrong person at the wrong time, to setting up the wrong distraction -- it got tedious and painful, because I knew how I wanted to do it, but the game wouldn't let me.

On one hand, I liked the objectives given. "Tail so-and-so without being detected." Cool, awesome. Sounds like something an assassin would do. Great job AC:B team!

On the other hand, okay, so there are 500 guards on that rooftop, so I'll just traipse up the one on the righ-- HOLYGOD, GUARD, STOP HIDING BEHIND THE CORNER, okay okay, I'm getting down, don't yellow-arrow me, you sonuva*****. I guess I'll just blend with the crowd-- OHSHI-- STOP GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION PEOPLE, as;ldk;da hiring courtesans it is-- NO DON'T RUN OFF TO FLIRT WITH THAT GUARD GAAAHHH-- oh look, an alleyway. I guess that's the right way to go.

Point is, there should be no "right way" to go. There should be a right way to perform an action, yes, but not a definite "take this path, now turn right, then left, then up the building, aaaaand you're good."

More freedom. I'd like that.

Rodriquezz
11-29-2010, 04:49 AM
Well they put in the 50/100% sync stuff for the wussies who think the game is too hard, think and plan things out and you will realize everything can be done in 100% as it's supposed to be done.

UnHoly__One
11-29-2010, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rodriquezz:
Well they put in the 50/100% sync stuff for the wussies who think the game is too hard, think and plan things out and you will realize everything can be done in 100% as it's supposed to be done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, for the 4th time.

A) I'm not talking about the 100% Synch requirements.

B) I'm not complaining about the game being too hard.

I'm talking about basic mission requirements/restrictions, and about the game being annoying, not hard. lol

WickedWizzard01
12-27-2010, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sparty2020:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DespondentSoul:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sparty2020:
I cannot believe that so many people are having so much difficulty with the restrictions of the game that they are crying for a patch. 95% of people wanted AC to be less combat and more stealth, and now that Ubi has finally added stealth people are complaining? Personally if you're complaining about a mission then man up and keep trying or shut up and be happy with 50%. They added a genuine challenge to this game and that's the way I like it. God, feels like I'm back at the Ninja Gaiden forums before Ninja Dog was added. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy tiger. I think what people are mostly referring to (and myself) is the lack of being able to decide how to tackle situations, not just the Rom tombs or guild quests. Through the main story there was a lot of forced character progression where we had to do something the developers way and not our own. Anyone can see this clearly, having played the prior two titles. That's what we are refferencing. While I understand Ezio did things a certain way and was "by the people, for the people", how would that have anything to do with letting us take out a target how we wanted?
It seems to me that some of the areas of the game during the story and character to plot NPC interaction were very linear/ limited. I didn't mind this so much because I loved the story. But I'd be a fool for not noticing this and being concerned. Otherwise this series turns into what, another God of War, Dante's Inferno, Tomb Raider, etc... /yawn /yawn /yawn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand these points completely. I'm addressing everyone who is whining over the ones in which stealth are mandatory (such as the when you're trailing Micheletto and the Castel d'SantAngelo) because they can't stay undetected and those who are whining about a time limit (such as the guild missions) because they can't navigate the city fast enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i have no trouble navigating the city but Time Limited crap is soo friggin booring and just a cheap and easy way to bump up the difficulty,
and i just hope that they don't have it in the next game
or just one or two or so but hell,
i'm really don't think it they are fun
'tis just boring stuff and there are other ways to get the same feeling of urgency than havin a race across the city(if i wanted a race i'll buy a different game)
so please no more time limited missions or just one or two
and make them relevant to the main storyline
not just get an antidote for a poison someone else did not lose any health from, it just doesn't make sense

Mutley_Rulz
12-27-2010, 08:43 PM
Seems to me you all want to play the game through once and be done with it. For the most part, the restricting part of the game is referred to mostly in the Full Synch parts.

I didn't go out of my way for them myself, on the first playthrough I went about my business as suited me, and only went for Full Synchronisation a while after completing the game and various other goals. It lets me play the game how I want, and only restrict myself for that reward.

It's simple really - if you want the reward of Full Synch you've got to complete the challenge, otherwise it's just handouts for nothing.

WickedWizzard01
12-27-2010, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kraftmyself:
What we are asking for is to get back that level of creativity from AC1 and 2 that went into tracking down a target and using your environment and equipment to hunt the target down. This isn't about professionalism or 100% sync, this isn't about being a steathly ninja or a bloodthirsty assassin, this is about freedom to do what we want as an assassin in an open world. I thought we left behind the day's of punishing games where checkpoints (if any) were far and few in between and being restricted to a boring sense of linearity through what used to be an 'anyway you do it as long as you do it' (the creed itself states that everything is acceptable) type of game. What difference does it make if I throw the captain into the scaffolding or not? Or if I'm detected in the prison when I'm trying to rescue Sforza? What I'm trying to say is, why should we be made to suffer for unnecessary restrictions or being detected and sent back to the start of the mission (completely ignoring the point of checkpoints) or being told that even though we are assassins in an open world we can no longer do things the way we want? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tis

since these are the issues i have with ACB
and do not se myself playing ACB as much as i have played AC1 /AC2
they seemed much more open than this
heck if AC1 was like this i'm not so sure i would have bought the game and it's successors
just hope next game will be more open to choicese of the player
we'll see

AbstergoIsReal
12-27-2010, 11:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UnHoly__One:
This is a plea to Ubisoft for the next installment of Assassin's Creed. (Minor quest spoilers below)

Please return some of the freedom that we had in AC1 and AC2. The restrictions in this game were beyond ridiculous.

Missions with asinine requirements like "Don't Be Detected, and Don't Kill Anyone". C'mon, seriously?? When did this become "Pacifism Creed"??

There are so many missions with ludicrous ways to fail them, I couldn't wait for the game to be over with so I could see the end of the story and never play the single player game again.

Follow a dude into a restricted area without being detected by him or the guards. Have your recruits kill the person he just talked to, but wait until he is gone before you do it or they will be detected and you will fail. Then chase him down before he gets away, do this 2 more times, then go into a play in disguise, but never mind that you can walk directly to your target and kill him, we force you to first walk to this specific spot with a time limit, then to another spot, then a third. Ok, now you can go kill the guy even though nothing could have really stopped you the first time anyway other than an arbitrary desynchronization.

What happened to the freedom of the original where you gave us a target and just set us loose? Let US figure out how to get to him, and if we screw up we fight our way out and chase him down, we don't insta-fail and go back to a checkpoint because we didn't do everything exactly how you wanted us to do it.

But the missions aren't the only thing that had it's freedom removed. Any quest-related platforming is also mostly just a single path to the top. The Castel Sant'Angelo comes to mind. We are just forced along a path with no choice of deviating from it.

Even the chase scenes are scripted and there is no way to catch your target until the designated "end" of the chase area.

It's ridiculous. I love the AC series more than anything but I've never seen a game ruined like what was done to AC:B.

I feel like I had more freedom playing Heavy Rain, and that was just an interactive cut-scene.

I'm not trolling or trying to start a flame war here, I just felt I should at least make an attempt to make my feelings known to the guys behind the game. Anyone who agrees with me that this game was a little to "On Rails", please post your feelings here as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally Agree

TreFacTor
12-28-2010, 01:13 AM
Because of the restrictions, I probably completed the story in AC BH quicker than the other 2, and for Rome to be so much larger than the other 2, I spent way more time on a horse in AC1 than in AC3 (that's even without using the fast travel). The game feels too linear with the added 100% sync requirements. Sure it's alright to show us how Ezio would have done it, but aren't we playing as Desmond trying to emulate what Ezio did.

lodylody
12-28-2010, 01:36 AM
It's awful and annoying, I agree. The problem for me is MAINLY Full-Sync. I, for one, accept missions too quickly so the Full-Sync info doesn't come up. That means that when I swim on a mission because it's quicker, it tells me that full sync is FAILED.

On the other hand, I do sometimes find it fun with the tedious requirements - it provides me with more of a challenge!

SquarePolo27
12-28-2010, 05:55 AM
The thing of 100% sync was to give the veterans a challenge.

Though I agree. It is annoying and "100% sync" seem like you have to do it.

LordWolv
12-28-2010, 06:13 AM
I actually disagree. You have to remember that you are replaying the memories of someone that was once alive and that did things in a certain way. If Ezio trailed a target then killed him silently, and you replayed them but emediatly drawed attention to yourself then killed him - it could change the course of history.

For that reason, I think pecific intrustions are needed.

eziocroom
12-28-2010, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BloodyMoon1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
Clearly the point this imbeciles are making is that every assassin in the history of assassin goes through fantastic chases unscathed to kill a target that is running for their life with a large number of nearby allies. Said assassin cuts down as many people as possible or as they like on the way to killing their target and is unstoppable.

Sorry. I'm glad for the restrictions. A level of professionalism makes the game better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I guess some people just aren't good enough to do it like we are. Only one I need 100% on now is the tank, which sucks because if you get hit you have to start all over &gt;.&lt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you even read the original post? What the heck you mean professionalism lol? This is a creed which has a motto "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" but won't allow you to use whatever means you wish to take out your target without 100% sync huh? In Assassin's Creed II you had the freedom to choose how to take out your targets. By that it didn't say you had to use specific weapons, it simply said kill x person. It really doesn't make much sense to limit the way you wish to take out your target, use only your hidden blade... why? It's not making it any harder, you simply target get high and press X, but why can't I just kill the target however I want to creativily. I just rather have the freedom to choose what way I want, if that's poison, crossbow or pistol without punishment.

I don't mind if the game says do it without distraction, I don't mind, it still allows me freedom within the game to touch no one at all or use the crossbow without fail. What is unacceptable is these timed missions.

This quote "I guess some people just aren't good enough to do it like we are" is simply ironic considering certain parts of the game, example the courtesan who is poisoned you have a time limit. The only way to make it in time is by horse back running over the poor civilians, there simply isn't another way by foot it's too far, yet people aren't good enough? how about the game design isn't good enough...

I'm not saying to go around killing civilians, the game already punishes you for that, I rather have the freedom and the quality time to enjoy the game rather being rushed by time limits, and then being severely limited in what ways to accomplish my goals, but coming up with convoluted ways instead like throwing a guard into a scaffold. Yet the most efficient way is not used yet I have to stay professional according to BloodyMoon1. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Isaac500:
I actually disagree. You have to remember that you are replaying the memories of someone that was once alive and that did things in a certain way. If Ezio trailed a target then killed him silently, and you replayed them but emediatly drawed attention to yourself then killed him - it could change the course of history.

For that reason, I think pecific intrustions are needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all what takes place in the animus is past tense and is not real, just memories, how can it change the course of history?!? It's not a time machine. It's also contradiction based upon this premise you can replay the memory in the animus many times if Ezio got caught or not is moot since it's just memories nothing more. Or maybe you are being sarcastic? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

fugazi787
12-28-2010, 02:46 PM
I believe it was Ubisofts intent to offer a bit more of a challenge to the player than simply just running in swords 'a' swingn', heads 'a' rollin'.

I understand where you're coming from for more freedom, but you can still get that with just going after random guards in free mode. Or what I did when going after a Borgia Captain, by taking out as many guards as possible silently, until there was but one.

The game does leave room to challenge yourself and choose how you take someone out. But I definitely agree that ACB had more of a linear feel to it, without question.

jzsnyder
12-28-2010, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BloodyMoon1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
Clearly the point this imbeciles are making is that every assassin in the history of assassin goes through fantastic chases unscathed to kill a target that is running for their life with a large number of nearby allies. Said assassin cuts down as many people as possible or as they like on the way to killing their target and is unstoppable.

Sorry. I'm glad for the restrictions. A level of professionalism makes the game better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I guess some people just aren't good enough to do it like we are. Only one I need 100% on now is the tank, which sucks because if you get hit you have to start all over &gt;.&lt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Good" enough? lol. Apples and oranges, sir. You are trying to compare good combat play to good stealth play. They're not the same and can't really be compared.

One of the tenants of the creed is discretion, and Altair was even punished for revealing himself before he struck. That, to me, has always been key - revealing yourself before striking, to the extent of allowing an escape attempt. Not an all out escape, but just the attempt itself.

Live by the creed, imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, if you wanted to play a game where you slash every person in sight in half, then go pick up another game... NOT "Assassin's Creed"

AetosEagle
12-29-2010, 08:27 PM
I feel as if a lack of creativity went into Assassinations in this game. Especially "the Banker". Get detected you desychronise? Really? In AC1 if I was detected by my target I either had to fight him or chase him, if I was stealthy enough I would've hidden-bladed him in the throat, which was perfect.

In Assassins Creed: Brotherhood it felt a lot like they were limiting what you were doing.

Another thing comes to mind is the play in the Colleseum. Why couldn't I have just skipped all the "finding of the costumes", hidden above with my crossbow waiting, detected him with my eagle vision then killed him, while my Assassins protected the fella on the cross...

Disappointing to say the least (in terms of Assassination targets)