PDA

View Full Version : its on like donkey kong



Grandmaster_Z
06-15-2011, 11:52 AM
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06...ompeting-at-thq-mon/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/15/patrice-desilets-non-compete-is-up-begins-competing-at-thq-mon/)

Grandmaster_Z
06-15-2011, 11:52 AM
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06...ompeting-at-thq-mon/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/15/patrice-desilets-non-compete-is-up-begins-competing-at-thq-mon/)

phil.llllll
06-15-2011, 11:56 AM
I liked the creative freedom/artisic vision part. I hope him and team take the time to make something awesome. Can't wait to see what it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Grandmaster_Z
06-15-2011, 12:11 PM
so basically, all the b*tching that people are doing about how AC has been changing and becoming more "mainstream for the masses" instead of sticking to its roots of AC1, is JUSTIFIED. Seems the reason why Patrice left. Would be awesome IF he could create something like AC1, but how legally??

reini03
06-15-2011, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
Seems the reason why Patrice left. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still don't understand how someone can misinterprete "to take a break from gaming industry" and turn it into "leaving because they turned away from the first game"...

phil.llllll
06-15-2011, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MagnifyHope:

I still don't understand how someone can misinterprete "to take a break from gaming industry" and turn it into "leaving because they turned away from the first game"... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's hard to say for sure but it's not like it's unlikely that he left because he wasn't happy with the direction the series was taking.

kriegerdesgottes
06-15-2011, 12:47 PM
YAY! can't wait to see what he plans on making. Everything this man does is amazing.

Grandmaster_Z
06-15-2011, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MagnifyHope:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
Seems the reason why Patrice left. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still don't understand how someone can misinterprete "to take a break from gaming industry" and turn it into "leaving because they turned away from the first game"... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"taking a break" WAS the non-compete clause.

LaurenIsSoMosh
06-15-2011, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:
It's hard to say for sure but it's not like it's unlikely that he left because he wasn't happy with the direction the series was taking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>He was largely responsible for the direction the franchise took in Assassin's Creed II, and he had his hand in Brotherhood, which featured very few major tweaks. Brotherhood, by and large, was Assassin's Creed II with a hundred minor tweaks and two major ones.

If Patrice left because he didn't like the direction the series is taking, then he left because he didn't like the direction he was taking it in.

I got the impression that the man is genuinely exhausted from all his hard work and needed a break for exactly why he said he needed a break: constant work can kill creativity.

In any case, it's apparent that Grandmaster is displeased with the direction the franchise has gone in. Nothing wrong with that. However, attempting to speak for Patrice (especially when Patrice has said nothing) is pretty shady. I highly doubt Patrice is out for revenge against Ubisoft.

phil.llllll
06-15-2011, 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 LaurenIsSoMosh:
He was largely responsible for the direction the franchise took in Assassin's Creed II, and he had his hand in Brotherhood, which featured very few major tweaks. Brotherhood, by and large, was Assassin's Creed II with a hundred minor tweaks and two major ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. AC2's direction was very much influenced by the criticisms of the first game. Instead of continuing in and improving upon the direction that the first took, they completely changed the design in order to appeal to a larger crowd.

This may or may not have sat well with a number of people there - even the creative director.

kriegerdesgottes
06-15-2011, 02:08 PM
I personally believe he left because Ubisoft came and forced him and his team to pop out a new Assassins creed game every single year so they could milk the franchise that he is largely responsible for creating. He knew he couldn't make another ACII every year so now they are making Brotherhoods and Revelations that just tweak and improve slight things yearly but don't really make huge changes like ACII did. They needed two years just to make ACII which btw left out the ability to replay missions and two sequences because according to patrice, "They didn't have enough time", and that's after two years! Now Jean Francois has joined him and another guy too at THQ and I can't wait to see what they come up with.

Xanatos2007
06-15-2011, 02:15 PM
"Most legendary beard in gaming." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I saw it up close back in '09, I think it has magical properties...

I wonder what he's got in store for us next. Another action-adventure game in the same vein as AC or something completely different?

LaurenIsSoMosh
06-15-2011, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:
Not necessarily. AC2's direction was very much influenced by the criticisms of the first game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Undoubtedly. But where does he ever say that he was in disagreement with what fans want? The possibility that the sequel was catered to fans somehow means that Patrice was held creatively hostage is purely an assumption.

The fact is that he could and did get his way where he wanted it. People have been hating flags and feathers for all three games, and he stubbornly faced down the first game's criticism with a grin and said they'd be returning in Assassin's Creed II.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Instead of continuing in and improving upon the direction that the first took, they completely changed the design in order to appeal to a larger crowd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What are you basing that statement on? That is, unless improving on the direction the first game took and the design that appealed to the larger crowd are one and the same.

The thing about criticism is that, more often than not, it's just people complaining, and rarely is it suggestive of improvement. Patrice's job was to take that criticism and come up with his own solutions, based on what he believed pleases people and still remains true to the original vision.

So, really what it comes down to is that people are just blatantly assuming that Patrice was unhappy with the direction, based on really nothing. It's quite possible that he could have, in fact, been unhappy. Whether or not it's likely that he was unhappy is another story, one that is a lot harder to prove unless Patrice does an interview about it. In the event that he does not do said interview, it would probably be best if nobody jumped to conclusions about revenge and bad blood and whatnot.

Evan52395
06-15-2011, 02:51 PM
Does anyone else feel a sense of abandonment?

kriegerdesgottes
06-15-2011, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Evan52395:
Does anyone else feel a sense of abandonment? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oddly enough, a little bit.

phil.llllll
06-15-2011, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
The possibility that the sequel was catered to fans somehow means that Patrice was held creatively hostage is purely an assumption. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said that, and yeah that's quite an assumption.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
The fact is that he could and did get his way where he wanted it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a fact. The creative director isn't the top position and they're still subject to the overall whims of the company and, as I noted, it's not hard to think that some people there weren't happy with the direction the series was headed in - yearly instalments. In fact, one of the people who left with Patrice, Jean-Francois Boivin, earlier stated that he thought the franchise needed a break - after which he was directly contradicted by the CEO.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
What are you basing that statement on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On AC2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
So, really what it comes down to is that people are just blatantly assuming that Patrice was unhappy with the direction, based on really nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. Let's face the facts: he held a high position at a major company for many years and helped create their most successful franchise yet. Then he just ups and leaves - for THQ at that.

It's easy to imagine that perhaps he wasn't too happy with the what they were turning the franchise into.

ThaWhistle
06-15-2011, 03:14 PM
yeah, its easy to imagine that, but I wouldn't by any measure say its accurate.

LaurenIsSoMosh
06-15-2011, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:
Not a fact. The creative director isn't the top position and they're still subject to the overall whims of the company </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn't say he had a dictatorship role in the franchise. However, not only did he have one of the highest job titles but also was one of the most central public figures for the franchise. When you have that kind of man on your pay roll, it's in your own interest to let him have his say in certain matters. There were probably times where he had to comprise what he wanted, but there has been at least one time where fans were the ones making the compromise.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and, as I noted, it's not hard to think that some people there weren't happy with the direction the series was headed in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The reason why it's not hard to think that some people aren't happy with it is because you're not happy with it, exactly Grandmaster's issue.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On AC2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There's no evidence in AC II to support the idea that original vision somehow contradicted fan criticism and, thus, was snuffed out in favor of crowd pleasing.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not really. Let's face the facts: he held a high position at a major company for many years and helped create their most successful franchise yet. Then he just ups and leaves - for THQ at that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>His reason being he's creatively exhausted.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's easy to imagine that perhaps he wasn't too happy with the what they were turning the franchise into. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And therein lies the problem. You're imagining. Reading a lot between the lines between not a lot of lines.

He's barely spoken ten sentences publicly about his departure, perhaps because he didn't want people to jump to conclusions - or perhaps because he was telling the truth and didn't feel he needed to justify his decision any further, or speak a novel about something he felt warranted a sentence. "I don't want to get bored."

oOAltairOo
06-15-2011, 04:33 PM
I'm guessing he's are working on a action adventure title, with some unusual historical setting as a backdrop.
Perhaps with a modern day twist to it? eeh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

phil.llllll
06-15-2011, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
There were probably times where he had to comprise what he wanted, but there has been at least one time where fans were the ones making the compromise </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure what you mean by this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
The reason why it's not hard to think that some people aren't happy with it is because you're not happy with it, exactly Grandmaster's issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. As I pointed out with the yearly instalment issue, there were people at Ubi who thought it wasn't in the best interest of the series to go that route. Subsequently, that guy was one of the people who left.

Also, just because we're talking about a single company doesn't mean everyone there is in complete agreement all the time. Especially within a big company like ubisoft there's bound to be many disagreements.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
There's no evidence in AC II to support the idea that original vision somehow contradicted fan criticism and, thus, was snuffed out in favor of crowd pleasing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you even played AC1 and 2? It most certainly was. AC2's redesign was a direct result of the critique the first game received from critics and general audience alike - as stated by the devs in so many interviews. They ripped out the structure of the first game (the whole hunter and prey approach/investigative design) and replaced it with a more GTA like mission structure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:

His reason being he's creatively exhausted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not his reason, Ubi's reason. It's called PR.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:

And therein lies the problem. You're imagining. Reading a lot between the lines between not a lot of lines.

He's barely spoken ten sentences publicly about his departure, perhaps because he didn't want people to jump to conclusions - or perhaps because he was telling the truth and didn't feel he needed to justify his decision any further, or speak a novel about something he felt warranted a sentence. "I don't want to get bored." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's a problem now to speculate without definitive information?

Not really.

Things aren't so black and white, and when there's not much to go on people read between the lines.

RzaRecta357
06-15-2011, 06:36 PM
Anyway, Case and point. None of you know so give up. I doubt it was because he was displeased with AC.

I mean, he himself. I mean all by himself. Took it upon himself to add "diversity" to AC2. They did that. They made millions. Seems like his idea worked.

Now, did he get in a disagreement over something he had complete control over at one point? Or did someone say hey man, we'll pay you more than you're paid right now and you can try and create any of you're ideas for it with no hinderence.

Oh, unless you think AC was patrice's only idea. Do you?

I think he'd rather get paid more to do whatever he likes then continue to work on the same stale engine just refining it and not really using HIM anymore.

LaurenIsSoMosh
06-15-2011, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:
Not sure what you mean by this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Everybody hates flags. But Patrice liked them for some reason and said they weren't going anywhere.

To put it differently: not every creative decision is based off of focus testing results. Believe it or not, Patrice couldn't have cared less about crowd pleasing on certain aspects. The man is very creatively talented, and I think he, and Ubisoft for that matter, confided in that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No. As I pointed out with the yearly instalment issue, there were people at Ubi who thought it wasn't in the best interest of the series to go that route. Subsequently, that guy was one of the people who left.

Also, just because we're talking about a single company doesn't mean everyone there is in complete agreement all the time. Especially within a big company like ubisoft there's bound to be many disagreements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Absolutely. And in an ideal development studio, all of those different opinions are hopefully valued and actively encouraged. But there is a difference between disagreement and conflict. And in an ideal development studio, disagreements don't turn into conflict. When it comes down to it, a lot of employees don't mind working on something they may disagree with when they know someone else is in charge of keeping those opinions from becoming one fat, ugly mess.

Patrice was, in part, responsible for that. And it's my honest opinion that he was not in disagreement with the direction the franchise is taking. If he was, he would not have helped out on Brotherhood, and I doubt he would have even worked on Assassin's Creed II.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have you even played AC1 and 2? It most certainly was. AC2's redesign was a direct result of the critique the first game received from critics and general audience alike - as stated by the devs in so many interviews. They ripped out the structure of the first game (the whole hunter and prey approach/investigative design) and replaced it with a more GTA like mission structure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I've stopped counting the number of times I've played through the first game. Assassin's Creed II count is sitting at four, I think. Maybe five. I've played through Brotherhood twice. Might as well be three times with the replays for 100% synchronization.

But you asked that question knowing the answer full well.

The thing is: you and I are not in disagreement that the investigation structure was removed or that the franchise has changed. It was, and it has. What we are in disagreement on, however, is in whether or not the franchise remains true to the original vision. I'm not talking about "for better," and definitely not "for worse." That's of little relevance in my opinion. What I am talking about is whether or not it's still standing on its original ideas.

I've charted the first game and the second, and even Brotherhood for that matter, using Brice Morrison's Game Design Canvas. And despite the glaring omission of the investigation structure, and throughout the numerous tweaks of the franchise, I've concluded that the core experience, between the first and second games in specific, are overwhelmingly the same core experience. They have the same aesthetic layouts, the same long-term incentives, the same punishment and reward system, the same base mechanics, and, ultimately, the same core experience.

Regarding the predator and prey experience you mention, it is still very much present in both the story and the game mechanics, but it's conveyed through more active means rather than sitting at a bench or collecting flags to loosen a fellow Assassin's tongue.

Despite all the minor tweaks, major changes, outright omissions, and new ideas, the core experience, right up into Brotherhood and most likely Revelations, is the same one found in Assassin's Creed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So it's a problem now to speculate without definitive information?

Not really.

Things aren't so black and white, and when there's not much to go on people read between the lines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Feel free. Just be sure to marginalize for error. It comes with the territory.

I'm a skeptic by nature, but I think his involvement in the later games, even if he had to compromise sometimes, proves he was not only okay with but actively steering the franchise in this direction.

Mic_92
06-15-2011, 08:16 PM
TRAITOR!

..I will probably play his game anyways and I still have faith in Amancio.

X10J
06-15-2011, 10:59 PM
"Not Assassin's Creed," comming soon to a retailer near you.

But seriously, I can't wait to see what he/they come up with.

Grandmaster_Z
06-16-2011, 06:53 AM
if he just wanted to "take a break", why would he leave the company? just wondering if everyone knows what a non-compete clause is? he could have very well have been hired by THQ right when he said he was going on break, but the non-compete clause he signed with UBI would not allow him to "officially" start working for THQ until now. i don't see how this is so far fetched. but yes, in the end it is speculation but don't we do that here everyday with all these posts about what the next AC is going to be like, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
btw this post is not intended to badmouth Patrice in any way..he is a legend..

phil.llllll
06-16-2011, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
And despite the glaring omission of the investigation structure, and throughout the numerous tweaks of the franchise, I've concluded that the core experience, between the first and second games in specific, are overwhelmingly the same core experience. They have the same aesthetic layouts, the same long-term incentives, the same punishment and reward system, the same base mechanics, and, ultimately, the same core experience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely disagree. I mean sure, it's still very much a game about running around rooftops, and there's still sword fighting and social stealth aspects, but ultimately the way it's played out has changed.

Disregarding aesthetics - since that's completely subjective - the motivations are completely different. The long term incentives in both are very much tied to the story of the game. In AC2, it went from being a game about the Assassin's Creed to being a straight up revenge mission about a guy thoughtlessly stabbing his way through Italy to get what he wants. AC2 also added a few new things like the villa and equipment upgrade system, which, for better or worse, play an even bigger part in Brotherhood.

Probably the biggest thing is the punishment and reward system which, while covering a wider range of things than AC1, took a serious hit in AC2. Not only did the game become even easier and completely unbalanced (which affects just about every aspect of the game) but there's more artifical restrictions as well (more scripted situations and automatic desyncs).

All of this directly affects and changes the core experience.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
Regarding the predator and prey experience you mention, it is still very much present in both the story and the game mechanics, but it's conveyed through more active means rather than sitting at a bench or collecting flags to loosen a fellow Assassin's tongue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The hunter and prey approach was about depth, something AC2's mission structure almost completely lacked. The player had to actively go out and seek information about the target (where he's located, what he does, how best to approach, etc...). All that is lost in AC2, replaced with map markers and a few lines of dialogue.

Ezio's not a hunter as much as he is a hitman.

LaurenIsSoMosh
06-16-2011, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:
I completely disagree. I mean sure, it's still very much a game about running around rooftops, and there's still sword fighting and social stealth aspects, but ultimately the way it's played out has changed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Correct. You spend more time fighting. But the core experience hasn't changed.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Disregarding aesthetics - since that's completely subjective </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Everything about game design is subjective.

Furthermore, just because it's subjective does not mean it's unimportant. Aesthetic layout is an important and highly influential part of game design, and even minute changes in the aesthetics can have a butterfly effect on punishment and reward, long-term incentive, base mechanics, and, ultimately, core experience. Just take a look at Borderlands, a game that started out with a serious nature and serious graphics. Once Gearbox implemented the change to comic book graphics, suddenly everything from the story to the base mechanics to the punishment and reward system became comical. Ultimately, the core experience shifted drastically.

More relevantly, if there's a change in the core experience, as you suggest there is, aesthetic layout is one of the first areas to see a change. The unchanged nature of the aesthetic layout from the first game to the second is evidence that the original vision has in no way been tampered with.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The long term incentives in both are very much tied to the story of the game. In AC2, it went from being a game about the Assassin's Creed to being a straight up revenge mission about a guy thoughtlessly stabbing his way through Italy to get what he wants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's an extremely unfair and, dare I say it, subjective comment. How do you expect your side of the argument to be taken seriously when your "critical analysis" of Assassin's Creed II is very dismissive and spiteful in nature? Would you take me seriously if I said Altair was nothing but a monotone emo who whined his way back up to the top rank? I doubt it.

Assassin's Creed II was marketed as a revenge story. Perhaps that's affecting your perception of the actual game. Personally, I found that Ezio swallowed his thirst for revenge and was generally objective in every assassination past Uberto Alberti and Viere de Pazzi.

Furthermore, your judgment of the long-term incentive is flawed. Long-term incentive is a player incentive, not a character incentive. The long-term incentive, from the first game to the second, remains the same: to uncover a dark political conspiracy with frightening implications for the freedom of humanity.

Revenge is merely a tool to help players relate to Ezio along the way, much like Altair's quest for redemption.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AC2 also added a few new things like the villa and equipment upgrade system, which, for better or worse, play an even bigger part in Brotherhood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Renovation in Assassin's Creed II is only ever a peripheral mechanic that, at best, is different from the base mechanics, not better or worse. It's a lot like mineral scanning in Mass Effect 2. It has nothing to do with the core experience of saving the galaxy, but it also doesn't get in the way of the core experience.

In Brotherhood, renovation is actually revamped to fit into the core experience. An important part of feeling like a freedom fighter is feeling like you're making a difference, an improvement, on the lives around you, something that the renovation of Rome achieves remarkably well.

The shop system only ever amounts to a minor shift in the punishment and reward system, allowing players to upgrade as they see fit, or never upgrade at all for a more challenging experience.

Do you think either of these things change the core experience?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Probably the biggest thing is the punishment and reward system which, while covering a wider range of things than AC1, took a serious hit in AC2. Not only did the game become even easier and completely unbalanced (which affects just about every aspect of the game) but there's more artifical restrictions as well (more scripted situations and automatic desyncs). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed. Auto-desynchronization sucks.

But, again, it does not affect the core experience, and it does not stem from a change in the core experience. It's an absolutely isolated tweak of the win condition.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All of this directly affects and changes the core experience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Elaborate.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The hunter and prey approach was about depth, something AC2's mission structure almost completely lacked. The player had to actively go out and seek information about the target (where he's located, what he does, how best to approach, etc...). All that is lost in AC2, replaced with map markers and a few lines of dialogue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But it was effectively replaced. Perhaps Ubisoft Montreal realized that they could achieve the same hunter experience through less superficial game mechanics.

Actively pursuing your prey through the streets is much more in line with the hunter experience than sitting down at a bench and listening as two or three peripherally related people discuss scaffolds, roof access, something about treasure, more scaffolds, and the number of guards. Perhaps Ubisoft realized that players figured all of that out on their own, and so they focused their development budget on stuff that players don't eventually learn on their own, like motivations, which really are beyond what construction workers and guards tend to talk about.

Perhaps Ubisoft realized that designing missions where the Assassin sits at a bench and watches as his target enters and exits the scene, without any attempt to assassinate, or at least follow, him does not really sit well with their original vision of the hunter experience. Perhaps Ubisoft realized that the times where players are forced to passively stand back as innocent people are murdered right in front of their eyes by the current target do not convey Altair as very skilled at assassinating people or at defending humanity.

Perhaps the mission structure was changed for Assassin's Creed II because Ubisoft realized that the original mission structure was the one that didn't fit with well with the original vision. Investigating is not always the same as hunting.

I reiterate: Assassin's Creed II is more in line with the original vision than Assassin's Creed ever was. As it pertains to the discussion at hand, I'm still confident that Patrice was aware of that from the start.

phil.llllll
06-16-2011, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:

Everything about game design is subjective.

Furthermore, just because it's subjective does not mean it's unimportant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because I didn't discuss it doesn't mean I don't think it's important. I would very much agree that it is highly important.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
More relevantly, if there's a change in the core experience, as you suggest there is, aesthetic layout is one of the first areas to see a change. The unchanged nature of the aesthetic layout from the first game to the second is evidence that the original vision has in no way been tampered with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm trying to think how anyone could justify that.

Give me a level editor and sdk for Assassin's Creed and I'll turn it into a completely differnt game without touching the art direction, music, etc...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
That's an extremely unfair and, dare I say it, subjective comment. How do you expect your side of the argument to be taken seriously when your "critical analysis" of Assassin's Creed II is very dismissive and spiteful in nature? Would you take me seriously if I said Altair was nothing but a monotone emo who whined his way back up to the top rank? I doubt it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No because it wouldn't be the truth. And although I stated it rather harshly, that is what happens: Ezio sets out on a quest for revenge thoughtlessly stabbing everyone on his list. Unlike Alta´r, he never stops, never questions if what he's doing is right. There's a real lack of depth, it's mostly just him going from one city to the next accepting missions from various people who happen to all know who he is - which never seems to bother him at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Furthermore, your judgment of the long-term incentive is flawed. Long-term incentive is a player incentive, not a character incentive. The long-term incentive, from the first game to the second, remains the same: to uncover a dark political conspiracy with frightening implications for the freedom of humanity.

Revenge is merely a tool to help players relate to Ezio along the way, much like Altair's quest for redemption. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said it wasn't a player incentive; I said it was tied to the story.

They do tie into one another as well though. Basically, the path of the character directly reflects the path of the player. While Alta´r is going about uncovering truths and discovering the meaning of the Creed, so too is the player. And overall, what Alta´r does, his goals, etc, directly tie into the long term motivations - as do Ezio's.

So while that description you gave fits the second game that's hardly what AC1 was about at all. The freedom of humanity and political conspiracies, for instance, didn't even come up until way later.

The incentive at first was just discovering what was locked away in Desmond's memories, the long turn incentive being helping Alta´r on his quest for redemption while exploring the meaning of the Assassin's Creed. Artifacts, Templars, Assassins, and the war between them, were all just tools used to explore that meaning.

In effect, the differences between the two completely changed the meaning of the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Renovation in Assassin's Creed II is only ever a peripheral mechanic that, at best, is different from the base mechanics, not better or worse. It's a lot like mineral scanning in Mass Effect 2. It has nothing to do with the core experience of saving the galaxy, but it also doesn't get in the way of the core experience.

In Brotherhood, renovation is actually revamped to fit into the core experience. An important part of feeling like a freedom fighter is feeling like you're making a difference, an improvement, on the lives around you, something that the renovation of Rome achieves remarkably well.

The shop system only ever amounts to a minor shift in the punishment and reward system, allowing players to upgrade as they see fit, or never upgrade at all for a more challenging experience.

Do you think either of these things change the core experience? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. Instead of mainly being a game about assassinating people, the game became too much about upgrades and micromanaging. In ACB there were only 4 main assassinations, the bulk of the game is in the side missions which, if left out, make for a much shorter game. A game with the most linear, scripted and shortest missions of the bunch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
But, again, it does not affect the core experience, and it does not stem from a change in the core experience. It's an absolutely isolated tweak of the win condition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It absolutely affects the core experience. And yes, it's stems from a direct change in the punishment and reward system which in turn affects the core experience. The game, which was once at its heart about freedom of choice (everything is permitted), became more limited in scope.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But it was effectively replaced. Perhaps Ubisoft Montreal realized that they could achieve the same hunter experience through less superficial game mechanics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they took out all the depth, they didn't quite achieve the same thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actively pursuing your prey through the streets is much more in line with the hunter experience than sitting down at a bench and listening as two or three peripherally related people discuss scaffolds, roof access, something about treasure, more scaffolds, and the number of guards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The hunter experience wasn't just about following someone through a street, it was about actively seeking out information on the target so as to be better prepared for a strike. All this was automated in AC2, which took away from the experience.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Perhaps Ubisoft realized that players figured all of that out on their own, and so they focused their development budget on stuff that players don't eventually learn on their own, like motivations, which really are beyond what construction workers and guards tend to talk about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But motivations were always learned through those ways as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps Ubisoft realized that designing missions where the Assassin sits at a bench and watches as his target enters and exits the scene, without any attempt to assassinate, or at least follow, him does not really sit well with their original vision of the hunter experience.

Perhaps Ubisoft realized that the times where players are forced to passively stand back as innocent people are murdered right in front of their eyes by the current target do not convey Altair as very skilled at assassinating people or at defending humanity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not about skill. That would actually go against the methods established in game. The whole point was to approach when they were unaware, not madly run into crowds and start swinging at the first site of them.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps the mission structure was changed for Assassin's Creed II because Ubisoft realized that the original mission structure was the one that didn't fit with well with the original vision. Investigating is not always the same as hunting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is when we're talking about the assassins in AC, of which getting to know the target and their whereabouts were essential.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I reiterate: Assassin's Creed II is more in line with the original vision than Assassin's Creed ever was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you know what the original vision was.

The original vision for Assassin's Creed (besides being about the Assassin's Creed) was to emulate how the assassin operated. This was done not only through their outward actions (following the tenents of the creed) but by the methods they employed in finding their targets as well (investigation and otherwise).

For instance, in AC1, view points had a much more practical purpose. Instead of just being used for a nice five second view of the city they were primarily meant as a means to spot people of interest using eagle vision (this is were the usefullness of that ability also came into play). And while the map is automatically updated, it's possible to turn the hud completely off and play that way (something not so effective in AC2 as eagle vision is more limited).

The outfit was also meant to be practical, not the flashy superhero like custom that it became in AC2. In AC1, he's very much dressed not too much unlike the various peasants and monks throughout the city - guards will actually refer to him as either on several occasions.

In the end, it went from being a game about complete freedom (everything is permitted) to having forced limitations on the way the game is played. That directly affects the core experience.

SupremeCaptain
06-16-2011, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
Perhaps Ubisoft realized that designing missions where the Assassin sits at a bench and watches as his target enters and exits the scene, without any attempt to assassinate, or at least follow, him does not really sit well with their original vision of the hunter experience.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the time, Altair had to have the Rafiq's permission to kill his target.

Dagio12
06-16-2011, 10:14 PM
SPOILERS!!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:

No because it wouldn't be the truth. And although I stated it rather harshly, that is what happens: Ezio sets out on a quest for revenge thoughtlessly stabbing everyone on his list. Unlike Alta´r, he never stops, never questions if what he's doing is right. There's a real lack of depth, it's mostly just him going from one city to the next accepting missions from various people who happen to all know who he is - which never seems to bother him at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont really agree with this. Although his beginning intention were to kill for revenge, that isn't what ends up being his primary motivation. After learning a little bit more about the Assassin Order and what his father and fathers before them were doing, it was now his turn to continue that legacy... (so to speak). As much of a quest for revenge as it was, it was also a much larger and important mission. It just so happened that the bad guys involved with his families brutal killings were also part of a larger beast (the templars). I wouldn't say it's a fair judgment call that Ezio was mindlessly wondering around cities killing for no reason but his own personal vendetta.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
So while that description you gave fits the second game that's hardly what AC1 was about at all. The freedom of humanity and political conspiracies, for instance, didn't even come up until way later.

The incentive at first was just discovering what was locked away in Desmond's memories, the long turn incentive being helping Alta´r on his quest for redemption while exploring the meaning of the Assassin's Creed. Artifacts, Templars, Assassins, and the war between them, were all just tools used to explore that meaning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has always been clear, since the beginning of the first AC game that it was totally about freedom of humanity and political conspiracies. It's clear from the first game that the templar/abstergo are after the POEs and after world domination (so to speak) by means off mind manipulation and taking away free will (which is what the assassins were trying to protect) to create a more peaceful world to there liking. This conspiracy wasn't a new secret brought on by the second game. Not really "political" but the large conspiracy in AC1 was discovering that the very person you were working for was conspiring against his own men to achieve the one goal for himself. I think its safe to say that AC1 was way more then Altairs personal quest for redemption. That was merely a tool to tell the story.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Absolutely. Instead of mainly being a game about assassinating people, the game became too much about upgrades and micromanaging. In ACB there were only 4 main assassinations, the bulk of the game is in the side missions which, if left out, make for a much shorter game. A game with the most linear, scripted and shortest missions of the bunch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I agree that a lot of ACB was made up of side missions, many of them were set up to depict an over-run Rome by the Borgia. The main reason you were in Rome to begin with. However, the renovation were not necessary. A lot of the micromanagement went towards the brotherhood.. which was a brand new concept introduced into the game to tell a story of an Assassin trying to piece back together an Assassins Order to help in the fight against the templars. ACB to me was much less about a straight up Assassination game, but more as an extention to AC2 to help continue an extremely detailed and expansive story.

In My eyes, the AC series isn't suppose to be game after game of assinations after assassinations. its a much bigger picture then that. The assassins creed and the assassins order is only where the story began. "IMO"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The game, which was once at its heart about freedom of choice (everything is permitted), became more limited in scope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and No. In the grandness of it all all the games have a fair amount of "freedom." The new games have more linear moments for sure( even more so in ACB), but I would'nt say a whole lot less freedom. You have to take into account that the newer games have much "more" to them... period. Its mainly in the "more" sections that we see some more story driven linear moments. Not every moment of everyones life is always so open. The writers clearly envisioned moments in Ezios life where things happened a certain way.. and they wanted to tell the story and make sure people experienced it accordingly, but, there are also many missions and assassinations alike that can be accomplished in an array of ways. some.. even more so then AC1, with the new weapons and tactics that this new time period and games allowed us to have. Everyone talks about how OPEN and FREE AC1 was.. but I cant justify it much more so then AC2. Investigations were open in that you could pick and choice which ones you did (just like side missions in AC2) however.. once you pick it its pretty straight forward ( theres the "one" bench you can sit on to eavsdrop, theres that one place the guy walks to so you can beat him up... etc). Then the assassinations were all pretty self discoverable.. with or without info from investigations. You always went to the same spot on the map. watched the cut scene.. and had a slight variation on how to take the guy out. Not to mention the entire beginning and end sequences. Im not dissing AC1 and I loved all those things about it. It made sense for that game.. for that story.. and for that time period. I don't think I would appreciate it so much if it wasnt for the other 2 games... and visa versa. But essentially, Assassins Creed is a linear-esque game (with slight variations on carrying out tasks) set in an open world environment.


[QUOTE]The hunter experience wasn't just about following someone through a street, it was about actively seeking out information on the target so as to be better prepared for a strike. All this was automated in AC2, which took away from the experience. [QUOTE/]

I will also admit I miss investigations.. to a degree. I wish they would at least have a few moments ( 2 or 3 missions) where nobody really knew to much about a target and you had to scope it out for yourself. that was always intriguing, and if done sparingly wouldn't get boring and repetitive. With that said though, It kind of plays into the story. In Ezios time period its clear that the battle between the templars and assassins has been raging on and on and bigger and bigger. The Assassins Order cleary has more hands in the pot with people all around the city ( factions and other assassins) clearly gathering intel and constantly being informed. Allowing them to relay into quickly and efficiently to Ezio so he can carry the tasks more effectively. They make it pretty clear in AC1 that Altair doesn't even want to investigate.. that that stuff is below him and he should just be told what and where to strike and be done with it. It's only because of his demotion that he is forced to do his own investigations.

* but i do miss some of those *

phil.llllll
06-17-2011, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SF2themax:

I dont really agree with this. Although his beginning intention were to kill for revenge, that isn't what ends up being his primary motivation. After learning a little bit more about the Assassin Order and what his father and fathers before them were doing, it was now his turn to continue that legacy... (so to speak). As much of a quest for revenge as it was, it was also a much larger and important mission. It just so happened that the bad guys involved with his families brutal killings were also part of a larger beast (the templars). I wouldn't say it's a fair judgment call that Ezio was mindlessly wondering around cities killing for no reason but his own personal vendetta. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said he set out on a quest for revenge. As you point out there are further implications but that's always his motive. The last scene with Rodrigo really drives that home, that he wasn't beyond revenge and it still very much was fueling him. The main point was that he never questioned what he was doing from a moral standpoint. There was a real lack of dialogue in the game, most of it consisted of him going from place to place accepting missions and whatnot.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SF2themax:
It has always been clear, since the beginning of the first AC game that it was totally about freedom of humanity and political conspiracies. It's clear from the first game that the templar/abstergo are after the POEs and after world domination (so to speak) by means off mind manipulation and taking away free will (which is what the assassins were trying to protect) to create a more peaceful world to there liking. This conspiracy wasn't a new secret brought on by the second game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest replaying AC because you have it wrong. There was absolutely no indication at the beginning of the game that there was a conspiracy, or that the freedom of humanity was at stake (besides Desmond's freedom anyway). As I said that didn't come until way later. Desmond doesn't even find out what they're planning on using the POE's for until Lucy tells him.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SF2themax:
Not really "political" but the large conspiracy in AC1 was discovering that the very person you were working for was conspiring against his own men to achieve the one goal for himself. I think its safe to say that AC1 was way more then Altairs personal quest for redemption. That was merely a tool to tell the story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstood what we were talking about. Not story itself, but the long term incentive - why are we doing these things?

Actually I wouldn't even say that's a good description for AC2 considering the player can ignore most of the conspiracy stuff. The main motivation from the beginning to the end is to help Desmond gain skills to take on the Templars.

Going back to AC1, that would've been a horrible explaination of the story if that's what I was giving. Put simply, Assassin's Creed was about the Assassin's Creed (i.e. Nothing is true; everything is permitted). It was threaded throughout the theme, game mechanics and the overall story arc. Alta´r as a character is used to thoroughly explore this and its implications.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Although I agree that a lot of ACB was made up of side missions, many of them were set up to depict an over-run Rome by the Borgia. The main reason you were in Rome to begin with. However, the renovation were not necessary. A lot of the micromanagement went towards the brotherhood.. which was a brand new concept introduced into the game to tell a story of an Assassin trying to piece back together an Assassins Order to help in the fight against the templars. ACB to me was much less about a straight up Assassination game, but more as an extention to AC2 to help continue an extremely detailed and expansive story.

In My eyes, the AC series isn't suppose to be game after game of assinations after assassinations. its a much bigger picture then that. The assassins creed and the assassins order is only where the story began. "IMO" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not against more side stuff to do. I actually quite enjoyed a lot of it, but AC games to me, as the name implies, should probably still be mainly about assassinating people. In Brotherhood there were four main assassinations, one of them wasn't even an assassination at all and another was very highly scripted - actually there's limitations to each of them, to an extent.

And I wasn't talking about story as much as the main mission structure from a purely game perspective.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Yes and No. In the grandness of it all all the games have a fair amount of "freedom." The new games have more linear moments for sure( even more so in ACB), but I would'nt say a whole lot less freedom. You have to take into account that the newer games have much "more" to them... period. Its mainly in the "more" sections that we see some more story driven linear moments. Not every moment of everyones life is always so open. The writers clearly envisioned moments in Ezios life where things happened a certain way.. and they wanted to tell the story and make sure people experienced it accordingly, but, there are also many missions and assassinations alike that can be accomplished in an array of ways. some.. even more so then AC1, with the new weapons and tactics that this new time period and games allowed us to have. Everyone talks about how OPEN and FREE AC1 was.. but I cant justify it much more so then AC2. Investigations were open in that you could pick and choice which ones you did (just like side missions in AC2) however.. once you pick it its pretty straight forward ( theres the "one" bench you can sit on to eavsdrop, theres that one place the guy walks to so you can beat him up... etc). Then the assassinations were all pretty self discoverable.. with or without info from investigations. You always went to the same spot on the map. watched the cut scene.. and had a slight variation on how to take the guy out. Not to mention the entire beginning and end sequences. Im not dissing AC1 and I loved all those things about it. It made sense for that game.. for that story.. and for that time period. I don't think I would appreciate it so much if it wasnt for the other 2 games... and visa versa. But essentially, Assassins Creed is a linear-esque game (with slight variations on carrying out tasks) set in an open world environment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, there's a lot of freedom - I wasn't arguing to the contrary - but the point was it became more restrictive instead of opening things up further (in a sense it went backwards).

About AC1, it wasn't really the investigations that I was talking about but the main assassinations. The player can tackle assassinations in pretty much any way they see fit. And if they screw up, it's not game over, but instead the field changes so either you have to chase down your target or fight him and his guards. It's about possibilities and from that perspective AC1 still had the best assassinations.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I will also admit I miss investigations.. to a degree. I wish they would at least have a few moments ( 2 or 3 missions) where nobody really knew to much about a target and you had to scope it out for yourself. that was always intriguing, and if done sparingly wouldn't get boring and repetitive. With that said though, It kind of plays into the story. In Ezios time period its clear that the battle between the templars and assassins has been raging on and on and bigger and bigger. The Assassins Order cleary has more hands in the pot with people all around the city ( factions and other assassins) clearly gathering intel and constantly being informed. Allowing them to relay into quickly and efficiently to Ezio so he can carry the tasks more effectively. They make it pretty clear in AC1 that Altair doesn't even want to investigate.. that that stuff is below him and he should just be told what and where to strike and be done with it. It's only because of his demotion that he is forced to do his own investigations.

* but i do miss some of those * </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want those exact ones back, only a return to the hunter approach. An attempt to add some depth to the actual assassination missions (to the target and the approach) instead of just go here and there's your target.

As for the story, the investigations were there to give Alta´r a more personal look at his target. Not only was he finding out about their locations, he was finding out their motives, what drives them, and overall what kind of person they were. It's true he didn't want to do them at first but even after he gained back his titles he continued to follow that path on his own - this was meant to echo his quest for knowledge and truth.

So partly, yes, it was a pure story mechanic as well as a game one. But, as I said, they don't necessarily have to have to bring those back to have a deeper and more meaningful experience.

Dagio12
06-17-2011, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SF2themax:

I said he set out on a quest for revenge. As you point out there are further implications but that's always his motive. The last scene with Rodrigo really drives that home, that he wasn't beyond revenge and it still very much was fueling him. The main point was that he never questioned what he was doing from a moral standpoint. There was a real lack of dialogue in the game, most of it consisted of him going from place to place accepting missions and whatnot.[QUOTE/]

I can't really argue that a lot of his motives were that of revenge and the dialogue itself doesnt really allow the player to have any sense of his moral standpoint(which would have been nice at times). But aside from revenge, its clear to me that Ezio is also continuing his fathers legacy. The people Ezio runs into that give him info on his targets and missions tend to give reason and insight about these targets and what they are doing, wheras Altair was never really told by his master why he was killing these targets and forced Altair to question things more.. something Ezio didnt really do. But you also get to see Ezio grow.. from his first few assassinations of blood lust, to learning more about respect. I also kind of see Ezios morals grow and come in to play when he spares Rodrigo at the end of the game.

[QUOTE]
I suggest replaying AC because you have it wrong. There was absolutely no indication at the beginning of the game that there was a conspiracy, or that the freedom of humanity was at stake (besides Desmond's freedom anyway). As I said that didn't come until way later. Desmond doesn't even find out what they're planning on using the POE's for until Lucy tells him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt necessarily mean at the beginning of AC1. But you learn about the apple in the first game. Maybe Im blending in everything because ive played the games so many times, im actually playing through the first one right now. but i thought Vidic mentions something about free will pretty early on. this i could be mistaking a little. In any case, I've always seen this as the long term incentive for the franchise ( in the story sense). Whether they mention this at the beginning or not, this is still ultimately the main plot point about this franchise ( a war between the assassins and the templars to protect the free will of the world.) At least, thats what I've taken in.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I think you misunderstood what we were talking about. Not story itself, but the long term incentive - why are we doing these things?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was merely going of what Laurenismosh was saying in regards to the long term incentive - to discover a conspiracy.. etc. which i happen to agree with. I don't really think that the beginning was about teaching Desmond anything. In AC1 it seemed more like the Abstergo was just using him to get the information they needed. It wasn't until AC2 and Lucy broke him out of Abstergo, that it was time to use the animus to help train and teach Desmond as well as learning what happened and what needs to happen.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I'm not against more side stuff to do. I actually quite enjoyed a lot of it, but AC games to me, as the name implies, should probably still be mainly about assassinating people. In Brotherhood there were four main assassinations, one of them wasn't even an assassination at all and another was very highly scripted - actually there's limitations to each of them, to an extent.

And I wasn't talking about story as much as the main mission structure from a purely game perspective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said before, I can't argue the lack of assassinations in ACB, but considering the story for ACB, I understand why it didn't have a ton of assassinations and I also understand why that might bum some people out. I feel that gameplay and missions in ACB kind of reflect the story they are portraying for that particular game. That might not sit well with some players though, which is understandable. I definitely missed doing more legit assassinations in ACB but I still really liked it for what it was... a continuation of AC2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
True, there's a lot of freedom - I wasn't arguing to the contrary - but the point was it became more restrictive instead of opening things up further (in a sense it went backwards). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i personally thought that there were plenty of assassinations that allowed players even more freedom then before with the added weapons and use of factions.. etc.

But there were also some restricted ones for sure. I personally think that what made AC1 seem more free was how intimate each assassination was. with the cut scene leading up to the killing, to the running away moment after its said and done. But each of those moments isnt really more free then most assassination moments in AC2 IMO. But I will say that newer AC games lack that sort of intimate feeling which is what i think i miss the most about AC1.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
About AC1, it wasn't really the investigations that I was talking about but the main assassinations. The player can tackle assassinations in pretty much any way they see fit. And if they screw up, it's not game over, but instead the field changes so either you have to chase down your target or fight him and his guards. It's about possibilities and from that perspective AC1 still had the best assassinations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess its just a difference of opinion here. haha. There are definitely some scripted moments and assassinations in AC2/ACB but for the most part, most can be handled in the same fashion as AC1 if not more choices. Many ( maybe not all, but many) of the assassinations in AC2 still gave you the freedom to go in stealth, or go rambo, or cause a chase or fight your way through. Even AC1 had scripted assassinations ( Talal for example, you had no choice but to chase him down..) I think ACB really gave people that sense of restrictions more so then any other game with there 100% sync. you dont have to get 100% ( which allows some freedom back) however, when you are given a challenge like that most people want that 100% or they feel a sense of failure. This was a not so good inclusion to the game by the developers. i wont argue that one bit. however, i do believe that has been taken out for revelations.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want those exact ones back, only a return to the hunter approach. An attempt to add some depth to the actual assassination missions (to the target and the approach) instead of just go here and there's your target.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thumbs up for that. I agree. and from a few interviews I've seen it seems like there will be more of that this time around. They mentioned how istead of just map markers tell you exactly where your target is, you may be given a general location and you use the eagle sense to track the trail, once you find the group you listen to the heart beats of individual bad guys in a group to pin point your target. these things all sound great and i hope they are executed well.

Mr_Shade
06-17-2011, 10:32 AM
Guys, making assumptions is sometimes the wrong thing to do..


He left for his own reasons, so don't read too much into it..


I know some are disappointed, however the ACR team is a strong one, and one set to give 110% to the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water, until we know more about the game..


I wish Patrice the best of luck for the future, as should you all..

Rather than try and dig the dirt up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif