PDA

View Full Version : What is something that has been in past games that you want more emphasis on?



BoxedEnigma
03-12-2012, 03:45 AM
I am talking about Assassins Creed games obviously. For me I want more emphasis on random events. For example in past games you could have some money stolen by a thief or see a courier. I would like more variety in random events, especially with cities and wilderness. I'm talking Red-Dead Redemption type random events. Eg. A slave escaping from a slave owner and you can either help him escape or catch him. You could get loney for returning him but helping him escape would get you a good reputation with the slaves. Also, a bear attacking a young woman and you having the chance to save her in return for her puss.... I mean safety. Do you like my idea? What are some of your ideas?

lightning667
03-12-2012, 04:29 AM
I feel the exact same way. When revalations was coming out they said there would be more random events but it was a let down.
I really hope there's some real random events this time. I want to be able to keep playing the game after the story is done after all.

SixKeys
03-12-2012, 05:18 AM
The random events, if they keep them, definitely need a lot more work. It doesn't even have to be anything complicated. I already liked the Cento Occhi ambushes in ACB, it kept you on your toes.

I want to see visible consequences of my actions, like renovating the villa in AC2. There's no point in buying every landmark and shop if all it means is you'll be drowning in cash by the end of the game. It has to actually mean something.

I hope they bring back the "save citizen" missions, whether or not the Brotherhood will return as it was in the previous two games. It can be a random event, I just like the idea of turning citizens to my side and visibly changing their attitudes when I do something nice for them.

More emphasis on customization. Let us choose whether we want to wear armor or not and make customization more like it is in the multiplayer, where you can change each individual part of your costume.

Tetsou88
03-12-2012, 05:51 AM
More emphasis on customization. Let us choose whether we want to wear armor or not and make customization more like it is in the multiplayer, where you can change each individual part of your costume.

This is speculation, but I think we may not see armor this time around. Technically they did not wear any around that time. But on the contrary, Ezio's armor is nothing like the armor people around the time either.


I'd like to see more acknowledgement for what I've done. If I do something major, I'd like to hear it reflected in NPC conversations.

The villa aspect should also return, maybe in your own personal town, or something.

I'd also like to see an improvement to the alert states. Something where guards more than just inspect a dead body and then go back to their regular routine. Maybe have them actively search around, and call in other guards(kind of like Batman:AA and AC). I'd also like to see a wagon pick up any dead bodies.

JumpInTheFire13
03-12-2012, 06:03 AM
I'd like to see more acknowledgement for what I've done. If I do something major, I'd like to hear it reflected in NPC conversations.

This! It was one of the things I like about Revelations. Like when you got back from Cappadocia and the heralds were announcing the death of Manuel Palaiologos.

One thing I'd like to see return is an amazing story.

Evenesque
03-12-2012, 08:37 AM
More emphasis on the classes of the brotherhood assassins. I want them to be more diverse, and I want to be able to pick and choose which one's I have as field agents and which ones are doing...whatever else. That is of course, if they're in the game.

Otherwise, more emphasis on the fact that he should be wearing clothes that don't look so out of place, and more emphasis on affecting the world around you.

doogsy91
03-12-2012, 09:18 AM
The creed, perhaps. It seemed they pretty much forgot about it after AC1. I can't remember if it was even mentioned once in AC2. The title of the game suggests it's rather important but obviously it's not anymore.

Calvarok
03-12-2012, 09:31 AM
The creed, perhaps. It seemed they pretty much forgot about it after AC1. I can't remember if it was even mentioned once in AC2. The title of the game suggests it's rather important but obviously it's not anymore.
It's there, but Ezio's training was not really the most formal, and Italian assassins aren't quite as big on constant mantra-reciting as Al Mualim's bros were. Just because they don't actually come out and recite it doesn't mean they don't obviously let it guide their actions. Nothing is true, everything is permitted in some cases means that adhering to the exactitude of the code is not always the best choice. If an assassin has no other option but to expose themselves before striking, then it's probably a good idea to ignore that tenet. As Ezio seems to do. A lot. : P

People seem to forget that the tenets come from the Al Mualim regime. He also said things like "don't use poison". Altair changed a lot of things. The order became a lot more accepting of creativity in getting the job done. Ezio had to rebuild the Italian brotherhood from the ground up. His training mostly involved giving him an outfit and weapons practice, and then letting him go on a revenge mission for 20 years, THEN taking him into the assassin order and shiz. He was taught the tenets, but not AS tenets. He was taught to try to strike and disappear, not to kill innocents, and when he did find out about the brotherhood, it was fairly obvious that he shouldn't compromise it. He also studied Altair's codex,

As to it being the title, honestly, when you're trying to tell a story, it's not a good idea to bind yourself to ALWAYS focusing on what's in the title.

dengs123
03-12-2012, 09:38 AM
I can't remember if it was even mentioned once in AC2. The title of the game suggests it's rather important but obviously it's not anymore. http://www.filii.info/g.gif

Calvarok
03-12-2012, 10:01 AM
I can't remember if it was even mentioned once in AC2. The title of the game suggests it's rather important but obviously it's not anymore. http://www.filii.info/g.gif
It's important because the assassins still follow it. It's just that it's not repeated word for word over and over again. It was mentioned in the codex, in AC2.

iNEEDSmeINSIDES
03-12-2012, 11:09 AM
I would like to see the return of the wider conspiracy from the glyph puzzles. I enjoyed the backstory of Desmond even though it was a bit meh overall but I really missed finding out what Abstergo had been up to behind the scenes in recent times that was really good in Brotherhood.

Also the wider story in general story has been a bit lacking late, hearing what Abstergo is up with the satelite and other PoEs and the other Assassin Cells.

alientraveller
03-12-2012, 12:40 PM
The creed, perhaps. It seemed they pretty much forgot about it after AC1. I can't remember if it was even mentioned once in AC2. The title of the game suggests it's rather important but obviously it's not anymore.

You mean aside from the maxim "Nothing is true: everything is permitted" being mentioned in every game and Ezio giving Sofia a detailed elaboration of its meaning in ACR? Not to mention the tenets are still there gameplay wise for you cannot kill civilians or enter places like Tiber Island while in conflict.

blazefp
03-12-2012, 01:24 PM
I am talking about Assassins Creed games obviously. For me I want more emphasis on random events. For example in past games you could have some money stolen by a thief or see a courier. I would like more variety in random events, especially with cities and wilderness. I'm talking Red-Dead Redemption type random events. Eg. A slave escaping from a slave owner and you can either help him escape or catch him. You could get loney for returning him but helping him escape would get you a good reputation with the slaves. Also, a bear attacking a young woman and you having the chance to save her in return for her puss.... I mean safety. Do you like my idea? What are some of your ideas?

That'd be awesome, well thought man.

And welcome to the forums. See M's signature for a more "complete" welcoming ;D

DavisP92
03-12-2012, 01:43 PM
I'd like to see what made AC1 great for me, the freedom to choose how I kill my target without the game saying I didn't do it right. I could kill (can't remember his name but the fat gay guy that poisons everyone) without him even knowing i was behind him (this includes his two body guards that stand behind him, i kill them too).Preparation was great in it to, I could kill archers around the rooftops before I killed the target and could use the path i laid out for myself as an escape route with no enemy in sight.

blazefp
03-12-2012, 01:48 PM
I'd like to see what made AC1 great for me, the freedom to choose how I kill my target without the game saying I didn't do it right. I could kill (can't remember his name but the fat gay guy that poisons everyone) without him even knowing i was behind him (this includes his two body guards that stand behind him, i kill them too).Preparation was great in it to, I could kill archers around the rooftops before I killed the target and could use the path i laid out for myself as an escape route with no enemy in sight.

Yeah that was one of my fave missions, Abdul Nuquod or something like that. Anyway I really don't care about the 100%sync, it's just optional because it was how Ezio has done it in his life, it's nothing more than a "suggestion". And sometimes it also adds some difficulty to the mission and that's cool. I really don't get why people always argue about this.

Moryarity
03-12-2012, 02:17 PM
I'd like to see what made AC1 great for me, the freedom to choose how I kill my target without the game saying I didn't do it right. I could kill (can't remember his name but the fat gay guy that poisons everyone) without him even knowing i was behind him (this includes his two body guards that stand behind him, i kill them too).Preparation was great in it to, I could kill archers around the rooftops before I killed the target and could use the path i laid out for myself as an escape route with no enemy in sight.


/sign

Being able to kill my target like an assassins in a stealthy way and not like a one-man-army slaughtering anything between me and the target.

Also there should be more possibilities to use the social stealth system..it has been abandoned in the past games.. I would like to have a bigger emphasis on it in the future games.

Apirka
03-12-2012, 02:42 PM
I'd like to see what made AC1 great for me, the freedom to choose how I kill my target without the game saying I didn't do it right. I could kill (can't remember his name but the fat gay guy that poisons everyone) without him even knowing i was behind him (this includes his two body guards that stand behind him, i kill them too).Preparation was great in it to, I could kill archers around the rooftops before I killed the target and could use the path i laid out for myself as an escape route with no enemy in sight.

This. So much. Hell, I never even listened to the information you had to gather in AC1, I just barged in and killed everyone who got into my way. Which I still do if I find the 100% requirement particularly stupid. I mean, really, look at Tarik's assassination in ACR. Why would Ezio have done an air assassination if he could have just used that group of Janissaries to blend in and stab Tarik from behind? I really, really don't like requirements that make no sense. (I also hate it if you're not allowed to be detected for no reason, like that boat mission during the Bonfire of the Vanities, though that's not about 100%.)

In any case, I definitely liked being able to choose myself a lot better than being given some ridiculous requirement.

Acrimonious_Nin
03-12-2012, 03:00 PM
This. So much. Hell, I never even listened to the information you had to gather in AC1, I just barged in and killed everyone who got into my way. Which I still do if I find the 100% requirement particularly stupid. I mean, really, look at Tarik's assassination in ACR. Why would Ezio have done an air assassination if he could have just used that group of Janissaries to blend in and stab Tarik from behind? I really, really don't like requirements that make no sense. (I also hate it if you're not allowed to be detected for no reason, like that boat mission during the Bonfire of the Vanities, though that's not about 100%.)

In any case, I definitely liked being able to choose myself a lot better than being given some ridiculous requirement.

I agree with this ongoing idea we should have the freedom to choose how to kill without that unpleasant red bar with a unpleasant failure sound evertime you want to do something apart from requirements, but what I would like to return is that calculating and cold assassins feel that altair had going on not this horney assassins destined to have only 2 kids after his labido clearly over achieved 100% sync with all the females he bumps in to ......

DavisP92
03-12-2012, 03:01 PM
Yeah that was one of my fave missions, Abdul Nuquod or something like that. Anyway I really don't care about the 100%sync, it's just optional because it was how Ezio has done it in his life, it's nothing more than a "suggestion". And sometimes it also adds some difficulty to the mission and that's cool. I really don't get why people always argue about this.

yea that was his name, when i used to go back to AC1 after i beat it I just replayed that mission all the time. Sometimes the sync. system isn't bad, like beat yusuf to a location, those are fun to do. But telling me how i should assassinate a target isn't fun, now with AC3 having a bow and arrow i know i might want to kill some targets with the bow and if the sync. system tells me to do it some other way i won't enjoy it as much. Still will but not to the same degree. also timed missions in lairs aren't fun, why should i run through a lair in 8 minutes when i want to look at the nice location that Ubisoft made.



/sign

Being able to kill my target like an assassins in a stealthy way and not like a one-man-army slaughtering anything between me and the target.

Also there should be more possibilities to use the social stealth system..it has been abandoned in the past games.. I would like to have a bigger emphasis on it in the future games.

why the sign??? i agree with you, how the target should be killed should be in the hands of the player and no suggestions (which aren't really suggestions because you are missing out on game content). And yea more possibilities in stealth all together




This. So much. Hell, I never even listened to the information you had to gather in AC1, I just barged in and killed everyone who got into my way. Which I still do if I find the 100% requirement particularly stupid. I mean, really, look at Tarik's assassination in ACR. Why would Ezio have done an air assassination if he could have just used that group of Janissaries to blend in and stab Tarik from behind? I really, really don't like requirements that make no sense. (I also hate it if you're not allowed to be detected for no reason, like that boat mission during the Bonfire of the Vanities, though that's not about 100%.)

In any case, I definitely liked being able to choose myself a lot better than being given some ridiculous requirement.

yea, i mean i normally went with the stealth path, but what made AC1 so great to me was the freedom to choose what you wanted to do and how you wanted to without the game saying well you can do it that way but you really should do it our way

GeneralTrumbo
03-12-2012, 03:21 PM
I would like there to be a lot of twists in the story like in AC2. I liked that feeling of when the story took a drastic leap. Like, remember when Ezio found out he was a prophet? That really changed a lot of things about the story and probably was the most series-changing moment so far(aside from Desmond stabbing Lucy, of course).

blazefp
03-12-2012, 03:26 PM
yea that was his name, when i used to go back to AC1 after i beat it I just replayed that mission all the time. Sometimes the sync. system isn't bad, like beat yusuf to a location, those are fun to do. But telling me how i should assassinate a target isn't fun, now with AC3 having a bow and arrow i know i might want to kill some targets with the bow and if the sync. system tells me to do it some other way i won't enjoy it as much. Still will but not to the same degree. also timed missions in lairs aren't fun, why should i run through a lair in 8 minutes when i want to look at the nice location that Ubisoft made.

I didn't like those either but it didn't matter anyway, I made it the way I wanted first and replayed it later for 100% sync. It's not bad when you do it this way I actually prefer it, I'm always looking for new challenges. And 8 minutes was far too long btw

johnnyhayek
03-12-2012, 04:02 PM
This topic is always on my mind whenever they announce a new AC.

Well, from AC1, I would like the freedom of choice during assassinations, as well as emphasis on assassinations rather than revolutions and wars as was done in ACB and ACR. Also, some difficulty in assassinations and combat. A note: Assassinations in this game felt so important since their targets were well developed. The research you do before the kill actually builds up suspense and reason to kill your target, even if it was a bit repetitive. So I actually felt like a significant assassin, who has a wide range of choices in killing the target, in AC1

From AC2, I would like the amazing, long story Ezio had in that one, as well as emphasis on assassinations again, in addition to a well developed character like Ezio. Targets in this one didn't feel well developed though. You wouldn't gather info, but instead are just given the location and are forced on a certain plan.

From ACB, I would have said combat system (Even though it made things too easy, but I enjoyed it somehow), but we already know they will revamp this system. I want the Desmond sections to be like this one. They felt so mysterious, and immersive by making you feel part of a team trying to stop the end of the world. Desmond sections then from this one.

From ACR, I want the amazing city atmosphere and background sounds.

To summarize: A game with focus on assassinations, which are good and difficult and significant, a well developed character, a long story, good immersive Desmond sections, with great cities( and in this game's case: wilderness) would be prefect for me.

GeneralTrumbo
03-12-2012, 04:22 PM
From ACR, I want the amazing city atmosphere and background sounds.

And the graphics.

kriegerdesgottes
03-12-2012, 04:30 PM
I say random events. Random events have soo much potential in AC and I really thought they were finally gonna get it right like RDR did but it was such a failure in ACR. If they did it right it could do wonders for the replay value of the game and add more variety.

SixKeys
03-12-2012, 04:31 PM
Freedom to choose how we want to assassinate our target is definitely important. I know they want to make these games more movie-like but having different options to achieve your goal adds to replayability. I don't mind having 100% sync requirements as long as they're subtle and not irritating.

Apirka
03-12-2012, 04:34 PM
And the graphics.

I think graphical quality is a given considering the trailer and the screenshots.

I've thought about it and 100& synchro does have its uses (at least when the requirement isn't completely ridiculous), but perhaps it would be an idea to make it seem less like you've failed? It's not all tat intrusive in ACB and ACR, but it still pissed me off somewhat, especially if it was because doing 100% didn't seem as fun as doing it my way. (Though, didn't the Gameinformer article mention that they'll put even more emphasis on it? Do not want :|)


And yes, developing the targets more again would be great. i love character development anyway, and if I know more about my targets because of what the story shows me instead of having to read the database entry to I think it's be a lot more fun.

johnnyhayek
03-12-2012, 04:36 PM
And the graphics.

Sure. As long as they use them in a logical and creative way.

D.I.D.
03-12-2012, 04:42 PM
I think graphical quality is a given considering the trailer and the screenshots.

I've thought about it and 100& synchro does have its uses (at least when the requirement isn't completely ridiculous), but perhaps it would be an idea to make it seem less like you've failed? It's not all tat intrusive in ACB and ACR, but it still pissed me off somewhat, especially if it was because doing 100% didn't seem as fun as doing it my way. (Though, didn't the Gameinformer article mention that they'll put even more emphasis on it? Do not want :|)


And yes, developing the targets more again would be great. i love character development anyway, and if I know more about my targets because of what the story shows me instead of having to read the database entry to I think it's be a lot more fun.

Don't think it has to piss you off a fair amount to encourage you to try and get the 100%?

There are lots of times I've been glad of the heaviest failure requirements too. If I'd had the open option of getting through Lucrezia's palace where I could be detected, I probably wouldn't have done it that way even though I lean towards stealth. I would have been detected, done something to deal with that, and then continued through the map. It was much more exciting to me that the no-detection restriction was on that mission, when I got to the end and achieved the 100% for not killing anyone.

GeneralTrumbo
03-12-2012, 04:43 PM
I like the fact that they will now have checkpoints in 100% synch. =)

johnnyhayek
03-12-2012, 04:44 PM
And yes, developing the targets more again would be great. i love character development anyway, and if I know more about my targets because of what the story shows me instead of having to read the database entry to I think it's be a lot more fun.

That is something I really loved in AC1. All the info you gathered on your targets. Also, while AC1 didn't include a 100% sync option, it did give you hints about killing your target and escaping, but you weren't forced to do them. An example is the Abul Nuqoud assassination. If you gathered all the info, you would know there is an easy way to escape the party, as well as an easy way to kill your target ( By using the scaffolding which was lefy by accident above his head). Those hints I liked.

D.I.D.
03-12-2012, 04:49 PM
That is something I really loved in AC1. All the info you gathered on your targets. Also, while AC1 didn't include a 100% sync option, it did give you hints about killing your target and escaping, but you weren't forced to do them. An example is the Abul Nuqoud assassination. If you gathered all the info, you would know there is an easy way to escape the party, as well as an easy way to kill your target ( By using the scaffolding which was lefy by accident above his head). Those hints I liked.

It was good, but you could tell the designers were struggling at times to find useful information to slip you, and often the info wasn't that much of a reward considering the difficulty of the task required to get it. It must be incredibly hard to make an open world system and give the missions so many hidden ways in.

Apirka
03-12-2012, 05:15 PM
Don't think it has to piss you off a fair amount to encourage you to try and get the 100%?

There are lots of times I've been glad of the heaviest failure requirements too. If I'd had the open option of getting through Lucrezia's palace where I could be detected, I probably wouldn't have done it that way even though I lean towards stealth. I would have been detected, done something to deal with that, and then continued through the map. It was much more exciting to me that the no-detection restriction was on that mission, when I got to the end and achieved the 100% for not killing anyone.

Eh, not really. Usually when AC pisses me of it's ore of a throwing the controller against the wall kind of pissed off than it making me determined to do better. Fortunately my father's antics taught me that that's a bad idea unless you want to break your trigger ****ons.

Besides, I don't want to have to sneak just so the game doesn't tell me I'm doing it wrong (and admittedly, I'm a bit sensitive there) -- if I just want to go in and stab the guards in the face than I want to be able to do just that. On the other hand, it is satisfying if you do manage to get 100% synch when it wasn't incredibly frustrating to do so, like the Capadoccia missions, which is why I think not making the the player feel like he somehow failed without getting rid of creating extra challenges (that still should make sense, though, seriously).

D.I.D.
03-12-2012, 05:25 PM
Eh, not really. Usually when AC pisses me of it's ore of a throwing the controller against the wall kind of pissed off than it making me determined to do better. Fortunately my father's antics taught me that that's a bad idea unless you want to break your trigger ****ons.

Besides, I don't want to have to sneak just so the game doesn't tell me I'm doing it wrong (and admittedly, I'm a bit sensitive there) -- if I just want to go in and stab the guards in the face than I want to be able to do just that. On the other hand, it is satisfying if you do manage to get 100% synch when it wasn't incredibly frustrating to do so, like the Capadoccia missions, which is why I think not making the the player feel like he somehow failed without getting rid of creating extra challenges (that still should make sense, though, seriously).

:D

Ah, I never rage. I just enjoy the relief after a really tense mission, but I know I'm probably in a minority in liking those heavily restricted missions, from what I read here.

I liked that boat one too, although that one made less sense. With Lucrezia's palace you could think, "okay, if they see me they'll raise the hue and cry, and then the palace will be locked down and there'll be no way to get the painting", whereas I suppose the boat one was a lot less believable.

Cappadocia was odd - I kept starting a chase and then jumping back to the wooden hanging platform, spamming the soldiers with bombs and throwable weapons, which is probably cheating really.

JCearlyyears
03-12-2012, 06:20 PM
I'd like to have more emphasis on Desmond. I wish he would at the very least make it to the cover of a box. I always thought he'd wind up with his own game, with a fleshed out story and city, and just basically have his own AC game. I think it's crazy that he is a main character and is pushed to the side in every AC game. They say he will get the ending he deserves, but all they've said so far is tons of stuff about Connor. Sure it's only so far and still have several months, but the fact that they've said nothing about Desmond is either really good or really bad.

DavisP92
03-12-2012, 06:22 PM
I didn't like those either but it didn't matter anyway, I made it the way I wanted first and replayed it later for 100% sync. It's not bad when you do it this way I actually prefer it, I'm always looking for new challenges. And 8 minutes was far too long btw

yea you could finish those 8 minute sync. levels with a minute to spare, but that's not enough time to walk around and enjoy the level, take every path and pick up every treasure (that was in ACB). as for doing the first play-through your way then replaying it again to do it their way, that doesn't interest me. I don't want to replay levels just because i didn't get everything when i originally could have and decided not to. I prefer to get everything as I play, that's just the type of gamer i am. I like challenges, but sometimes the sync. system doesn't do that right, (can't remember a lot from ACR because i haven't replayed it enough), in ACB there was a mission where you had to take the location of a war machine from a guard and to get full sync. you had to kick the guard. that just seems dumb to me, when i could use arrow shower, or throw a smoke bomb and assassinate him or just assassinate him without anything else. But if you want 100 % sync. you are forced to get into a fight and kick him. That's dumb to me.

I'm fine with ones that encourage exploring, do not take damage, and the beat this person to the location sync missions, but not ones that limit (in the way that if you want to get 100 % sync you have to do it the way the game wants and not the way you would like) exploration and how i encounter a target

GeneralTrumbo
03-12-2012, 06:24 PM
I'd like to have more emphasis on Desmond. I wish he would at the very least make it to the cover of a box. I always thought he'd wind up with his own game, with a fleshed out story and city, and just basically have his own AC game. I think it's crazy that he is a main character and is pushed to the side in every AC game. They say he will get the ending he deserves, but all they've said so far is tons of stuff about Connor. Sure it's only so far and still have several months, but the fact that they've said nothing about Desmond is either really good or really bad.
I don't like how they said that they are simplifying things. It makes me ask myself if they are going to give us, the fans from the beginning, the ending to a complex story that we were expecting, or finish it off in 2 seconds. I mean, come on Ubisoft. The game was not too complex whatsoever.

Apirka
03-12-2012, 06:33 PM
:D

Ah, I never rage. I just enjoy the relief after a really tense mission, but I know I'm probably in a minority in liking those heavily restricted missions, from what I read here.

I liked that boat one too, although that one made less sense. With Lucrezia's palace you could think, "okay, if they see me they'll raise the hue and cry, and then the palace will be locked down and there'll be no way to get the painting", whereas I suppose the boat one was a lot less believable.

Cappadocia was odd - I kept starting a chase and then jumping back to the wooden hanging platform, spamming the soldiers with bombs and throwable weapons, which is probably cheating really.

I am easily angered. ...Looking at the rest of my family, that is not really surprising.

Capadoccia was fun because it wasn't too hard and not being detected actually made sense. I mean, you're in a village full of Templars, why would they ever stop searching for you if they found out the Assassin was there? The boat was odd, because there was no reason why I shouldn't have been able to just stab all the guards along with the my target. I eventually watched a walkthrough of it because I couldn't figure out how to do it :| That whole memory sequence was sort of frustrating.

JCearlyyears
03-12-2012, 06:37 PM
I don't like how they said that they are simplifying things. It makes me ask myself if they are going to give us, the fans from the beginning, the ending to a complex story that we were expecting, or finish it off in 2 seconds. I mean, come on Ubisoft. The game was not too complex whatsoever.

If anything, they should complicate things, not in a frustrating confusing way that only someone who picks up every last detail would understand, but in a way that makes it interesting. Complicated things tend to be the most interesting. I hope that they give a well thought out deep story that would be worthy of the end of Desmond's story. Why would they need to simplify it anymore? That really is weird. If this game is less than 20 hours to beat, I will be highly disappointed because I was expecting 40+ hours. I've beaten every AC game in a day, I want an exception. (not each in the same day of course.)

GeneralTrumbo
03-12-2012, 06:49 PM
If anything, they should complicate things, not in a frustrating confusing way that only someone who picks up every last detail would understand, but in a way that makes it interesting. Complicated things tend to be the most interesting. I hope that they give a well thought out deep story that would be worthy of the end of Desmond's story. Why would they need to simplify it anymore? That really is weird. If this game is less than 20 hours to beat, I will be highly disappointed because I was expecting 40+ hours. I've beaten every AC game in a day, I want an exception. (not each in the same day of course.)
I hope they know that people were already complaining about the lack of difficulty, therefore they shouldn't be simplifying anything. This isn't CoD. It isn't meant to be a "pick up and play" type game.

SixKeys
03-12-2012, 06:59 PM
We don't know yet what the devs mean by "simplifying things". They said they want to go back to basics and bringing the series closer to its roots which to me sounds like a good thing. Less pointless fluff and more assassinating is what I want.

From the sounds of it the full sync system is being reworked in a way that is less strict on the player. Since you will now have checkpoints, instead of of 50% you can now have 25% or 75% or something. I just hope this won't mean more stupid pop-ups informing me of my progress all the time. Really, the only thing they would need to do to make full sync less intrusive IMO would be to make it less obvious, or maybe make it available only upon replay. The first time you could do the mission any way you wanted to, on subsequent playthroughs you could choose to go for the extra sync requirement.

One thing I miss about the investigations in AC1 is that just by exploring the city you could pretty quickly figure out where your next assassination would likely take place and plan ahead. You would see a heavily guarded palace and think "a-ha, security seems tight around here, this must be an important place". Even without gathering every piece of intel you could start figuring out the best way to avoid the patrols and take out all the archers for an easy getaway later. In later games you would come across a landmark but there wouldn't necessarily be any guards around until the actual mission (like the Colosseum). That meant a lack of any pre-planning.

DavisP92
03-12-2012, 07:07 PM
From the sounds of it the full sync system is being reworked in a way that is less strict on the player. Since you will now have checkpoints, instead of of 50% you can now have 25% or 75% or something. I just hope this won't mean more stupid pop-ups informing me of my progress all the time. Really, the only thing they would need to do to make full sync less intrusive IMO would be to make it less obvious, or maybe make it available only upon replay. The first time you could do the mission any way you wanted to, on subsequent playthroughs you could choose to go for the extra sync requirement.

One thing I miss about the investigations in AC1 is that just by exploring the city you could pretty quickly figure out where your next assassination would likely take place and plan ahead. You would see a heavily guarded palace and think "a-ha, security seems tight around here, this must be an important place". Even without gathering every piece of intel you could start figuring out the best way to avoid the patrols and take out all the archers for an easy getaway later. In later games you would come across a landmark but there wouldn't necessarily be any guards around until the actual mission (like the Colosseum). That meant a lack of any pre-planning.

from what i read, and how i perceived it the sync. system is now even more important, where you get more content then before.

and yea that's what i loved about AC1, planning out your attack before confronting the target. Preparation. But they somewhat got rid of that in AC2, and then completely got rid of it with ACB and ACR.

You know what, i wish they would get rid of the stupid notoriety system increases because you kill a guard with a high profile kill on a rooftop, if noone saw it then why did the notoriety system increase. it's the same in AC1 honestly, if you kill one of your targets without anyone knowing the bell still goes off

pacmanate
03-12-2012, 07:25 PM
More emphasis on......... story!

Tetsou88
03-12-2012, 08:12 PM
One thing I miss about the investigations in AC1 is that just by exploring the city you could pretty quickly figure out where your next assassination would likely take place and plan ahead. You would see a heavily guarded palace and think "a-ha, security seems tight around here, this must be an important place". Even without gathering every piece of intel you could start figuring out the best way to avoid the patrols and take out all the archers for an easy getaway later. In later games you would come across a landmark but there wouldn't necessarily be any guards around until the actual mission (like the Colosseum). That meant a lack of any pre-planning.

The only problem I have with this is that unless it's a fortress or other "secure" area, there would be no reason for extra guards to be there until the target shows up. I agree we need more background and planning missions, but guards should only be there around the time or right before the target shows up(If it's a public area that is).

Dieinthedark
03-12-2012, 09:52 PM
A more serious tone/atmosphere that only AC1 has had. The other games, while having better gameplay, didn't have near the serious, almost sinister vibe that AC1 had. That's why even still it remains my favorite.

Acrimonious_Nin
03-12-2012, 10:31 PM
I want them to return all the women that died after getting to meet an assassin


- The chalice(adah)
- maria thorpe (altairs wife)
- Christina
- random chick that was hitting on ezio while carrying flowers by that hair lover cesare (the only villian with awesome hair)
- the courtesan that got her neck cut after looking at ezio
-Katerina sforza
- ....well sofia made it out of there struggling for her life after meeting ezio and did not die. I give her props for roughing it out
- Lucy stillman

Tetsou88
03-13-2012, 02:28 AM
Sea Traffic.

Istanbul is a major port, and yet traffic never leaves, enters or passes through. I was amazed when I realized I could row a boat between the Imperial district and Galata district, only to be disappointed with the fact that the space in between was rather empty.

I also can't recall anyone using the gondoliers in AC2.

New York and Boston are both rather large trade ports, so it would be nice to see ships coming and going(even if you can't get on them).

Edit: I'd also like to see pedestrians live out their lives better. Enter and leave buildings, groups randomly walking away if stopped, etc. I know they walk around carrying stuff, and doing stuff, but it could be touched on a little bit.

Acrimonious_Nin
03-13-2012, 02:55 AM
Sea Traffic.

Istanbul is a major port, and yet traffic never leaves, enters or passes through. I was amazed when I realized I could row a boat between the Imperial district and Galata district, only to be disappointed with the fact that the space in between was rather empty.

I also can't recall anyone using the gondoliers in AC2.

New York and Boston are both rather large trade ports, so it would be nice to see ships coming and going(even if you can't get on them).

Edit: I'd also like to see pedestrians live out their lives better. Enter and leave buildings, groups randomly walking away if stopped, etc. I know they walk around carrying stuff, and doing stuff, but it could be touched on a little bit.

I actually would like to go on the ships that were leaving but once your on theres no way off but jumping, if you stay on boat you go along for the ride to another part of america or europe...just to free run in an area then go back and continue mission..

ILLusioNaire
03-13-2012, 06:59 AM
Pursuit. I want it to be hard to escape. Harder than AC1. Also, I want guards to be formidable. After ACB guards were laughable. Even the Janissaries from ACR weren't hard to bring down, they just took a little longer to kill than the average punk. I want to finally feel the actual NEED to flee a battle if I have to. Though, after seeing Ezio take down like 20 Byzantines in the ACR intro video they kinda set the bar there for a super assassin. Still, just because Connor may be able to kill a lot of guards doesn't mean it should be easy in-game.

Kit572
03-13-2012, 12:12 PM
I want hard hidden blade combat like in the first game.

And the stealth needs a HELL OF A LOT more work!

LightRey
03-13-2012, 12:14 PM
I want hard hidden blade combat like in the first game.

And the stealth needs a HELL OF A LOT more work!
AC1 didn't have hidden blade combat. It just had stabbing. Combat requires them to fight back.

Kit572
03-13-2012, 12:15 PM
AC1 didn't have hidden blade combat. It just had stabbing.

Yes, but it was hard. Thats what i am saying, i want it to be hard like in AC1.

LightRey
03-13-2012, 12:19 PM
Yes, but it was hard. Thats what i am saying, i want it to be hard like in AC1.

Not really. If used right it was actually the easiest and most flawless way to "fight".

Kit572
03-13-2012, 12:23 PM
Not really. If used right it was actually the easiest and most flawless way to "fight".

not for me...

you had to counter within a short time frame.



oh screw it, i guess we are all good at some things, and others aren't...

LightRey
03-13-2012, 12:24 PM
not for me...

you had to counter within a short time frame.



oh screw it, i guess we are all good at some things, and others aren't...

You don't have to counter. Just don't lock on, throw guards to the ground and kill them one by one.

Kit572
03-13-2012, 12:29 PM
you don't have to counter. Just don't lock on, throw guards to the ground and kill them one by one.


...


Why i no think of that????

LightRey
03-13-2012, 12:30 PM
...


Why i no think of that????

xD
If you replay the game about 10 times you tend to discover stuff like that.

FilipinoNinja67
03-13-2012, 12:40 PM
What do i want to return in AC? The Freedom of the kill in AC1 and the stealth in AC2 i don't like all this linear bull**** the games have been putting in there after AC1. "You approach your target the way you want to....". -07 AC1 Gameplay and Interview

LightRey
03-13-2012, 12:43 PM
What do i want to return in AC? The Freedom of the kill in AC1 and the stealth in AC2 i don't like all this linear bull**** the games have been putting in there after AC1. "You approach your target the way you want to....". -07 AC1 Gameplay and Interview
...you still do. More so in fact, since AC1 just offered a specific set of 3 possibilities each time.

FilipinoNinja67
03-13-2012, 12:50 PM
Well i was talking only on the assassination missions, not every single mission. Sure sometimes it opens up for great set pieces like the flying machine but i would rather have a game where i have to figure out how to approach my target. I dont want my handheld throughout the entire game. Look at AC:B for example, how many missions have you completed where you can replay it in atleast 3 different ways.

Ive started up hitman blood money again and after 4 years im still finding new ways to kill all of my targets.

LightRey
03-13-2012, 12:53 PM
Well i was talking only on the assassination missions, not every single mission. Sure sometimes it opens up for great set pieces like the flying machine but i would rather have a game where i have to figure out how to approach my target. I dont want my handheld throughout the entire game. Look at AC:B for example, how many missions have you completed where you can replay it in atleast 3 different ways.

Ive started up hitman blood money again and after 4 years im still finding new ways to kill all of my targets.
Basically every one. You're allowing yourself to be limited by the 100% synch requirements I think.

Jamison_J_B
03-13-2012, 12:57 PM
Well i was talking only on the assassination missions, not every single mission. Sure sometimes it opens up for great set pieces like the flying machine but i would rather have a game where i have to figure out how to approach my target...

Agreed. AC1 had more strategy in it I think, though it was still somewhat linear. In the end, after the assassination, you would still have to kill guards. Not that I have a issue with killing guards, I do grossly enjoy going on massacre rampages, but I'd also like to analyze, plan and execute (like a ninja :D)

FilipinoNinja67
03-13-2012, 02:50 PM
Basically every one. You're allowing yourself to be limited by the 100% synch requirements I think.

That's probably what it is. I don't like it because when i don't do it, it makes me feel like i did something wrong and am less of an assassin for not completing it. My favorite parts in AC2 came from the flying machine, the bonfire dlc where you had like 10 targets (woot!), and the side contracts (that were crapped on in the next games). I remember one where i tailed a chick to a party and snuck in from the docks, poisoned my target without alerting anyone, then sneaking out and climbing on the rooftops to get a vantage point and made it just in time to see my target chocking trying to hold onto his last breath. I remember thinking, "dam ezio's a boss"

Ioder
03-14-2012, 12:11 AM
Freedom of the way I kill, if I'm assigned a target I want to inspect the area he is currently in and be able to take him down my way.

Depth in a character, I loved Ezio, and I want to love Connor as well, please Ubisoft, make this happen.

I want people to realize, "Hey, he looks extremely suspicious..." If I'm roaming Boston armed to the teeth I want some NPCs to realize I'm not just a normal guy and maybe tell the guards what they've seen, or take action into their own hands by asking me whats up, something along those lines.

Lonesoldier2012
03-14-2012, 01:33 AM
Desmond. except i want him going outside and doing stuff.

SixKeys
03-14-2012, 01:44 AM
I want people to realize, "Hey, he looks extremely suspicious..." If I'm roaming Boston armed to the teeth I want some NPCs to realize I'm not just a normal guy and maybe tell the guards what they've seen, or take action into their own hands by asking me whats up, something along those lines.

^ This. It was already kind of ridiculous in AC1 even though Alta´r still looked slightly more inconspicuous. Then with the sequels it just got more and more laughable how no-one seemed to pay any attention to a guy carrying a huge battle axe and tons of knives on his person. This is one of the biggest reasons I wish we had the option to remove weapons any time we wanted. Being armed to the teeth should slightly raise the guards' awareness even if you're not doing anything to provoke them.

Tetsou88
03-14-2012, 05:30 AM
^ This. It was already kind of ridiculous in AC1 even though Alta´r still looked slightly more inconspicuous. Then with the sequels it just got more and more laughable how no-one seemed to pay any attention to a guy carrying a huge battle axe and tons of knives on his person. This is one of the biggest reasons I wish we had the option to remove weapons any time we wanted. Being armed to the teeth should slightly raise the guards' awareness even if you're not doing anything to provoke them.


I believe it's because most of the time there are wars going on, and mercenaries are quite common. Besides, no one wants to get into it with the heavily armed guy if they don't need too.:p

I also believe it wasn't uncommon to see people with money have weapons at those times, and it was common to have weapons around the American Revolution.

Calvarok
03-14-2012, 05:44 AM
New ways to interact with NPCs, without simply killing them or knocking them aside. Not sure exactly what I'm looking for , but something that could add to the social stealth aspect would be great.