PDA

View Full Version : Freedom in AC 1



Groofert
03-25-2012, 04:02 PM
The last few weeks I've been replaying all of the AC games. Well, except for Brotherhood, because for some reason I hate that game, and also not AC 1, because I don't have it on the Xbox 360 and it doesn't work anymore on my PC. So I've just been replaying AC II and AC: R, lol. :P

I always try to play as realistically as possible. That means no HUD, and as much stealth as possible. Unfortunately the latest AC games make that VERY FREAKING DIFFICULT. Sometimes it's just impossible. I don't care about bringing a freaking mercenary's son to the doctor. I just want to assassinate people. I don't want to know with who my character is in love. I'm an assassin... I'm not saying I don't like the story, because I do. I'm just saying I would like some more assassinations, and some less... well... other random stuff. And I feel that AC 1 is the best game in that regard.

I've read somewhere that AC 1 has a lot more sound clues, thus making it easier to play without the HUD. Since I don't have the game (atm), and there's not much to find on the internet; is that true? I want to feel like a real assassin. That also includes eavesdropping, investigating, that kind of stuff. I also want some freedom when it comes to killing my targets. That's why I like capturing the towers in Brotherhood and Revelations so much. It's actually possible to kill the target without the HUD, and it is a lot of fun planning where and when to kill.

But the main missions in the latest AC games aren't like that. I feel like AC 1 gives you a little more freedom. But I'm curious about the sound clues... Can anyone confirm that AC 1 playable without the HUD?

deskpe
03-25-2012, 04:08 PM
Dont mix up lack of gameplay for added freedom. I dont think ac1 is any better at the clues... no hud = no map, theres no other way to tell the direction to go if I remember right.

Also I think ac 2 might have the most assassinations by far.


the eavesdropping and investageting doesent really help you much, and its kinda boring and unorganic to do.



Ac1 is not the game you want.

rileypoole1234
03-25-2012, 04:37 PM
There's more freedom when you're actually doing an assassination. If you haven't played it, I suggest you do. It does feel a bit different than all the other AC's.

LightRey
03-25-2012, 04:42 PM
There's more freedom when you're actually doing an assassination. If you haven't played it, I suggest you do. It does feel a bit different than all the other AC's.
I disagree. AC1 just offers you ~3 options with every assassination, while in ACII and beyond you can do pretty much whatever you like.

Sukramo
03-25-2012, 05:00 PM
AC1 had a MUCH more gated world than AC2. You didnt have acces to whole cities first and walls blocked them. In ac2 florence was open to you from the start.

rileypoole1234
03-25-2012, 05:02 PM
I disagree. AC1 just offers you ~3 options with every assassination, while in ACII and beyond you can do pretty much whatever you like.

Well what I really meant was, I think AC1 makes you feel like you have the most freedom. That's what I've always thought. For some reason I feel like the other AC's mask that freedom a bit.

GeneralTrumbo
03-25-2012, 05:07 PM
AC1 had a MUCH more gated world than AC2. You didnt have acces to whole cities first and walls blocked them. In ac2 florence was open to you from the start.
Well, the countryside, I realized by playing through AC1 again, was much more open to exploration than I found in AC2. AC1 seemed to be much more of an open-world game.

AdamXEve
03-25-2012, 05:08 PM
I disagree. AC1 just offers you ~3 options with every assassination, while in ACII and beyond you can do pretty much whatever you like.

There are a **** ton of options during Assassinations in AC1 if you know how to take advantage of the game engine. Not to mention there are actual Assassinations in that game as opposed to the AC2-trilogy..

playassassins1
03-25-2012, 05:08 PM
AC1 had a MUCH more gated world than AC2. You didnt have acces to whole cities first and walls blocked them. In ac2 florence was open to you from the start.

AC II also had this with Florence, and its because Altair or Ezio didn't visit parts of certain cities until later. so in order to synchronize with Ezio or Altair you can't go to these parts that they didn't visit yet.

For example. At the beginning of AC II you couldn't go to every part of Florence, simply because at that time Ezio didn't visit that part of Florence yet

GeneralTrumbo
03-25-2012, 05:09 PM
Well what I really meant was, I think AC1 makes you feel like you have the most freedom. That's what I've always thought. For some reason I feel like the other AC's mask that freedom a bit.
That was because the areas in AC1 were more open. You have to search for that freedom.

LightRey
03-25-2012, 05:10 PM
There are a **** ton of options during Assassinations in AC1 if you know how to take advantage of the game engine.
please show me more than 3 different ways to kill Garnier.

AdamXEve
03-25-2012, 05:13 PM
Use TheHiddenBlade.com as reference.You may have to go through a lot of pages, but you'll find many videos displaying several different ways to kill multiple targets. There are also several ways specifically to kill Garnier early.

Oh and I'd also like to point out that you can kill the targets in AC1 with any weapon you want.

LightRey
03-25-2012, 05:19 PM
Use TheHiddenBlade.com as reference.You may have to go through a lot of pages, but you'll find many videos displaying several different ways to kill multiple targets. There are also several ways specifically to kill Garnier early.

Oh and I'd also like to point out that you can kill the targets in AC1 with any weapon you want.
Too bad there are only 4 different weapons.

AdamXEve
03-25-2012, 05:28 PM
Even so, it's still far more than three ways to kill Garnier, without engine exploits.

OriginalMiles
03-25-2012, 06:05 PM
The only ways I can think of are, Hidden Blade kill, Sword Kill, Dagger Kill, Throwing Knife Kill, and Fist Kill, that's more than 3, it's 5.

SixKeys
03-25-2012, 06:28 PM
The only ways I can think of are, Hidden Blade kill, Sword Kill, Dagger Kill, Throwing Knife Kill, and Fist Kill, that's more than 3, it's 5.

Not to mention the variations you can do with those. You can choose to dispatch just your target and let everyone else live so you have to run and hide, or you can take on an entire army after performing your kill. You can kill your target from a blend group or drop down right in front of him from a chandelier. In the Ezio missions you often get desynchronized as soon as you're detected, forcing you into a stealthy approach. In AC1 stealth was encouraged because fighting was so much harder, but if you wanted to just hack and slash your way through, it was always an option.

In response to the OP, yes, AC1 had a lot more sound cues. You were encouraged to get to know the city by exploring and memorizing its landmarks, it wasn't just about getting from point A to point B which is what the mini-map introduced. I can pretty easily navigate my way through all the AC1 locations without the mini-map just by keeping track of my surroundings and listening to the sounds around me. If I hear the heralds saying stuff that deviates from their usual scripts, I know it must be a new mission. If the crowd noises keep getting louder, I know I'm near the marketplace. I can avoid crazy people, beggars and elite guard patrols as soon as I hear their voices around a corner. AC1 is more about creating an experience than about collecting every flag.

Jexx21
03-25-2012, 08:08 PM
I wonder if AC3 will have the same number of sound clues, and hints given to you via others.

peepsz
03-25-2012, 08:22 PM
I know what you mean. In AC1 I felt more like an actual assassin. There's not much options now it feels like.

Groofert
03-25-2012, 09:04 PM
Not to mention the variations you can do with those. You can choose to dispatch just your target and let everyone else live so you have to run and hide, or you can take on an entire army after performing your kill. You can kill your target from a blend group or drop down right in front of him from a chandelier. In the Ezio missions you often get desynchronized as soon as you're detected, forcing you into a stealthy approach. In AC1 stealth was encouraged because fighting was so much harder, but if you wanted to just hack and slash your way through, it was always an option.

In response to the OP, yes, AC1 had a lot more sound cues. You were encouraged to get to know the city by exploring and memorizing its landmarks, it wasn't just about getting from point A to point B which is what the mini-map introduced. I can pretty easily navigate my way through all the AC1 locations without the mini-map just by keeping track of my surroundings and listening to the sounds around me. If I hear the heralds saying stuff that deviates from their usual scripts, I know it must be a new mission. If the crowd noises keep getting louder, I know I'm near the marketplace. I can avoid crazy people, beggars and elite guard patrols as soon as I hear their voices around a corner. AC1 is more about creating an experience than about collecting every flag.

Thanks a lot for your answer! I think I'm going to buy AC 1 again for the Xbox 360, and play it without any of the HUD elements. Wasn't the first game originally designed to be played without the HUD, by the way?

I always disliked the Animus part of it all. Sure, it was a nice excuse for the HUD, but I'm not interested at all in conspiracies, the ending of the world, magic and whatever. Well, I am interested in conspiracies, as long as it is somewhat historical correct. I would love an AC game set in the same time as the first AC game, or at least around that time, where you actually ARE the assassin, and not only playing him through a simulator. I would like it to be as realistic as possible (and still be fun of course), with a lot of investigating before the assassination. No city renovating. You are a very skilled assassin, but you still take orders. Or money. As long as you don't give orders. The game would start when you were young, but the story would not get too much into your personal life. You would be a mysterious character, like you'd expect from an assassin. You would learn the ways of the assassins, but you wouldn't be so freaking morally good as you are know. You would also make bad choices.

That's all I really wanted from an AC game. I don't really care about the setting. If I had to choose, I would like to be an Arabian assassin. But for know, it looks like AC 1 comes the closest to my wishes.

GeneralTrumbo
03-25-2012, 09:06 PM
The one thing I did like about AC1 is true. You felt like you were an assassin.

DavisP92
03-25-2012, 09:11 PM
Dont mix up lack of gameplay for added freedom. I dont think ac1 is any better at the clues... no hud = no map, theres no other way to tell the direction to go if I remember right.

Also I think ac 2 might have the most assassinations by far.


the eavesdropping and investageting doesent really help you much, and its kinda boring and unorganic to do.



Ac1 is not the game you want.


i'm sorry but i have to disagree with you, AC1 has more freedom then the last two. AC2 was good in this department, however it dropped the ball on the escape sometimes. AC1 had you escape until you reached the hideout, where AC2 you could just jump into the water for a few seconds and then your safe (the sequence ends).

As for the missions, each side-missions actually provides information where you can go into the menu and look at the Intel the npcs gave you and see what they gave you (from maps too other pieces of intel).

so to me AC1 has more freedom in how you attack/encounter the targets in your way without any repercussion

InfectedNation
03-25-2012, 09:17 PM
AC had the raw sandbox gameplay of becoming the Assassin that each following game lacked. (However story got better in AC2 etc)
There was more freedom to what you could do and how to assassinate - it's just that there weren't as many mechanics to utilise.

It's definitely a game worth replaying without HUD etc.

LightRey
03-25-2012, 09:17 PM
Even so, it's still far more than three ways to kill Garnier, without engine exploits.
I was obviously referring to the approach. You can't kill any target instantly with throwing knives and the sword and shortblade require you to engage battle, so the only true variation the weapons give regarding the approach is whether it's completely stealthy.

DavisP92
03-25-2012, 09:29 PM
I'm just happy that they are going back to some of the things that made AC1 so great.

SixKeys
03-25-2012, 10:57 PM
I was obviously referring to the approach. You can't kill any target instantly with throwing knives and the sword and shortblade require you to engage battle, so the only true variation the weapons give regarding the approach is whether it's completely stealthy.

If we're only talking about approach, how does a wider variety of weapons change this in any way? Your only options in all the sequels are still either a high profile or low profile assassination. So I don't really see your point.

LightRey
03-25-2012, 11:01 PM
If we're only talking about approach, how does a wider variety of weapons change this in any way? Your only options in all the sequels are still either a high profile or low profile assassination. So I don't really see your point.
Approach as in how you get from point A to point B. -__-
Y'know, which way you get from where you start to where he is, from what point you will kill the target, etc.

SixKeys
03-26-2012, 12:11 AM
Approach as in how you get from point A to point B. -__-
Y'know, which way you get from where you start to where he is, from what point you will kill the target, etc.

Your original question was "show me more than 3 different ways to kill Garnier". People gave you 5. Then you changed it to "I meant approach, not the way you kill him". Now I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore. You seemed to be claiming that having more weapons gives you more freedom. How does having a bigger weapons arsenal factor into the way you approach a target when your only options will ever be stealthy or not-stealthy?

LightRey
03-26-2012, 12:19 AM
Your original question was "show me more than 3 different ways to kill Garnier". People gave you 5. Then you changed it to "I meant approach, not the way you kill him". Now I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore. You seemed to be claiming that having more weapons gives you more freedom. How does having a bigger weapons arsenal factor into the way you approach a target when your only options will ever be stealthy or not-stealthy?
In AC1 the way you kill is mostly about the approach. I assumed others would interpret what I said that way. As I see it there are only 3 ways to kill Garnier: Get close to him with monks and assassinate, get close to him by approaching from above and air assassinate or get close to him by rushing in and just killing him.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 12:29 AM
I think weapons DO change how you approach and kill your target. Take the Bombs In ACR for example, they opened up a variety of ways to kill your target.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 12:35 AM
I think weapons DO change how you approach and kill your target. Take the Bombs In ACR for example, they opened up a variety of ways to kill your target.
They do, but not really in AC1.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 12:38 AM
They do, but not really in AC1.

That's because bombs are not In AC1 :rolleyes:

LightRey
03-26-2012, 12:40 AM
That's because bombs are not In AC1 :rolleyes:
And neither is the crossbow, the hidden gun, any axes, great swords or spears, which is one of the main reasons the approach in AC1 varies so little and the game usually just offers you a choice between about three preset ones, which are usually planned out in the memory info.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 12:44 AM
And neither is the crossbow, the hidden gun, any axes, great swords or spears, which is one of the main reasons the approach in AC1 varies so little and the game usually just offers you a choice between about three preset ones, which are usually planned out in the memory info.

I misinterpreted yours and the other guy's conversation. I thought when weapons were mentioned, we were talking about the freedom of kills for all titles. My bad :)

SixKeys
03-26-2012, 12:46 AM
People actually use anything besides the sword for heavy weapons? I can't bear to send Ezio out into the open with a ridiculous battle axe or war hammer hanging from his hip, it doesn't suit the assassin look at all. I think AC1 had a pretty good base set for weapons as the only extra weapons I use in the Ezio games are the bombs (mostly smoke) and poison. Poison darts, the crossbow and the hidden gun could be considered an alternative to throwing knives, so it's just an extension of the basic set of AC1's weapons.

UrDeviant1
03-26-2012, 12:52 AM
People actually use anything besides the sword for heavy weapons? I can't bear to send Ezio out into the open with a ridiculous battle axe or war hammer hanging from his hip, it doesn't suit the assassin look at all. I think AC1 had a pretty good base set for weapons as the only extra weapons I use in the Ezio games are the bombs (mostly smoke) and poison. Poison darts, the crossbow and the hidden gun could be considered an alternative to throwing knives, so it's just an extension of the basic set of AC1's weapons.

I only ever use heavy weapons when I'm throwing them at people lol. But yeah, a big war axe doesn't suit an assassin.

Jexx21
03-26-2012, 01:06 AM
I never understood how AC1 offered you more freedom in the kill.

The only worth-while assassination in AC1 is with a hidden blade. At least, that's how I got my satisfaction out of Assassinations. So, for me, that leaves me one real weapon choice.

Then as for the approach, I feel like a bad Assassin if I get caught moving towards my target and have to fight a bunch of guards and the target before the kill. So that takes out any direct approach. I only get true satisfaction out of a kill when I use the hidden blade and successfully pull the kill off without attracting attention during the approach.

Sure, on some missions you can approach the target in different ways, but how is that true variety? It isn't.

The weapons introduced in the later games actually brought me satisfaction when used to assassinate. The Hidden Gun was a great addition, the poison blade and the poison darts also were awesome. The crossbow would of too, but that wasn't a one-hit kill. Practically, if the weapon is a guaranteed one-hit kill, then it brings great satisfaction. Also, there is a way to run up to a target in the later games and still get great satisfaction. It's called a smoke bomb. You can be stealthy without being stealthy! OMG!

Seriously, I felt like the later games gave me more freedom.

DavisP92
03-26-2012, 01:35 AM
I never understood how AC1 offered you more freedom in the kill.

The only worth-while assassination in AC1 is with a hidden blade. At least, that's how I got my satisfaction out of Assassinations. So, for me, that leaves me one real weapon choice.

Then as for the approach, I feel like a bad Assassin if I get caught moving towards my target and have to fight a bunch of guards and the target before the kill. So that takes out any direct approach. I only get true satisfaction out of a kill when I use the hidden blade and successfully pull the kill off without attracting attention during the approach.

Sure, on some missions you can approach the target in different ways, but how is that true variety? It isn't.

The weapons introduced in the later games actually brought me satisfaction when used to assassinate. The Hidden Gun was a great addition, the poison blade and the poison darts also were awesome. The crossbow would of too, but that wasn't a one-hit kill. Practically, if the weapon is a guaranteed one-hit kill, then it brings great satisfaction. Also, there is a way to run up to a target in the later games and still get great satisfaction. It's called a smoke bomb. You can be stealthy without being stealthy! OMG!

Seriously, I felt like the later games gave me more freedom.

okay this is how i see it, AC1 is the king to freedom, preparations and escape. The reason why it's great for freedom is because it allows you to encounter your target in your way, and the way you do it is the right way. I am referring to ACB and ACR. AC2 did a great thing with freedom as well, you could rush in or sneak in through blending (sometime) or climb around and attack from above. But where it failed in, imo, is the preparations and escapes. We never really had to kill certain guards to open up a path for us to escape like we did in AC1, and some sequences ended right after an assassination or all we had to do is swim away for a few seconds and then it ended. The escape part to the game was almost completely removed. ACB and ACR fail in this part as well to me. Yes more weapons does allow gamers to kill our targets in different ways, but if it tells us to do it a certain way it loses points there. I think for me the approach is what made AC1 so great, and with the newer games it lost some of what made the original game so great.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 01:40 AM
I never understood how AC1 offered you more freedom in the kill.

The only worth-while assassination in AC1 is with a hidden blade. At least, that's how I got my satisfaction out of Assassinations. So, for me, that leaves me one real weapon choice.

Then as for the approach, I feel like a bad Assassin if I get caught moving towards my target and have to fight a bunch of guards and the target before the kill. So that takes out any direct approach. I only get true satisfaction out of a kill when I use the hidden blade and successfully pull the kill off without attracting attention during the approach.

Sure, on some missions you can approach the target in different ways, but how is that true variety? It isn't.

The weapons introduced in the later games actually brought me satisfaction when used to assassinate. The Hidden Gun was a great addition, the poison blade and the poison darts also were awesome. The crossbow would of too, but that wasn't a one-hit kill. Practically, if the weapon is a guaranteed one-hit kill, then it brings great satisfaction. Also, there is a way to run up to a target in the later games and still get great satisfaction. It's called a smoke bomb. You can be stealthy without being stealthy! OMG!

Seriously, I felt like the later games gave me more freedom.
I wholeheartedly agree with every bit of this.

Jexx21
03-26-2012, 01:43 AM
The escapes? In AC1 all I did was run away, hide in a garden, then I made my way to the hideout over the rooftops. And it was freaking annoying with that bell.

Hated the escapes in AC1.

The escapes in AC2 and ACB were better in my opinion.

Also, in ACB you could approach your target in different ways also. Like with Juan Borgia.

--
For me, the escape isn't what makes the assassinations. It's the actual assassinations. Not even the approach.

DavisP92
03-26-2012, 01:53 AM
The escapes? In AC1 all I did was run away, hide in a garden, then I made my way to the hideout over the rooftops. And it was freaking annoying with that bell.

Hated the escapes in AC1.

The escapes in AC2 and ACB were better in my opinion.

Also, in ACB you could approach your target in different ways also. Like with Juan Borgia.

--
For me, the escape isn't what makes the assassinations. It's the actual assassinations. Not even the approach.

if you didn't like a big portion of the game then well that's unfortunate. I enjoyed them mainly because i prepared for them, and was able to get away within seconds. when i mentioned approach for ACB and ACR i meant with the sync. system, (yea i'm against the ACB and ACR [kinda] sync. system, looking forward to the tweaked AC3 one). like how it tells you to attack a person in a certain way when you could do it differently.

I never said the escapes made the assassinations, so idk where you got that from, or why you brought that up. But the approach/preparation, assassination and escape is what made it enjoyable for me.

Jexx21
03-26-2012, 01:59 AM
So you dislike the optional things? Too bad..

And to be honest, I do the approach, the assassination, and then the escape and it goes without a sinch. I just find the escape in AC1 annoying as hell. Also, it's obvious that the guards are coded a certain way, as they are standing in the street to fight you long before they would even see you or hear you coming. I see them when I'm running on the rooftops.

JumpInTheFire13
03-26-2012, 02:05 AM
All of you should go back and replay AC1. I'm playing it right now and it makes you feel like a real Assassin. If you do all of the investigation missions you can plan how to get to your target and how to escape.

More weapons doesn't necessarily mean more variety. I could kill a target in the AC2 trilogy with several different weapons, but still get to my target the exact same way if I wanted to.

DavisP92
03-26-2012, 02:10 AM
So you dislike the optional things? Too bad..

And to be honest, I do the approach, the assassination, and then the escape and it goes without a sinch. I just find the escape in AC1 annoying as hell. Also, it's obvious that the guards are coded a certain way, as they are standing in the street to fight you long before they would even see you or hear you coming. I see them when I'm running on the rooftops.

optional things? if your referring to the syn. system then i wouldn't call them optional if you want and like to get all the things in the game. See if AC started with that then i wouldn't care, but they didn't and then just started trying to influence gamers to play it their way. Although there are good ones in the game, the only one i can think of right now is in ACR which is beat Yusuf to the location. That was a fun one.

i never said you don't, idk where you got that from either. I was actually thinking of some ppl i know that don't. standing in the street to find me, not sure what you mean there. When i play AC1, after i kill a target i'm rarely on the streets so that is why i'm not sure what you mean.

Edit: why do you find AC1's escape annoying and how do you think AC2 and beyond improved it? maybe your seeing something i'm missing



All of you should go back and replay AC1. I'm playing it right now and it makes you feel like a real Assassin. If you do all of the investigation missions you can plan how to get to your target and how to escape.



yea AC1, and 2 kinda did make me feel like i was playing as an assassin and not captain america like in ACB and ACR.

side note about the guns, i hope there aren't any dumb issues like they had with ACR's hidden gun and how no one actually could hear it

Jexx21
03-26-2012, 02:48 AM
I actually am replaying AC1 right now.. lol

JumpInTheFire13
03-26-2012, 05:27 AM
optional things? if your referring to the syn. system then i wouldn't call them optional
Anything you don't need to do to reach the end of the main story is considered optional.


Edit: why do you find AC1's escape annoying and how do you think AC2 and beyond improved it? maybe your seeing something i'm missing

In AC1, even if you are far away from the guards, the indicator will remain yellow until you enter a hiding spot. In the AC2 trilogy, you can escape guards without having to enter a hiding spot.

NoirEvil
03-26-2012, 06:49 AM
In relevance to the op's posts as opposed to this pointless arguing over preferences, Assassin's Creed 1 is the game you are looking for, the sound cues make playing without the HUD a easy thing to adapt to and makes the game much more immersive as you have to search through the city for your investigation missions before assassinating, plus even without the map if you talk to the investigation bureau assassins they tell you which direction to start searching, sure the investigation missions are pretty repetitive but they can still be a lot of fun.

Combat/health is much more balanced so that stealth is a much more suitable option and assassinating (in most cases) feels much less linear as it feels that the areas and situations they put you in feel like they have much more opportunities and it makes you feel more accomplished after assassinating a target in a planned way. IN MA OPEENIUN! Ac 1 doesn't have anywhere near as much as the One Who Came Before mumbo jumbo as the others, Altair is a mysterious assassin and isn't as morally good as Ezio (at least not from the beginning) and the game is altogether a lot more realistic/based in reality. So really it fits all your criteria. :)

LightRey
03-26-2012, 09:29 AM
All of you should go back and replay AC1. I'm playing it right now and it makes you feel like a real Assassin. If you do all of the investigation missions you can plan how to get to your target and how to escape.

More weapons doesn't necessarily mean more variety. I could kill a target in the AC2 trilogy with several different weapons, but still get to my target the exact same way if I wanted to.
I don't feel any less of an assassin in any of the other games tbh. The only real difference in my experience between the other games and AC1 is that I get more and more annoyed with AC1's unrefined freerunning and combat the longer I play it.

Jamison_J_B
03-26-2012, 01:06 PM
ACII has more freedom for how you want to assassinate your target imo.

I've tried to disable all the hud stuff and I can't. I never know where I'm going. I would love to have no hud at all, but then I would be wondering around aimlessly forever.

Jexx21
03-26-2012, 01:19 PM
I actually think that both the AC1 and AC2-ACR health system have problems.

DavisP92
03-26-2012, 01:59 PM
Anything you don't need to do to reach the end of the main story is considered optional.


In AC1, even if you are far away from the guards, the indicator will remain yellow until you enter a hiding spot. In the AC2 trilogy, you can escape guards without having to enter a hiding spot.


yea i mean i know what optional means haha, but in terms of how i like to play i have to do everything in the game. If it's a game i like then nothing i want to complete everything, have to haha. so in my play style, it's not optional for me :P.

but in AC2 if you kill your target and escape guards just forget about it right? in AC1 when you kill your target the whole city knows because the bell goes off. so of course guards will always be on the lookout for you. As for the indicator, hmmm... yea i actually never really had it on me for a long time so i never really experienced it. but yea that would be annoying.

SixKeys
03-26-2012, 03:31 PM
but in AC2 if you kill your target and escape guards just forget about it right? in AC1 when you kill your target the whole city knows because the bell goes off. so of course guards will always be on the lookout for you.

Yeah, in AC2 and its sequels there are only a few assassinations that make you fully notorious after completing the mission. This doesn't make any sense and was handled better in AC1. You're notorious and guards are actively looking for you until you reach the Bureau. In the Ezio games, you kill a high-ranking official and the guards completely forget about you after 5 minutes of searching. You should at least be forced to make your way to a safehouse while having to avoid active guard patrols after each big mission.

LightRey
03-26-2012, 04:00 PM
Yeah, in AC2 and its sequels there are only a few assassinations that make you fully notorious after completing the mission. This doesn't make any sense and was handled better in AC1. You're notorious and guards are actively looking for you until you reach the Bureau. In the Ezio games, you kill a high-ranking official and the guards completely forget about you after 5 minutes of searching. You should at least be forced to make your way to a safehouse while having to avoid active guard patrols after each big mission.
I disagree. I find it fairly unrealistic that immediately after killing your target, the entire city is suddenly aware that you killed him. Communication really wasn't that fast during those times, not to mention that the description of a man in a white hood shouldn't be enough for the guards to figure out that you're the one they're looking for halfway across town.

Groofert
03-26-2012, 06:19 PM
In relevance to the op's posts as opposed to this pointless arguing over preferences, Assassin's Creed 1 is the game you are looking for, the sound cues make playing without the HUD a easy thing to adapt to and makes the game much more immersive as you have to search through the city for your investigation missions before assassinating, plus even without the map if you talk to the investigation bureau assassins they tell you which direction to start searching, sure the investigation missions are pretty repetitive but they can still be a lot of fun.

Combat/health is much more balanced so that stealth is a much more suitable option and assassinating (in most cases) feels much less linear as it feels that the areas and situations they put you in feel like they have much more opportunities and it makes you feel more accomplished after assassinating a target in a planned way. IN MA OPEENIUN! Ac 1 doesn't have anywhere near as much as the One Who Came Before mumbo jumbo as the others, Altair is a mysterious assassin and isn't as morally good as Ezio (at least not from the beginning) and the game is altogether a lot more realistic/based in reality. So really it fits all your criteria. :)

Thanks a lot for your answer. I've ordered AC 1 for the Xbox 360 and I will see if I can pay it without the HUD. I gave up playing Revelations without the HUD yesterday... it was a pain in the ***.

I'm wondering, do you even need a map at all? If so, how many times did you look on the map? Because I understand how a sound cue would lead you to a new investigation, but in order to hear the sound cue you still need to be walking close, right?

DavisP92
03-26-2012, 07:36 PM
I disagree. I find it fairly unrealistic that immediately after killing your target, the entire city is suddenly aware that you killed him. Communication really wasn't that fast during those times, not to mention that the description of a man in a white hood shouldn't be enough for the guards to figure out that you're the one they're looking for halfway across town.

I think it is more realistic that the guards do know that they're high ranked leader did die seeing how most of the time you killed them in front of a large crowd, it is realistic that some of these people would run and probably scream what happened. Also as the game went on, it is more realistic that guards did know who the killer was and what he wore so that works there. Unlike AC2 and beyond. Spending years in the same city and no guard ever finding you or being like "oh hey doesn't he look like the guy who killed so-and-so"

although there was problems with it seeing how it was the first game, how if you killed the target and noone saw the bell would still go off.