PDA

View Full Version : "The combat has been rebuilt from the ground up"



Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 08:16 PM
All Ubi employees have been repeating this line like a mantra. But after watching the gameplay vids from E3 I must say I can't see it. It looks very much like a tweaked version of the killstreaks introduced in Brotherhood. Two buttons appears in the HUD: "Counter", Break Defense". These two options have been available since AC2 (if I'm not misstaken). Sure there are changes. You no longer need to lock-on by using a button (this was removed from other action games years ago), taunt has been removed and you seem to be able to quickfire pistols easier. But these are no groundbreaking changes.

If u watch this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKz8MiipZfI you can see how the player is repeatidily pressing square to attack. Also note how the contour of the villain he is directing the left stick at is highlighted, presumably indicating it will be attacked by the next tap of square (sounds familiar?).

Ubi knows the combat has been a weak part of the franchise since the beginning. Therefore this marketing message is understandable. But I'm gonna call BS on this one for now.

CrazySN
06-06-2012, 08:28 PM
Rebuilt combat =/= Totally different combat

The dev's said they changed up much of the gameplay to make it feel fresh, but they still wanted it to remain familiar for those who have played the past AC games. Perhaps you may not like it, but there are clearly many others, including I, who have liked the combat in the past games, and welcome the combat changes in this new AC3.

BBALive
06-06-2012, 08:33 PM
It has been rebuilt in terms of controls, Connor's unique fighting style and how it actually works within the game.

Yes. many of the features are still there (counters, killstreaks), but it has been rebuilt in order to make it more fluid. Connor rolls and dodges between enemies (not just during killstreaks), and the counter system has been reworked to include a short slowdown period that allows you to perform a number of actions. Secondary weapons can now be used on the fly, and I believe blocking and countering are now the same thing. Connor's ability to use many different combinations of weaponry also mean that the combat has to be changed to accomodate each of these combinations, with each (presumably) bringing their own unique set of animations.

The health system also comes in to the combat, and that has also been reworked. Medicine has been replaced by regenerating health, although you health will only regenerate when you are anonymous and out of combat.

I think you took the term "rebuilt from the ground up" too literally, and assumed that everything would be altered. In reality, they kept many of the features from the past games but rebuilt the system so that they translated into the new game, as well as melded with the new combat features as well as Connor's new fighting style.

pacmanate
06-06-2012, 08:34 PM
Combat doesnt mean buttons.

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 08:34 PM
Rebuilt combat =/= Totally different combat

The dev's said they changed up much of the gameplay to make it feel fresh, but they still wanted it to remain familiar for those who have played the past AC games. Perhaps you may not like it, but there are clearly many others, including I, who have liked the combat in the past games, and welcome the combat changes in this new AC3.

They said "Rebuilt from the ground up" and that means significant changes. Not just remapping actions to new buttons. and adding/removing a move or two. I agree the changes are good, but I think the combat has been pretty meh so far in the series (and so does Alex Hutchinson). It's just way too easy to be enjoyable.

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 08:35 PM
Combat doesnt mean buttons.

Oh really

DavisP92
06-06-2012, 08:39 PM
It may have been rebuilt but they didn't get rid of all of Ezio's animations. I've seen two kills where they are the same, and in fact it's so disappointing to see that they are the kills that are seen the most

edit: actually there are 3 kill animations that they kept from ACB and ACR. *shaking my head*

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 08:42 PM
I think you took the term "rebuilt from the ground up" too literally, and assumed that everything would be altered. In reality, they kept many of the features from the past games but rebuilt the system so that they translated into the new game, as well as melded with the new combat features as well as Connor's new fighting style.

Too literally? Why are people on this board always defending Ubi? It's obvious they took the combat from Brotherhood/Revelations and just tweaked it slightly and are now bending the truth to create hype. It's the same shallow system, that more or less plays itself, it has been for two games now (not implying combat was better before). Makes me disapointed :(.

Josegtx13
06-06-2012, 08:45 PM
It may have been rebuilt but they didn't get rid of all of Ezio's animations. I've seen two kills where they are the same, and in fact it's so disappointing to see that they are the kills that are seen the most

I've seen them too. Hopefully they were just in there for demo purposes only.

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 08:54 PM
It may have been rebuilt but they didn't get rid of all of Ezio's animations. I've seen two kills where they are the same, and in fact it's so disappointing to see that they are the kills that are seen the most

edit: actually there are 3 kill animations that they kept from ACB and ACR. *shaking my head*

The one were he strikes with the tomahawk twice to the collarbone looks like a similar move with the dagger? And when he moves to another villain and strikes up to his throat with Connors face turned away slightly? Or whcih ones do u mean?

Azurefeatherfly
06-06-2012, 08:58 PM
It may have been rebuilt but they didn't get rid of all of Ezio's animations. I've seen two kills where they are the same, and in fact it's so disappointing to see that they are the kills that are seen the most

edit: actually there are 3 kill animations that they kept from ACB and ACR. *shaking my head*

In the Frontier gameplay I saw, which has several versions I have not seen any repeat animations from previous games.

Where are these animations people are talking about?

DavisP92
06-06-2012, 09:01 PM
I've seen them too. Hopefully they were just in there for demo purposes only.

i have a feeling they left them in there because they were lazy and don't want to change them.


The one were he strikes with the tomahawk twice to the collarbone looks like a similar move with the dagger? And when he moves to another villain and strikes up to his throat with Connors face turned away slightly? Or whcih ones do u mean?

the double stab to the chest, the stab in the neck and pull the guy away from you while killing him and the looking away but stab the guy in the chin/neck behind you. Those are the three that i've seen that were from the old game. At 2:46, 2:47, and 2:49


In the Frontier gameplay I saw, which has several versions I have not seen any repeat animations from previous games.

Where are these animations people are talking about?

it's not the frontier gameplay, it's the marketplace gameplay.

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 09:08 PM
Yeah that's two I tried to describe + one more. Have to agree with you on this. Allthough I must admit that the double stab is one of my favourite moves so I'm glad it's back :).

playassassins1
06-06-2012, 09:16 PM
I'm happy that they put some old things in this game. If everything would be totally new, it wouldn't feel like an Assassin's Creed game.

But yeah, when they said Rebuilt, i thought they would redo EVERTHING.

Azurefeatherfly
06-06-2012, 09:17 PM
Those animations do not really lessen the work they have done on the game. Compared to those three, they were numerous combat animations that were completely new. More than 4 months before this thing goes gold, and changes can be made.

DavisP92
06-06-2012, 09:20 PM
Yeah that's two I tried to describe + one more. Have to agree with you on this. Allthough I must admit that the double stab is one of my favourite moves so I'm glad it's back :).

the double stab is cool, but i was hoping for all new kill animations so i can find a new favorite


I'm happy that they put some old things in this game. If everything would be totally new, it wouldn't feel like an Assassin's Creed game.

But yeah, when they said Rebuilt, i thought they would redo EVERTHING.

i'm not, i wanted the game to feel completely different. except for the fact that we are assassinating templars. The climbing animations are different and that's great, the way we can kill is now different, new main weapons, new ways to blend in with the crowd and etc. That's what i like, i would have enjoyed every kill animation being new even adding new animations for the assassinations with the hidden blade.


Those animations do not really lessen the work they have done on the game. Compared to those three, they were numerous combat animations that were completely new. More than 4 months before this thing goes gold, and changes can be made.

but logically you can assume that there will be more animations that are the same. I mean the entire multiplayer looks almost the same so there probably will be more. Not saying i hate the game or anything but i'm not ignorant to the fact that what they say isn't the 100% truth.

AdamXEve
06-06-2012, 09:48 PM
The combat looks vastly different to me. I think you're focusing on the wrong aspects frankly

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 10:15 PM
The combat looks vastly different to me. I think you're focusing on the wrong aspects frankly
EXACTLY THIS !!
nothing more

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 10:22 PM
The combat looks vastly different to me. I think you're focusing on the wrong aspects frankly

Could you plaes explain a little bit more what you mean instead of just saying that I'm wrong? What aspects are the correct ones to focus on?

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 10:23 PM
EXACTLY THIS !!
nothing more

Please explain. Comments like these adds nothing to the discussion.

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 10:27 PM
Could you plaes explain a little bit more what you mean instead of just saying that I'm wrong? What aspects are the correct ones to focus on?
Not trying to interfere or anything, but I might as well throw my money out there..
They said "built the Combat from the ground up" not "completely reworked the Combat" there is a great deal of difference between this and that. The Context is still the same, but they`v started again from scratch to allow for the new style of Dual combat, which is seen in the Demo..
You are focusing on the base of the combat, which they never said that they`d be deviating from, and how there is 2 or 3 recycled moves..

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 10:36 PM
Not trying to interfere or anything, but I might as well throw my money out there..
They said "built the Combat from the ground up" not "completely reworked the Combat" there is a great deal of difference between this and that. The Context is still the same, but they`v started again from scratch to allow for the new style of Dual combat, which is seen in the Demo..
You are focusing on the base of the combat, which they never said that they`d be deviating from, and how there is 2 or 3 recycled moves..

I think those expression are pretty much the same yeah. Rebuilding from the ground up implies that you are NOT using the same "base of the combat" (ground). I don't see the huge difference with the dual wield, more than some new animations and a double counter. But that's additions and not any major changes.

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 10:38 PM
I think those expression are pretty much the same yeah. Rebuilding from the ground up implies that you are NOT using the same "base of the combat" (ground). I don't see the huge difference with the dual wield, more than some new animations and a double counter. But that's additions and not any major changes.
Thats because you only saw a demo where he uses a Knife and Tomohawk..
There`s more. You can now equip ANY 2 weapons and we still do not know how these might affect the Combat..

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 10:41 PM
Thats because you only saw a demo where he uses a Knife and Tomohawk..
There`s more. You can now equip ANY 2 weapons and we still do not know how these might affect the Combat..

Fair enough, I hope u are right :).

Assassin_M
06-06-2012, 10:45 PM
Fair enough, I hope u are right :).
I hope so too:p

pacmanate
06-06-2012, 10:56 PM
I saw the double stab to the chest. Many will remember that being for the dagger. However for the tomohawk, the entry point of the blade will be at an angle. They have SIMILAR moves, who blames them, they look cool and that means more moves

rileypoole1234
06-06-2012, 11:19 PM
Have you played it yet? Do you know what all of the weapons we will be using are? You must ask yourself these questions. Combat may feel familiar but look completely different, or feel different but look familiar. We really haven't seen enough to accurately judge everything about combat yet.

luckyto
06-06-2012, 11:24 PM
Ubi knows the combat has been a weak part of the franchise since the beginning.

Bull.

Combat was frikkin awesome in the beginning and has gotten progressively worse. Sure, you could turtle... but that's the boring wimpy way out. If you were truly talented in AC1, you could pull off AMAZING combat and had to actually be good to keep it up without turtling. I know a LOT of reviewers and other people chose the weak path of the coward... and then cry, "it's easy"... but to fight aggressively took skill, timing, finesse and was amazing to pull off. Frankly, AC1 combat is close to the best melee combat engine ever created.

It's when they added chain-kills, weapon wheels, guns and an arsenal of medicine that it turned crappy.

Sushiglutton
06-06-2012, 11:28 PM
Have you played it yet? Do you know what all of the weapons we will be using are? You must ask yourself these questions. Combat may feel familiar but look completely different, or feel different but look familiar. We really haven't seen enough to accurately judge everything about combat yet.

Open ur eyes! U see the contour highlighting is exactly the same. You see that Connor takes out his foe with just one attack (note how the guy holding the controler holds the left stick in some direction and press square ocer and over).. You see counter moves being mixed in between regular attacks. Ofc I haven't played it and there may be suprises. But do you honestly believe the combat will be fundamentally different from looking at that footage?

crash3
06-07-2012, 12:58 AM
Combat does look more fluid and just generally more awesome but thats because its always the assassin doing the fighting, Im not seeing any skills come from the enemies. I saw like one counter from one of the big scottish guys throughout all the combat demos and it wasnt even a lethal counter. I hope AC3 has a similar system to ACR where the elite soldiers (janissaries in ACRs case) take multiple chain attacks and counters to defeat. I hope disarming is stiil part of combat. I hope that enemies can do lethal counters, dodge, grab and break your own defence and its all got to be unpredictable or else combat will YET AGAIN BE TOO EASY!!! Let any new players get used to it like all of us have had to at some point

Also I hope any 'big boss' enemies that we fight dont just have a massive load of health like the borgias had, I hope they actually have more skill and are physically more challenging to defeat

Azurefeatherfly
06-09-2012, 02:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef4ynjFctXM&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLWz4Ogse6wCr6zNXBk7XZNA

Hutchinson: "We wanted this idea in the combat that it wasn't going to be really really difficult to win a fight, but if you want to do it cleanly and beautifully, and sort of flow from one enemy to another then that was your challenge".

I am somewhat concerned about about what Alex said of Combat in this interview, I wish they would at least add a difficulty setting. Combat needs to carry risk and guards needs to be constantly doing something instead of standing still.

luckyto
06-09-2012, 03:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef4ynjFctXM&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLWz4Ogse6wCr6zNXBk7XZNA

Hutchinson: "We wanted this idea in the combat that it wasn't going to be really really difficult to win a fight, but if you want to do it cleanly and beautifully, and sort of flow from one enemy to another then that was your challenge".

I am somewhat concerned about about what Alex said of Combat in this interview, I wish they would at least add a difficulty setting. Combat needs to carry risk and guards needs to be constantly doing something instead of standing still.

To be perfectly honest, that's how it should be. Anyone can win, but it takes skill to look good doing it. That's how AC1 is. My only hope is that they remove the medicine crutch of the last two games --- so that every once in a while, you have to run for your life.

Azurefeatherfly
06-09-2012, 04:22 AM
To be perfectly honest, that's how it should be. Anyone can win, but it takes skill to look good doing it. That's how AC1 is. My only hope is that they remove the medicine crutch of the last two games --- so that every once in a while, you have to run for your life.

Done, Connor has regenerative health and it won't work unless you are out of combat. His health is also the same from start to end of the game. I just hope that is enough for difficulty.

imonthenet
06-09-2012, 05:15 AM
All these posts about 'Ubisofts laziness with carrying over animation' anger me. It takes a great deal of effort to create a game, and all they are doing is providing a small amount of familiarity. Sure they've been seen a million times already but with a new weapon they feel at least little bit fresh, and I personally don't mind if they save a week creating and implementing brand new animations to work on other aspects or take a break because frankly, they deserve it.

Evenesque
06-09-2012, 06:44 AM
People don't seem to understand the concept behind this game, or the franchise. Assassins aren't supposed to sit there and fight a guy in the middle of the street like it's a duel. Sorry, you aren't. That's an Ezio fantasy before he became an assassin, when he was an Italian renaissance 20-something. I'm sorry, but you don't understand the basic concept of an assassin if you think you're supposed to get in a scrap with some guys who are SEVERELY underclassed just by you being in their vicinity. I don't know if you've all noticed, but the Assassins we get to play these games as are not newcomers. They're top tier, master assassins, one of them founded an entire new style of Assassin order that incorporated brotherhoods aiding and abetting a master assassin in the field. They don't **** around people. Seals don't train to get into firefights and skirmishes where they take pot-shots until the guy starves to death. You're basically complaining that a Navy SEAL isn't employing the fighting tactics of an Army grunt. They get trained to end the fight as quickly as possible, but more importantly, to make sure a fight never happens. Complaining that, as an assassin, your primary means of battling someone is to kill them as quickly is possible is like arguing that guns make a SEALS job too easy.

Assassins work the same way. They're creatures of opportunity. They strike to kill, they don't strike to dance. You aren't supposed to kill a guy, then have to fight his 17 friends because you were sloppy enough to do it in a market square and spend 15 minutes fighting for your life. That's a ****ty assassin. You're supposed to kill the guy, then dispatch his enforcers in one, fluid movement, so as to make sure you don't have any opposition. That's the whole point behind chain kills and streaks and counters. This isn't a game where you're supposed to get into Dark Souls style fights. Your purpose on the battlefield is to END the battle, not participate in it. Ubi is showing this to you more frequently than they should have to. Just watch the latest trailer. Connor isn't trained to line up and use a musket. He's trained to walk into a firefight, completely ignore it, and kill the head of the other side. That's what you do the ENTIRE GAME.

People who want a combat system that isn't so 'easy' don't seem to understand that this game never has been and never will be about straight up fighting difficulty between you and some fool wearing a skirt and brandishing a woodcutting axe. It's about setting a mark, casing a fort, climbing whatever you have to to get the vantage point, and then swooping in like an eagle to end the mark in 1 strike. The whole philosophy behind every single assassin in this universe is 1 chance, 1 kill. Back when AC1 was released they told us Altair was modeled after an eagle. Eagles don't fight ****, people. They spend their time waiting, looking, and waiting some more. When they see a target, they throw everything they have into one swoop, kill it, and take off. It's one movement. It's fluid, it's efficient, and they make **** sure it's effective. The same concept has been applied to the assassins from day one.

This philosophy was least apparent in AC1. Whether or not it was the 'best combat' so far in the series is your own subjective opinion. It was the least analogous to what the Assassins are trying to be. Each installment has moved the combat closer to what the franchise has been aiming to put them as. If that's not what you want, you're pretty SOL then, because Ubi owns this IP and has every right to refine the combat system into what they told us it should have been from day one. You started out as a clunky turtle man in a glorified priest outfit who's only way out of a fight was either running, or getting hit until you saw a very rough opening. That evolved into waiting until you have a chance to completely turn the battle the other direction and keep hacking away. That evolved into not having to battle at all, and just winding your way through your challengers after having built up enough momentum to finish a fight. That, in turn, has evolved into this; using your momentum to literally kill on the run and make yourself as elusive a target as possible. AC3's combat system us what the franchise has been aiming for since the games started, and personally I applaud them for maintaining such a consistent evolutionary approach to how their combat works, especially considering how many hands have been in charge of it. Truthfully, if you think about it, you should be ecstatic that the games you play to enjoy have stayed as similar as they have, because it could have taken a turn as sharp as the splinter cell franchise. Who knows what you would get to ***** about if that had happened.

Accept it, move on, and try, for god's sake, to enjoy it for the achievement that it is, not the one that you disagree with because you've played the games and feel like that makes your opinion matter more than the people who's lives revolve around the production of this game.

TheHumanTowel
06-09-2012, 09:30 AM
Hutchinson: "We wanted this idea in the combat that it wasn't going to be really really difficult to win a fight, but if you want to do it cleanly and beautifully, and sort of flow from one enemy to another then that was your challenge".
So the combat is still going to be very easy. Gods sake Ubisoft having the combat being so easy doesn't just hurt that part of the game. It removes any sense of danger which pretty much makes the chases pointless. I remember back in AC 1 the chases were actually exciting because the combat was at least a little bit difficult and the guards didn't stop chasing you if turned a corner.

Legendz54
06-09-2012, 09:36 AM
So the combat is still going to be very easy. Gods sake Ubisoft having the combat being so easy doesn't just hurt that part of the game. It removes any sense of danger which pretty much makes the chases pointless. I remember back in AC 1 the chases were actually exciting because the combat was at least a little bit difficult and the guards didn't stop chasing you if turned a corner.

One shot from the firing line and your dead, there is a lot of tactic and stealth that goes into that even when your running away they will shoot a volley at you. I think there is a sense of danger maybe not as much as AC1, but its there, and i observed the fights ( it took 3 hits to get Connor to half health) also keep in mind that now you can't regenerate or use medicine during battle.

playassassins1
06-09-2012, 11:27 AM
People don't seem to understand the concept behind this game, or the franchise. Assassins aren't supposed to sit there and fight a guy in the middle of the street like it's a duel. Sorry, you aren't. That's an Ezio fantasy before he became an assassin, when he was an Italian renaissance 20-something. I'm sorry, but you don't understand the basic concept of an assassin if you think you're supposed to get in a scrap with some guys who are SEVERELY underclassed just by you being in their vicinity. I don't know if you've all noticed, but the Assassins we get to play these games as are not newcomers. They're top tier, master assassins, one of them founded an entire new style of Assassin order that incorporated brotherhoods aiding and abetting a master assassin in the field. They don't **** around people. Seals don't train to get into firefights and skirmishes where they take pot-shots until the guy starves to death. You're basically complaining that a Navy SEAL isn't employing the fighting tactics of an Army grunt. They get trained to end the fight as quickly as possible, but more importantly, to make sure a fight never happens. Complaining that, as an assassin, your primary means of battling someone is to kill them as quickly is possible is like arguing that guns make a SEALS job too easy.

Assassins work the same way. They're creatures of opportunity. They strike to kill, they don't strike to dance. You aren't supposed to kill a guy, then have to fight his 17 friends because you were sloppy enough to do it in a market square and spend 15 minutes fighting for your life. That's a ****ty assassin. You're supposed to kill the guy, then dispatch his enforcers in one, fluid movement, so as to make sure you don't have any opposition. That's the whole point behind chain kills and streaks and counters. This isn't a game where you're supposed to get into Dark Souls style fights. Your purpose on the battlefield is to END the battle, not participate in it. Ubi is showing this to you more frequently than they should have to. Just watch the latest trailer. Connor isn't trained to line up and use a musket. He's trained to walk into a firefight, completely ignore it, and kill the head of the other side. That's what you do the ENTIRE GAME.

People who want a combat system that isn't so 'easy' don't seem to understand that this game never has been and never will be about straight up fighting difficulty between you and some fool wearing a skirt and brandishing a woodcutting axe. It's about setting a mark, casing a fort, climbing whatever you have to to get the vantage point, and then swooping in like an eagle to end the mark in 1 strike. The whole philosophy behind every single assassin in this universe is 1 chance, 1 kill. Back when AC1 was released they told us Altair was modeled after an eagle. Eagles don't fight ****, people. They spend their time waiting, looking, and waiting some more. When they see a target, they throw everything they have into one swoop, kill it, and take off. It's one movement. It's fluid, it's efficient, and they make **** sure it's effective. The same concept has been applied to the assassins from day one.

This philosophy was least apparent in AC1. Whether or not it was the 'best combat' so far in the series is your own subjective opinion. It was the least analogous to what the Assassins are trying to be. Each installment has moved the combat closer to what the franchise has been aiming to put them as. If that's not what you want, you're pretty SOL then, because Ubi owns this IP and has every right to refine the combat system into what they told us it should have been from day one. You started out as a clunky turtle man in a glorified priest outfit who's only way out of a fight was either running, or getting hit until you saw a very rough opening. That evolved into waiting until you have a chance to completely turn the battle the other direction and keep hacking away. That evolved into not having to battle at all, and just winding your way through your challengers after having built up enough momentum to finish a fight. That, in turn, has evolved into this; using your momentum to literally kill on the run and make yourself as elusive a target as possible. AC3's combat system us what the franchise has been aiming for since the games started, and personally I applaud them for maintaining such a consistent evolutionary approach to how their combat works, especially considering how many hands have been in charge of it. Truthfully, if you think about it, you should be ecstatic that the games you play to enjoy have stayed as similar as they have, because it could have taken a turn as sharp as the splinter cell franchise. Who knows what you would get to ***** about if that had happened.

Accept it, move on, and try, for god's sake, to enjoy it for the achievement that it is, not the one that you disagree with because you've played the games and feel like that makes your opinion matter more than the people who's lives revolve around the production of this game.


You my friend, Truly know what an Assassin is.....

Sushiglutton
06-09-2012, 12:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef4ynjFctXM&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLWz4Ogse6wCr6zNXBk7XZNA

Hutchinson: "We wanted this idea in the combat that it wasn't going to be really really difficult to win a fight, but if you want to do it cleanly and beautifully, and sort of flow from one enemy to another then that was your challenge".

I am somewhat concerned about about what Alex said of Combat in this interview, I wish they would at least add a difficulty setting. Combat needs to carry risk and guards needs to be constantly doing something instead of standing still.

I don't have a problem with that approach. That's what RS did for the Arkham franchise and it worked brilliantly. And Ubi copied it for Brotherhood which was ok, even though it was a very stripped down version. My problem is that lack of meaningful options in combat and how similar it's to Brotherhood despite what Hutchinson has said. The system looks way too simple. I agree with you that the guards should be more active for one thing.

LightRey
06-09-2012, 01:44 PM
People don't seem to understand the concept behind this game, or the franchise. Assassins aren't supposed to sit there and fight a guy in the middle of the street like it's a duel. Sorry, you aren't. That's an Ezio fantasy before he became an assassin, when he was an Italian renaissance 20-something. I'm sorry, but you don't understand the basic concept of an assassin if you think you're supposed to get in a scrap with some guys who are SEVERELY underclassed just by you being in their vicinity. I don't know if you've all noticed, but the Assassins we get to play these games as are not newcomers. They're top tier, master assassins, one of them founded an entire new style of Assassin order that incorporated brotherhoods aiding and abetting a master assassin in the field. They don't **** around people. Seals don't train to get into firefights and skirmishes where they take pot-shots until the guy starves to death. You're basically complaining that a Navy SEAL isn't employing the fighting tactics of an Army grunt. They get trained to end the fight as quickly as possible, but more importantly, to make sure a fight never happens. Complaining that, as an assassin, your primary means of battling someone is to kill them as quickly is possible is like arguing that guns make a SEALS job too easy.

Assassins work the same way. They're creatures of opportunity. They strike to kill, they don't strike to dance. You aren't supposed to kill a guy, then have to fight his 17 friends because you were sloppy enough to do it in a market square and spend 15 minutes fighting for your life. That's a ****ty assassin. You're supposed to kill the guy, then dispatch his enforcers in one, fluid movement, so as to make sure you don't have any opposition. That's the whole point behind chain kills and streaks and counters. This isn't a game where you're supposed to get into Dark Souls style fights. Your purpose on the battlefield is to END the battle, not participate in it. Ubi is showing this to you more frequently than they should have to. Just watch the latest trailer. Connor isn't trained to line up and use a musket. He's trained to walk into a firefight, completely ignore it, and kill the head of the other side. That's what you do the ENTIRE GAME.

People who want a combat system that isn't so 'easy' don't seem to understand that this game never has been and never will be about straight up fighting difficulty between you and some fool wearing a skirt and brandishing a woodcutting axe. It's about setting a mark, casing a fort, climbing whatever you have to to get the vantage point, and then swooping in like an eagle to end the mark in 1 strike. The whole philosophy behind every single assassin in this universe is 1 chance, 1 kill. Back when AC1 was released they told us Altair was modeled after an eagle. Eagles don't fight ****, people. They spend their time waiting, looking, and waiting some more. When they see a target, they throw everything they have into one swoop, kill it, and take off. It's one movement. It's fluid, it's efficient, and they make **** sure it's effective. The same concept has been applied to the assassins from day one.

This philosophy was least apparent in AC1. Whether or not it was the 'best combat' so far in the series is your own subjective opinion. It was the least analogous to what the Assassins are trying to be. Each installment has moved the combat closer to what the franchise has been aiming to put them as. If that's not what you want, you're pretty SOL then, because Ubi owns this IP and has every right to refine the combat system into what they told us it should have been from day one. You started out as a clunky turtle man in a glorified priest outfit who's only way out of a fight was either running, or getting hit until you saw a very rough opening. That evolved into waiting until you have a chance to completely turn the battle the other direction and keep hacking away. That evolved into not having to battle at all, and just winding your way through your challengers after having built up enough momentum to finish a fight. That, in turn, has evolved into this; using your momentum to literally kill on the run and make yourself as elusive a target as possible. AC3's combat system us what the franchise has been aiming for since the games started, and personally I applaud them for maintaining such a consistent evolutionary approach to how their combat works, especially considering how many hands have been in charge of it. Truthfully, if you think about it, you should be ecstatic that the games you play to enjoy have stayed as similar as they have, because it could have taken a turn as sharp as the splinter cell franchise. Who knows what you would get to ***** about if that had happened.

Accept it, move on, and try, for god's sake, to enjoy it for the achievement that it is, not the one that you disagree with because you've played the games and feel like that makes your opinion matter more than the people who's lives revolve around the production of this game.
Stop acting like you know better what the games were made for than the people who made them. The games are for how the player plays it. Simple as that. The Assassins weren't all stealthy killers. Just look at Bartolomeo.

Assassin_M
06-09-2012, 01:49 PM
Why don't we listen to developers and not judge difficulty by its generic meaning, but rather by the meaning Alex describes ?

LightRey
06-09-2012, 02:14 PM
I still really just don't care. Combat difficulty is so meaningless to me in games, especially AC games.

itsamea-mario
06-09-2012, 02:18 PM
I don't see why people want it to be so difficult. I personally don't like dying, I found it mightily inconvenient to get hit in AC2, because then i had to go and get my Armour repaired which was dull.

Obviously some challenge is good, but these guys aren't normal humans, apart from the genetic superiority, they're extremely well trained, i want to feel like an assassin, not some dweeb who keeps dying.

Medo3G
06-09-2012, 02:25 PM
I think in AC1 from the first concepts (That you immediately go to low health when spotted and that when a guard ran away he was supposed to call over other guards) and the fact that a tenant of the creed was "Become a blade in the crowd" made the combat feel like an inconvenience , so that you try to avoid it and be stealthy.
In later games they made combat "fun" so getting detected didn't make people hate the game, and "hardcore gamers" as they say go for 100% sync.

TheHumanTowel
06-09-2012, 02:26 PM
I don't see why people want it to be so difficult. I personally don't like dying, I found it mightily inconvenient to get hit in AC2, because then i had to go and get my Armour repaired which was dull.

Obviously some challenge is good, but these guys aren't normal humans, apart from the genetic superiority, they're extremely well trained, i want to feel like an assassin, not some dweeb who keeps dying.
People want it to be more difficult because when the combat has no challenge it's not satisfying. The Witcher 2 is a great example of difficult but rewarding combat. There's a sense of pride after every battle you win that's completely absent in AC. I'm not saying it has to be as difficult as the Witcher but ever since the introduction of chain kills the challenge has disappeared from AC combat.

LightRey
06-09-2012, 02:30 PM
People want it to be more difficult because when the combat has no challenge it's not satisfying. The Witcher 2 is a great example of difficult but rewarding combat. There's a sense of pride after every battle you win that's completely absent in AC. I'm not saying it has to be as difficult as the Witcher but ever since the introduction of chain kills the challenge has disappeared from AC combat.
The thing is, if people didn't find it satisfying enough the games wouldn't be as popular as they are. I very much suspect that the ones complaining about it are largely part of a very select, hardcore group of fans that are massively over represented on the forums, both because they're complainers (which are automatically over represented on the forums, or just on the internet in general), but also because a forum dedicated to the game will automatically attract relatively more hardcore gamers.

Tbh, it sounds a little like masochism to me.

itsamea-mario
06-09-2012, 02:34 PM
You shouldn't be getting into massive fights anyway.

Yeah lightrey, they're like the nerdy equivalent of guys who almost kill themselves at the gym to feel better about themselves, BRING THE PAIN!!!

LightRey
06-09-2012, 02:39 PM
You shouldn't be getting into massive fights anyway.

Yeah lightrey, they're like the nerdy equivalent of guys who almost kill themselves at the gym to feel better about themselves, BRING THE PAIN!!!
xDDDD
Exactly!

TheHumanTowel
06-09-2012, 03:56 PM
The thing is, if people didn't find it satisfying enough the games wouldn't be as popular as they are. I very much suspect that the ones complaining about it are largely part of a very select, hardcore group of fans that are massively over represented on the forums, both because they're complainers (which are automatically over represented on the forums, or just on the internet in general), but also because a forum dedicated to the game will automatically attract relatively more hardcore gamers.

Tbh, it sounds a little like masochism to me.
Combat isn't the main focus of the series though. I think it's reasonable that a player can really enjoy the games without liking the combat. In loads of reviews of these games the main gripe the reviewer has is the combat so i think the complaints are a lot more common than just from "hardcore fans" and anyway a bit of criticism is good in this forum. It stops it becoming one massive ubisoft **********.

Masochism wtf? So you want every game to be easy as pie?

BBALive
06-09-2012, 04:00 PM
Too literally? Why are people on this board always defending Ubi? It's obvious they took the combat from Brotherhood/Revelations and just tweaked it slightly and are now bending the truth to create hype. It's the same shallow system, that more or less plays itself, it has been for two games now (not implying combat was better before). Makes me disapointed :(.

I'm not defending Ubi, I'm educating you. You seem to think "rebuilt from the ground up" means "replaced entirely". It doesn't, they went back to the drawing board and decided what they should keep and what they should change. Obviously they have kept the same base, as they still want it to feel like an Assassin's Creed game, yet they've evolved the formula. You also ignored every point I made in my post. Good job.

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 04:33 PM
They said "Rebuilt from the ground up" and that means significant changes.

No, actually it doesn't.

It might mean it was built to be exactly the same, but in a different game engine.

They've specifically mentioned in several hands-on previews that blocking and evading attacks isn't automatic like it was in the previous games, so you need to time your button presses. Assuming this means bad timing will leave you open (as opposed to letting you interrupt a failed counter by button-mashing into a successful one), I'll call that a positive change that leads back to the towards the quality of the original game's combat system (but hopefully without the incompetent AI).

Sushiglutton
06-09-2012, 05:00 PM
No, actually it doesn't.

It might mean it was built to be exactly the same, but in a different game engine.


Seriously you're such a fanboy saying a thing like that. Do you have any capability at all of critical thinking? Do u just swallow whatever Ubi feeds u? When Alex says "we have rebuilt the combat system from the ground up" he sure as h-ll doesn't imply that they have taking the excact same combat system from previous games and put it in a new engine.

ToniTorsi
06-09-2012, 05:03 PM
You shouldn't be getting into massive fights anyway.

Yeah lightrey, they're like the nerdy equivalent of guys who almost kill themselves at the gym to feel better about themselves, BRING THE PAIN!!!

Are you two absolutely serious?

These forums does not...in any way. shape or darn form...represent the entire general opinion of whats an obvious matter. You can go to ANY big video gamesite like Gamespot or IGN and you will find that the majority will unspeakably agree.

Its not my fault that individuals like you are so accustomed to being spoon-fed by Ubisoft. Because that is exactly the situation we have here. And y'all love it.

Ubisoft smartly turning (without y'all realising it) Assassins Creed to a casual, easily accessible franchise.

Yes. Like Call of Duty.

They're forgetting their roots and selling out for the sake of obtaining more profits.

What a dense and nonsensical thing to say.

Sushiglutton
06-09-2012, 05:09 PM
I'm not defending Ubi, I'm educating you. You seem to think "rebuilt from the ground up" means "replaced entirely". It doesn't, they went back to the drawing board and decided what they should keep and what they should change. Obviously they have kept the same base, as they still want it to feel like an Assassin's Creed game, yet they've evolved the formula. You also ignored every point I made in my post. Good job.

What points are you refering to?

Sushiglutton
06-09-2012, 05:13 PM
Are you two absolutely serious?

These forums does not...in any way. shape or darn form...represent the entire general opinion of whats an obvious matter. You can go to ANY big video gamesite like Gamespot or IGN and you will find that the majority will unspeakably agree.

Its not my fault that individuals like you are so accustomed to being spoon-fed by Ubisoft. Because that is exactly the situation we have here. And y'all love it.

Ubisoft smartly turning (without y'all realising it) Assassins Creed to a casual, easily accessible franchise.

Yes. Like Call of Duty.

They're forgetting their roots and selling out for the sake of obtaining more profits.

What a dense and nonsensical thing to say.

There are a group of posters on this forum that in every single topic defends Ubi no matter what. They never seem to think "what do I want", but rather "how can I defend the choices Ubi made." It's rather sad and counter productive.

itsamea-mario
06-09-2012, 05:14 PM
Are you two absolutely serious?

These forums does not...in any way. shape or darn form...represent the entire general opinion of whats an obvious matter. You can go to ANY big video gamesite like Gamespot or IGN and you will find that the majority will unspeakably agree.

Its not my fault that individuals like you are so accustomed to being spoon-fed by Ubisoft. Because that is exactly the situation we have here. And y'all love it.

Ubisoft smartly turning (without y'all realising it) Assassins Creed to a casual, easily accessible franchise.

Yes. Like Call of Duty.

They're forgetting their roots and selling out for the sake of obtaining more profits.

What a dense and nonsensical thing to say.

What exactly was the point of this post?
Also, what am i being spoon fed, where are these spoons?

Into a casual series you say? They have always been casual games, They're not indie, nor are they hardcore. Ubi is a big company, it was a big company when it released AC1, It released AC1 with the goal of attracting the widest audience it could, lot's of people bought it, people who you wouldn't consider gamers, or at least casual gamers. You seem to be under the impression that AC is some special game series that is aimed at it's hardcore fans, but it's not, it's a very mainstream game, and casualty is what you can expect from mainstream games.

You're the one who is sucking up the BS if you think AC is about anything more than profit.

And technically, i am a casual gamer.
Not Nintendo Wii casual, but casual.

CrazySN
06-09-2012, 05:23 PM
Combat isn't the main focus of the series though. I think it's reasonable that a player can really enjoy the games without liking the combat. In loads of reviews of these games the main gripe the reviewer has is the combat so i think the complaints are a lot more common than just from "hardcore fans" and anyway a bit of criticism is good in this forum. It stops it becoming one massive ubisoft **********.

Masochism wtf? So you want every game to be easy as pie?

Combat not the main focus? Pfft, yeah right. If it wasn't for the combat, I''d never play the game, and I'm sure much people would agree with me, otherwise people wouldn't like the trailers where the Assassin kills loads of people. If you want a game geared towards being a stealthy Assassin play Hitman, because this game is all about killing.

playassassins1
06-09-2012, 05:25 PM
Are you two absolutely serious?

These forums does not...in any way. shape or darn form...represent the entire general opinion of whats an obvious matter. You can go to ANY big video gamesite like Gamespot or IGN and you will find that the majority will unspeakably agree.

Its not my fault that individuals like you are so accustomed to being spoon-fed by Ubisoft. Because that is exactly the situation we have here. And y'all love it.

Ubisoft smartly turning (without y'all realising it) Assassins Creed to a casual, easily accessible franchise.

Yes. Like Call of Duty.

They're forgetting their roots and selling out for the sake of obtaining more profits.

What a dense and nonsensical thing to say.

Lol. Cod.....

We're not spoon-fed by Ubisoft. They're just taking this franchise somewhere else.

If you don't like where this franchise is going than stop arguing about it and don't play it. Thats what i did with COD

And this franchise isn't turning into a casual game. someone who only plays sonic wouldn't be able to get into this franchise right away. I mean, have you played it yet? no you didn't.

You are basing your argument on something we have barely seen.... The thing with the demo is that they were showing new stuff we haven't seen before. It would be boring to show something we have already seen, so just because you haven't seen stealth(for example) doesn't mean it isn't there.

Just stop arguing about it.... please....

freddie_1897
06-09-2012, 05:31 PM
Not Nintendo Wii casual, but casual.

reminds me of this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKIiUsbOO24

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 05:44 PM
Seriously you're such a fanboy saying a thing like that. Do you have any capability at all of critical thinking? Do u just swallow whatever Ubi feeds u? When Alex says "we have rebuilt the combat system from the ground up" he sure as h-ll doesn't imply that they have taking the excact same combat system from previous games and put it in a new engine.

I'm a... fanboy?

Have you seen ANYTHING I've posted since March last year in the multiplayer forums? Did you even read the rest of my post after that point?

I used to be an AC fanboy back when it was still good.

And AC3 looks like it has the potential to get me interested again. But at the moment, it's only potential.

I was arguing about your claim that "rebuilt form the ground up" MEANS that it was changed. It IMPLIES that they've PROBABLY changed things, but "rebuilding from the ground up" doesn't necessarily REQUIRE change.

I'd honestly be happier with the first game's combat system and AI that isn't completely braindead than any variation on the later games' combat. But, assuming this new system is what some previews I've read are saying, it could be great. It could also be just a slightly different variety of rehashed junk, but that doesn't mean they didn't rebuild it from the ground up.

If I built a wooden hut, and it burnt down, I could rebuild it from the ground up and make it look exactly like the previous one had, and it would still have been rebuilt from the ground up.
If I built a videogame combat system, then moved to a new game engine for a sequel, I could rebuild it from the ground up and make it work exactly like the previous one had, and it would still have been rebuilt from the ground up.
If I built a videogame combat system, then moved to a new game engine for the sequel, I could lift the old combat system and drop it into the new engine, but unless the new engine is very similar to the previous one, I'm likely to introduce a lot of new bugs, so rebuilding from the ground up, while sounding impressive, is probably just the less stupid option.

freddie_1897
06-09-2012, 05:53 PM
sushiglutton, you are being ignorant, and when you are corrected you throw something that has nothing to do at all with the topic at us. being fanboys has nothing to do with it, if you rebuild a house it is still likely to be based on the designs of another. it is the same with this combat system, while it may still have elements from the previous games they have still recoded these moves, they haven't copy and pasted the same coding like they did with brotherhood and revelations

Assassin_M
06-09-2012, 05:58 PM
Do not... and I mean do NOT compare Assassins Creed and the Ugly abomination that is Call of duty..
You can bash, you can complain and you can call us FANBOYS... BUT YOU DO NOT COMPARE AC AND COD !!
NEVER !!

Krayus Korianis
06-09-2012, 06:01 PM
Yea, I don't care what the OP thinks... Game's gonna be awesome. They can nitpick all they want, they also can't compare AC to CoD... Just can't, it's not even the same game mechanics.

itsamea-mario
06-09-2012, 06:06 PM
sushiglutton, you are being ignorant, and when you are corrected you throw something that has nothing to do at all with the topic at us. being fanboys has nothing to do with it, if you rebuild a house it is still likely to be based on the designs of another. it is the same with this combat system, while it may still have elements from the previous games they have still recoded these moves, they haven't copy and pasted the same coding like they did with brotherhood and revelations


He just plain IGNANT son!

obliviondoll
06-09-2012, 06:11 PM
Do not... and I mean do NOT compare Assassins Creed and the Ugly abomination that is Call of duty..
You can bash, you can complain and you can call us FANBOYS... BUT YOU DO NOT COMPARE AC AND COD !!
NEVER !!


Yea, I don't care what the OP thinks... Game's gonna be awesome. They can nitpick all they want, they also can't compare AC to CoD... Just can't, it's not even the same game mechanics.

Nobody's comparing the game mechanics. Just the approach.

Made with mass-market appeal in mind? Check.
Easy to pick up and play? Check.
Designed so the basics are quick and very simple to learn? Check.
Easy for the devs to tweak mechanics and re-release as a sequel every year? Check.

When looking at the points people are actually using when comparing the twofranchises, they're easy to compare. Looking at the details, not so much, but nobody was saying that Assassin's Creed is focused on FPS gameplay, or that CoD has social stealth. If they were, then they're idiots. But they aren't, so there's no point in saying there's nothing to compare just because one level of comparison doesn't work. That's like saying you can't compare the body shapes of two cars because they have different engines.

Assassin_M
06-09-2012, 06:26 PM
You do not put "Assassins Creed" and "Call of duty" in one sentence..just NEVER !!
No matter what you`re saying, comparing, criticizing.... JUST NO !!

TheHumanTowel
06-09-2012, 06:27 PM
I think if we all accept I'm right about everything these forums would run a lot smoother.

freddie_1897
06-09-2012, 06:33 PM
You do not put "Assassins Creed" and "Call of duty" in one sentence..just NEVER !!
No matter what you`re saying, comparing, criticizing.... JUST NO !!
how about "assassins creed is the direct opposite of CoD, CoD sucks and can eat from AC's arse?

Assassin_M
06-09-2012, 06:35 PM
how about "assassins creed is the direct opposite of CoD, CoD sucks and can eat from AC's arse?
Thats fine..:rolleyes:
Seriously, I played Black Ops for just 2 minutes I couldnt take it..
then I decided to give MW3 a chance, and I felt like I lost my Virginity, like it was being taken away from me..

freddie_1897
06-09-2012, 06:38 PM
Thats fine..:rolleyes:
Seriously, I played Black Ops for just 2 minutes I couldnt take it..
then I decided to give MW3 a chance, and I felt like I lost my Virginity, like it was being taken away from me..
i played black ops and thought it was okay (don't get me wrong it certainly wasn't good)

i then played MW3 and decided to cut off my own hands it was so bad. luckily the surgeons managed to put them back on but since then I've banned myself from ever playing that worthless waste of protons ever again

LightRey
06-09-2012, 06:38 PM
Combat isn't the main focus of the series though. I think it's reasonable that a player can really enjoy the games without liking the combat. In loads of reviews of these games the main gripe the reviewer has is the combat so i think the complaints are a lot more common than just from "hardcore fans" and anyway a bit of criticism is good in this forum. It stops it becoming one massive ubisoft **********.

Masochism wtf? So you want every game to be easy as pie?
Well you can think a whole lot, but complaints are always common. Just think of a random (relatively reasonable) complaint about anything and you'll find tons of people who agree all over the internet. If you want to have an accurate idea of the overall opinion of the players, you'll have to do a very wide, well worked out survey, getting a sample with as little bias as possible and then use statistical analysis on it, which is what all companies do constantly. Trust me, Ubisoft has a much better idea of what the players want than any of us do.

And no, I don't want it to be "easy as pie", but I'm certainly not looking for a "challenge" when I play AC or any game for that matter. I just want it to be immersive and part of that is a -slightly- challenging factor.

Assassin_M
06-09-2012, 06:40 PM
Well you can think a whole lot, but complaints are always common. Just think of a random (relatively reasonable) complaint about anything and you'll find tons of people who agree all over the internet. If you want to have an accurate idea of the overall opinion of the players, you'll have to do a very wide, well worked out survey, getting a sample with as little bias as possible and then use statistical analysis on it, which is what all companies do constantly. Trust me, Ubisoft has a much better idea of what the players want than any of us do.
No Ubisoft doesnt know anything..
I mean they make Assassins Creed, How the hell can they know ? They survey on sites and actually have an Official Forum.. HOW THE HELL CAN THEY KNOW WHAT PLAYERS WANT ????

LightRey
06-09-2012, 06:46 PM
No Ubisoft doesnt know anything..
I mean they make Assassins Creed, How the hell can they know ? They survey on sites and actually have an Official Forum.. HOW THE HELL CAN THEY KNOW WHAT PLAYERS WANT ????
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz0f657gu31qhvtgno1_400.jpg

Assassin_M
06-09-2012, 06:47 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz0f657gu31qhvtgno1_400.jpg
Bullocks !!

itsamea-mario
06-09-2012, 06:48 PM
No Ubisoft doesnt know anything..
I mean they make Assassins Creed, How the hell can they know ? They survey on sites and actually have an Official Forum.. HOW THE HELL CAN THEY KNOW WHAT PLAYERS WANT ????

They know what people want. people want action, they want violence, they want to separate themselves from their boring dull lives, maybe they want to take out their frustration on some polygons, or imagine that they are some kind of hero. they give people an excuse to part with their money, and they're quite good at it.

TheHumanTowel
06-09-2012, 06:51 PM
Well you can think a whole lot, but complaints are always common. Just think of a random (relatively reasonable) complaint about anything and you'll find tons of people who agree all over the internet. If you want to have an accurate idea of the overall opinion of the players, you'll have to do a very wide, well worked out survey, getting a sample with as little bias as possible and then use statistical analysis on it, which is what all companies do constantly.
If that's the case then you're just as wrong as me for saying the complaints come from a very small minority of players, unless you've conducted such a survey.

Assassin_M
06-09-2012, 06:51 PM
They know what people want. people want action, they want violence, they want to separate themselves from their boring dull lives, maybe they want to take out their frustration on some polygons, or imagine that they are some kind of hero. they give people an excuse to part with their money, and they're quite good at it.
Random Guy: I just broke up with my GF I think I`ll play Assassins Creed to cheer up..

*after sometime*
Game: Desynced: Died in combat
Random Guy: *gunshot to the head*

UBISOFT SAVES LIVES

LightRey
06-09-2012, 06:54 PM
If that's the case then you're just as wrong as me for saying the complaints come from a very small minority of players, unless you've conducted such a survey.
I'm not saying they are. I'm saying I suspect they are.