PDA

View Full Version : On the Quality of Naval Vessels



Post_Captain
07-13-2012, 08:57 PM
Before I start, I would like to state that I am fully qualified to speak on this matter. I am crew on a replica 1830's hide brig out of Dana Point California. I have served as a yard captain on multiple occasions and have assisted in the training of new crew members. I am intimately familiar with ship's rigging, having nearly fallen asleep in it several times.

I know much of this has been brought up before, so I would like to recap as well as add my own suggestions to the mix.
1. Sailing vessels are not power boats. The vessels of the era would have sailed at an average speed of seven or so knotts in the conditions shown in the E3 video. I disagree with the criticism that the main player's ship could not be faster than the other vessels. The speed of a ship would have depended more on the shape of the underwater hull and the way the vessel was sailed rather than the sail area.
2. A square-rigged ship can sail an average of six points (approximately 70 degrees) off of the wind. (To clarify, zero degrees off the wind means facing directly into the wind, while 180 degrees would indicate sailing with the ind directly astern.) When the ship is not sailing directly downwind, the yards that the square sails are suspended from are braced around (turned) so that the win will always be as close to perpendicular to the sails and yards as possible. The same is also partially true of the fore-and aft sails. THat would take another paragraph or two to explain.
3. Ships did not explode after receiving a single broadside. Naval actions between two vessels could drag on for hours.
4. The rigging in the latest trailer that the player climbs into is mostly inaccurate, and could be vastly improved without altering any game mechanics. The lowest yard should come to right under the tops. (the platform he climbs up to) There should also be futtock shrouds, which would dramatically enhance the visuals of climbing, and are present on all vessels of that era. These photographs and links illustrate the positioning of futtock shrouds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futtock_shrouds
This picture was copyright protected, so I am linking to it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27417638@N07/4126469638/
http://www.shipsofscale.com/Trinidad/foremastshrouds44.jpg
These were vital structurally, as well as for use in climbing. They are also the most entertaining part of a climb.
Most of the stays also seem to be missing. See my thread here:
http://www.piratesahoy.net/threads/parts-of-a-ship.18554/
5. All the ships' hulls are completely inaccurate, along with the decks, guns, crews, etc. I can elaborate further, if requested.

Overall, I feel that the developers have worked hard to create a strong authentic atmosphere on land. I find it very disappointing that the same was not done for the game's maritime aspect.

If anyone has any questions, or would like me to elaborate on any of the points I made above, please do not hesitate to ask.

WolfTemplar94
07-13-2012, 09:16 PM
To be fair, it IS just a game. Realism is sometimes good, but sacrificing gameplay for it is a terrible mistake any developer could make. This is very nitpicky.

Assassin_M
07-13-2012, 09:19 PM
Its nit-picky, but an Interesting read, Nonetheless.

Although I do agree with you regarding the rigging, it is inaccurate, but part of a design can sometimes be compromise, which means that sometimes things have to be semi-realistic to put more time into more important things..

And welcome to the Forums ;)

ProletariatPleb
07-13-2012, 09:21 PM
I do not want to wait that long for the ship to move and turn, because in the end it's about gameplay and believeability over realism, it's not a simulator.

OriginalMiles
07-13-2012, 09:26 PM
tl:dr

In all seriousness.
So what? It's a game.

Post_Captain
07-13-2012, 09:30 PM
I do agree with the above points regarding gameplay vs. realism, but I personally think that what we've seen so far has been overdone. Take, for example, games like the Gentlemen of Fortune mod for CoAS. They remain arcade-like, but to a very small extent. The gameplay is still very entertaining. Realism does not necessarily mean sacrificed gameplay.

I realize that the developers are focused on other aspects of the game, but small changes such as futtock shrouds, stays, and proper hulls could have been implemented from the begging without increasing the workload too much. Now, of course, it would take much more work to fix. Small changes, like a set of futtock shrouds, could make the entire vessel exponentially more realistic even without the inclusion of small details.


tl:dr

In all seriousness.
So what? It's a game.

Well, one could say that it ruins the immersion for some people, such as myself, and several other individuals I know. They did a beautiful job creating Boston from period maps, and apparently did some very good research. Why can't they do the same for ships?

Assassin_M
07-13-2012, 09:34 PM
I do agree with the above points regarding gameplay vs. realism, but I personally think that what we've seen so far has been overdone. Take, for example, games like the Gentlemen of Fortune mod for CoAS. They remain arcade-like, but to a very small extent. The gameplay is still very entertaining. Realism does not necessarily mean sacrificed gameplay.

I realize that the developers are focused on other aspects of the game, but small changes such as futtock shrouds, stays, and proper hulls could have been implemented from the begging without increasing the workload too much. Now, of course, it would take much more work to fix. Small changes, like a set of futtock shrouds, could make the entire vessel exponentially more realistic even without the inclusion of small details.
Small or minor detail on the outside can be VERY hard work on the inside..

WolfTemplar94
07-13-2012, 09:41 PM
Maybe they changed the design of the ship to make it more interesting to climb?

Post_Captain
07-13-2012, 09:50 PM
Without futtock shrouds and stays, It's far less interesting to climb. Unfortunately, I think it was just a lack of research.

Assassin_M
07-13-2012, 09:53 PM
Without futtock shrouds and stays, It's far less interesting to climb. Unfortunately, I think it was just a lack of research.
We may never know whether it was that or whether it was just a trivial detail that they thought wont make any difference , but on experts such as yourself seeing as it is not solely a sailing game.
but as you said if you nitpick too much, you might risk not fully enjoying the game..

Post_Captain
07-15-2012, 10:42 PM
This is what bothers me. Skip to just after five minutes, and he'll make the claim that they "take history very seriously." That's obviously not true at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mMkLzOflc08#!

xX_V3N3M0U5_Xx
07-15-2012, 10:52 PM
http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/weekendatbernies-dance-didnt-read-lol-1321498882q.jpg

Serrachio
07-15-2012, 10:54 PM
This is what bothers me. Skip to just after five minutes, and he'll make the claim that they "take history very seriously." That's obviously not true at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mMkLzOflc08#!

And how do you know the motivations of others so well?

I get that the ship layout might not be to your liking, but just because the time might not be able to be invested, you can't suddenly start saying that "they're not including what I want, therefore they don't focus on history."

You also have to remember that it is the Middle of July now. The game releases in October. Send an email to Ubisoft regarding the matter and they might forward it along to the relevant development studio.

Post_Captain
07-15-2012, 11:01 PM
Use some common sense here. The layout of the ships are pure fantasy. It would have taken twenty minutes of research to make them look semi-realistic. They also could have created more realistic models in less time than it would have taken to produce the current ones. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in Ubisoft's statements and actions, not complaining about how the game wasn't made specifically to include "everything I want." How do you know the motivations of others so well?

Serrachio
07-15-2012, 11:09 PM
Use some common sense here. The layout of the ships are pure fantasy. It would have taken twenty minutes of research to make them look semi-realistic. They also could have created more realistic models in less time than it would have taken to produce the current ones. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in Ubisoft's statements and actions, not complaining about how the game wasn't made specifically to include "everything I want." How do you know the motivations of others so well?

Here's the thing. Saying they don't do historical research because a ship's layout might be wrong is widely generalizing the Assassin's Creed series based on one flaw. You also have to expect that the developers are human and can make mistakes.

Also, I'm not a ship expert, so saying "use some common sense" is a bit odd. As a regular gamer, I don't realistically need to scrutinize every detail of the ship's layout to put the basic fact that Connor is steering it through the Caribbean Sea together.

If you feel so strongly about this matter, and want to feel that you'll have a better chance of being heard, take my advice and send an email to Ubisoft. If you convey yourself well, you'll have a greater chance at grabbing their attention and seeing the fixes made.

BBALive
07-15-2012, 11:21 PM
I'm pretty sure the ship, at least the ship in the Boston demo, had futtock shrouds.

Assassin_M
07-16-2012, 12:18 AM
http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/weekendatbernies-dance-didnt-read-lol-1321498882q.jpg
Oh wow... That was completely unnecessary..
Because we, quite frankly,do not care..

I suggest you be more mature when you post..

Calvarok
07-16-2012, 06:03 AM
It WAS a good gif, though unnecessary. I think this falls into the same category as conveniently spaced branches and signposts for free-running. It's evocative of the things of the time, but it's also designed with gameplay in mind first. They take history very seriously, but mainly the facets of history which make the player feel immersed in the time, such as the general feel of the cities, the dialogue, the weaponry, and the characters. things like the exact contruction of ships are not essential to showing the history. If the ships were rectangles you could still tell the story of the american revolution and be entirely accurate.

The cities are not perfectly accurate either, they're one third as large as they actually were. They go for the flavor and style of the thing, rather than a carbon copy.

It's also very easy for you to say that they should have been more accurate, as you are an expert in that particular thing, which is an incredibly small part of the game. But at Ubisoft they're putting an entire game together, not just focusing on ships. The artist was obviously instructed to simplify ships to make it easier for players to understand how to move about them. Sure, a solution might have been implemented, but they're not worrying simply about the ships. They're worrying about basically EVERYTHING that was in the American Revolution. There's some times where you have to just go for a stylistic interpretation. Such as gravity and physics in the game not behaving exactly to real-world specifications, blood not staining clothes forever, rats being unkillable, there being more or less npcs that there actually were at any given historical event, minute changes to buildings and architecture not being represented in cities. Clothing not being entirely accurate to the time.

I can guarantee you that if you brought an expert on every little bit of the american revolution in, they would have a ton of complaints about inaccuracies that seem obvious to them, but you would never notice them and wouldn't consider to be that big a deal. And I can also guarantee that some member of Ubisoft would have probably known about this innaccuracy, and for some reason or another was unable to get it into the final version of the game.

Game development is not just taking a list of everything you want to be in the game and plugging it in. deadlines must be met, so things must be cut, things may interfere with gameplay, so they must be cut, people higher up than you may not want things in, so they must be cut, something may be too difficult to represent in the game, so it must be cut. Also, with hundreds of people working together on one project, mistakes and miscommunications are made. It's inevitable.

It's great that you have such an expansive knowledge on this subject, but you should understand that just because Ubisoft didn't perfectly represent this one facet, it doesn't mean that they don't care about accuracy. It just means they're not gods.

Serrachio
07-16-2012, 07:52 AM
It WAS a good gif, though unnecessary. I think this falls into the same category as conveniently spaced branches and signposts for free-running. It's evocative of the things of the time, but it's also designed with gameplay in mind first. They take history very seriously, but mainly the facets of history which make the player feel immersed in the time, such as the general feel of the cities, the dialogue, the weaponry, and the characters. things like the exact contruction of ships are not essential to showing the history. If the ships were rectangles you could still tell the story of the american revolution and be entirely accurate.

The cities are not perfectly accurate either, they're one third as large as they actually were. They go for the flavor and style of the thing, rather than a carbon copy.

It's also very easy for you to say that they should have been more accurate, as you are an expert in that particular thing, which is an incredibly small part of the game. But at Ubisoft they're putting an entire game together, not just focusing on ships. The artist was obviously instructed to simplify ships to make it easier for players to understand how to move about them. Sure, a solution might have been implemented, but they're not worrying simply about the ships. They're worrying about basically EVERYTHING that was in the American Revolution. There's some times where you have to just go for a stylistic interpretation. Such as gravity and physics in the game not behaving exactly to real-world specifications, blood not staining clothes forever, rats being unkillable, there being more or less npcs that there actually were at any given historical event, minute changes to buildings and architecture not being represented in cities. Clothing not being entirely accurate to the time.

I can guarantee you that if you brought an expert on every little bit of the american revolution in, they would have a ton of complaints about inaccuracies that seem obvious to them, but you would never notice them and wouldn't consider to be that big a deal. And I can also guarantee that some member of Ubisoft would have probably known about this innaccuracy, and for some reason or another was unable to get it into the final version of the game.

Game development is not just taking a list of everything you want to be in the game and plugging it in. deadlines must be met, so things must be cut, things may interfere with gameplay, so they must be cut, people higher up than you may not want things in, so they must be cut, something may be too difficult to represent in the game, so it must be cut. Also, with hundreds of people working together on one project, mistakes and miscommunications are made. It's inevitable.

It's great that you have such an expansive knowledge on this subject, but you should understand that just because Ubisoft didn't perfectly represent this one facet, it doesn't mean that they don't care about accuracy. It just means they're not gods.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Very eloquent. :)

MT4K
07-16-2012, 09:25 AM
Very good post Calvarok :D. Pretty much says everything.

LightRey
07-16-2012, 06:23 PM
It WAS a good gif, though unnecessary. I think this falls into the same category as conveniently spaced branches and signposts for free-running. It's evocative of the things of the time, but it's also designed with gameplay in mind first. They take history very seriously, but mainly the facets of history which make the player feel immersed in the time, such as the general feel of the cities, the dialogue, the weaponry, and the characters. things like the exact contruction of ships are not essential to showing the history. If the ships were rectangles you could still tell the story of the american revolution and be entirely accurate.

The cities are not perfectly accurate either, they're one third as large as they actually were. They go for the flavor and style of the thing, rather than a carbon copy.

It's also very easy for you to say that they should have been more accurate, as you are an expert in that particular thing, which is an incredibly small part of the game. But at Ubisoft they're putting an entire game together, not just focusing on ships. The artist was obviously instructed to simplify ships to make it easier for players to understand how to move about them. Sure, a solution might have been implemented, but they're not worrying simply about the ships. They're worrying about basically EVERYTHING that was in the American Revolution. There's some times where you have to just go for a stylistic interpretation. Such as gravity and physics in the game not behaving exactly to real-world specifications, blood not staining clothes forever, rats being unkillable, there being more or less npcs that there actually were at any given historical event, minute changes to buildings and architecture not being represented in cities. Clothing not being entirely accurate to the time.

I can guarantee you that if you brought an expert on every little bit of the american revolution in, they would have a ton of complaints about inaccuracies that seem obvious to them, but you would never notice them and wouldn't consider to be that big a deal. And I can also guarantee that some member of Ubisoft would have probably known about this innaccuracy, and for some reason or another was unable to get it into the final version of the game.

Game development is not just taking a list of everything you want to be in the game and plugging it in. deadlines must be met, so things must be cut, things may interfere with gameplay, so they must be cut, people higher up than you may not want things in, so they must be cut, something may be too difficult to represent in the game, so it must be cut. Also, with hundreds of people working together on one project, mistakes and miscommunications are made. It's inevitable.

It's great that you have such an expansive knowledge on this subject, but you should understand that just because Ubisoft didn't perfectly represent this one facet, it doesn't mean that they don't care about accuracy. It just means they're not gods.
Nothing to add here. Excellent post altogether. They can't focus all their time on being completely exact in every single detail. It would just ruin the experience in other areas. It should just look nice, convincing enough and work smoothly.

Kakyou-Kuzuki
08-05-2012, 07:04 PM
First of all, AC3 is a nice game and if the developers wouldn't have claimed that this game will be historical accurate, then I wouldn't have written this post in the first place. This is a product and the role of the developer is to deliver a product according to the claims they made. I therefore do not understand why do you defend the developers.



It WAS a good gif, though unnecessary. I think this falls into the same category as conveniently spaced branches and signposts for free-running. It's evocative of the things of the time, but it's also designed with gameplay in mind first. They take history very seriously, but mainly the facets of history which make the player feel immersed in the time, such as the general feel of the cities, the dialogue, the weaponry, and the characters. things like the exact contruction of ships are not essential to showing the history. If the ships were rectangles you could still tell the story of the american revolution and be entirely accurate.

Weaponry is not historical accurate. Scabbards are missing and sheaths for the bayonets. Moreover, every soldier has a bayonet already fixed on the muzzle of it's rifle. This was obviously done in order not to give the soldiers a secondary weapon. Moreover their rifles are missing the carrying straps.



The cities are not perfectly accurate either, they're one third as large as they actually were. They go for the flavor and style of the thing, rather than a carbon copy.

This was done due to memory limitations for consoles I presume. A pity, however futtock shrouds are not a detail, which would consume too much memory.



It's also very easy for you to say that they should have been more accurate, as you are an expert in that particular thing, which is an incredibly small part of the game. But at Ubisoft they're putting an entire game together, not just focusing on ships.

I haver personally not sailed yet however there are plenty of good books out there covering these aspect and some of them are really cheap. Everyone who wants to learn something about accuracy has the chance to do it.



The artist was obviously instructed to simplify ships to make it easier for players to understand how to move about them.

And this is WRONG! Terribly wrong! To present a false fact as the truth, there is nothing much more worse than this... Clichés are born this way!




Sure, a solution might have been implemented, but they're not worrying simply about the ships. They're worrying about basically EVERYTHING that was in the American Revolution. There's some times where you have to just go for a stylistic interpretation. Such as gravity and physics in the game not behaving exactly to real-world specifications, blood not staining clothes forever, rats being unkillable, there being more or less npcs that there actually were at any given historical event, minute changes to buildings and architecture not being represented in cities. Clothing not being entirely accurate to the time.

It is okay to have a stylistic game but the devs shouldn't have used the word "historical accurate" in the first place.





I can guarantee you that if you brought an expert on every little bit of the american revolution in, they would have a ton of complaints about inaccuracies that seem obvious to them, but you would never notice them and wouldn't consider to be that big a deal. And I can also guarantee that some member of Ubisoft would have probably known about this innaccuracy, and for some reason or another was unable to get it into the final version of the game.

There are patches and DLC, Ubisoft will have plenty chances to deliver content for nit-pickers and people, who love accurate things. However, I doubt that Ubisoft will do this. They are not caring much for their products.



Game development is not just taking a list of everything you want to be in the game and plugging it in. deadlines must be met, so things must be cut, things may interfere with gameplay, so they must be cut, people higher up than you may not want things in, so they must be cut, something may be too difficult to represent in the game, so it must be cut. Also, with hundreds of people working together on one project, mistakes and miscommunications are made. It's inevitable.

There are no historical facts, which interfere with gameplay. Only gamplay interferes with historical facts in some PC strategy games there is the possibility to select the grade of realism/accuracy I highly doubt that such a thing will be in this game.



It's great that you have such an expansive knowledge on this subject, but you should understand that just because Ubisoft didn't perfectly represent this one facet, it doesn't mean that they don't care about accuracy. It just means they're not gods.

Being human also means to learn from mistakes. Some people are complaining about stuff. Ubisoft as a company has the means to react to such complains and present a solution. Today there are possibilities for delivering patches and after release content. And to be honest, if Ubisoft would release a DLC, which would include updated models (with scabbards) and correct ship models. I would gladly pay for it and some other people too.



Again the game is nice however the developers promised historical accuracy and in some points they failed their promise. These points are small and they can be still fixed even after the release. However whether they are going to do this or not lies up to them and only the time will tell.

Assassin_M
08-05-2012, 07:14 PM
and this is wrong! Terribly wrong! To present a false fact as the truth, there is nothing much more worse than this... Clichés are born this way!


there are no historical facts, which interfere with gameplay. Only gamplay interferes with historical facts



oh the irony !!! .

Stroonzje
08-06-2012, 10:37 AM
its only game.. why you heff to be mad

ProletariatPleb
08-06-2012, 11:06 AM
The only thing I can agree with is...BRING BACK THE SCABBARDS!

pacmanate
08-06-2012, 11:36 AM
Don't care cause it is a game. And fun > realism.

itsamea-mario
08-06-2012, 02:09 PM
First of all, AC3 is a nice game and if the developers wouldn't have claimed that this game will be historical accurate, then I wouldn't have written this post in the first place. This is a product and the role of the developer is to deliver a product according to the claims they made. I therefore do not understand why do you defend the developers.




Weaponry is not historical accurate. Scabbards are missing and sheaths for the bayonets. Moreover, every soldier has a bayonet already fixed on the muzzle of it's rifle. This was obviously done in order not to give the soldiers a secondary weapon. Moreover their rifles are missing the carrying straps.




This was done due to memory limitations for consoles I presume. A pity, however futtock shrouds are not a detail, which would consume too much memory.




I haver personally not sailed yet however there are plenty of good books out there covering these aspect and some of them are really cheap. Everyone who wants to learn something about accuracy has the chance to do it.




And this is WRONG! Terribly wrong! To present a false fact as the truth, there is nothing much more worse than this... Clichés are born this way!





It is okay to have a stylistic game but the devs shouldn't have used the word "historical accurate" in the first place.





There are patches and DLC, Ubisoft will have plenty chances to deliver content for nit-pickers and people, who love accurate things. However, I doubt that Ubisoft will do this. They are not caring much for their products.



There are no historical facts, which interfere with gameplay. Only gamplay interferes with historical facts in some PC strategy games there is the possibility to select the grade of realism/accuracy I highly doubt that such a thing will be in this game.



Being human also means to learn from mistakes. Some people are complaining about stuff. Ubisoft as a company has the means to react to such complains and present a solution. Today there are possibilities for delivering patches and after release content. And to be honest, if Ubisoft would release a DLC, which would include updated models (with scabbards) and correct ship models. I would gladly pay for it and some other people too.



Again the game is nice however the developers promised historical accuracy and in some points they failed their promise. These points are small and they can be still fixed even after the release. However whether they are going to do this or not lies up to them and only the time will tell.

The game is about history, not a textbook representation of history.
If it was then the games wouldn't be nearly as fun as they are, historically there were no assassins and Templars fighting their way through the renaissance, no hidden blades, no pieces of Eden, no First Civilization, no men who were capable of killing 50 armed soldiers in one sitting, most of leonardo's inventions were never built, there was never a villa in Montigeroni, combat isn't as simple as swinging your way through armour, you can't free run and swim across an entire city in full Armour in one go, you can't heal sword wounds with medicine, you can't save yourself from a fall using a finger-hold and you can't relive every moment of your ancestors life through genetics.
But these are things that make the series awesome, and sacrificing them in the place of accuracy and realism would just be stupid.

Carlist
08-21-2012, 09:25 AM
Maybe I'm a bit late on this thread but I felt sorry Post_Captain didn't have anyone to support him as he seems to be the only one on the entire Internet making some sense about ship design in Assassin's Creed. It doesn't take an expert to recognize how flawed they are (and have been from the first game on, though at the time they weren't part of the gameplay), you just just need to have watched at least once Master and Commander or even Pirates of Caribbean (the English ships in those looked good, not the pirate ones).

We all accept they couldn't and shouldn't be perfectly accurate in look and gameplay which would be boring, useless and time consuming for the team. Yet there is one thing that really puzzles me : when asked to create ships for the game (and all other AC games for that matter), artists seem to have opted to fantasize hulls and riggings from the scratch instead of simply using plans and pictures from existing ships of the time (which are really easy to find, as Post_Captain underlined, even on the Net). Plans were used in games such as Empire Total War and ships there looked fine, at least not inaccurate to the point that players felt kicked out of the time period whenever a naval battle took place and plunged into some Final Fantasy kind of universe.

I can't see how reinventing the look of ships from dreams or memory helped improve gameplay or saved time and money for the team. I'll be happy to fight, run around and climb on those fantasy ships in AC 3, but would have been much happier (and I'm not alone) to do the exact same thing on ships looking generally like those you can see in painting from the 18th century.

Blind2Society
08-21-2012, 09:53 AM
historically there were no assassins and Templars fighting their way through the renaissance, no hidden blades, no pieces of Eden, no First Civilization, most of leonardo's inventions were never built,

Says who? ; )

r4inm4n1991
08-21-2012, 11:50 AM
Says who? ; )

itsamea-mario did o.o

Steww-
08-21-2012, 02:03 PM
Perhaps you are an expert on Naval Vessels during that time period, and have the edge over Ubisoft in that department (though I expect they will have experts to consult).
However, you are not in the video games industry. Ubisoft will have looked into what makes for the most entertaining game, and until we have played it, we can't really question that decision.

"3. Ships did not explode after receiving a single broadside. Naval actions between two vessels could drag on for hours."
Would you rather we had in-game battles that dragged on for hours?It just wouldn't work. This is a perfect example of realism Vs gameplay.

I'm not really sure why I'm posting this, since Calvarok's post sums everything up xD.

Carlist
08-21-2012, 09:51 PM
I'm not sure the opposition "realism versus gameplay" is applicable to every game. They both serve the same purpose, particularly in a game like Assassin's Creed, which is to make the player's experience more enjoyable. You don't buy AC solely because of its combat system, or because of the vast arsenal of weapons at the hero's disposal, nor do you buy it to drive a powerboat. You can do that in countless other flavorless franchises. In AC, you get your kicks from exploring a believably (not accurately) recreated time period, from meeting historical characters, and to some extent from discovering secret conspirations behind history's most important moments. Sacrificing historical verisimilitude (not accuracy) to enhance gameplay doesn't enhance your experience, it kills the game and gameplay with it.
Calvarok's point is quite sound but I must disagree : sailing on a rectangle would lessen my gaming experience, as would using RPGs, though they are generally rather fun from a gameplay perspective.

But this is not even it : the AC team never gave us RPGs nor rectangles as ships. They work hard on their games and the vessels we saw so far are intricately designed, with complex riggings and artfully shaped hulls, and though their steering and fighting mechanics are somewhat "simplified" (a good thing I think), their overall look is in no way easier to understand to the player than would be that of a real ship. Then why in the world put so much effort and, I suppose, money into inventing that which already exists. If you are going to create an elaborate vessel, you might as well make it look real. It would be simpler as you don't have to work from scratch, more beautiful, and would definitely enhance the player's experience in AC, not diminish it.
And that goes for many other aspects of the game, not just ships.

Assassin_M
08-21-2012, 10:07 PM
I feel sorry for Sailors or ship experts when they play this game. Their knowledge of Ships will greatly diminish their enjoy-ability of the game`s Naval sequences by excessive nitpicking..

Oh look this should be----
Oh crap there is not a ----
AW Man they forgot the ----

OH eff this game, it sucks..

No offense to anyone...

SteelCity999
08-21-2012, 10:19 PM
I feel sorry for Sailors or ship experts when they play this game. Their knowledge of Ships will greatly diminish their enjoy-ability of the game`s Naval sequences by excessive nitpicking..

Oh look this should be----
Oh crap there is not a ----
AW Man they forgot the ----

OH eff this game, it sucks..

No offense to anyone...


When I jump off of the local church spire and into a haybale, it does not look correct either. Research, research.....

I'm good with the ships though....

Assassin_M
08-21-2012, 10:21 PM
When I jump off of the local church spire and into a haybale, it does not look correct either. Research, research.....

I'm good with the ships though....
Oh and I also feel sorry for Realism junkies:p

SteelCity999
08-21-2012, 10:25 PM
Oh and I also feel sorry for Realism junkies:p

I thought video games were reality....:eek: and to think I sent in my resume to Abstergo.

Carlist
08-21-2012, 10:32 PM
I feel sorry for Sailors or ship experts when they play this game. Their knowledge of Ships will greatly diminish their enjoy-ability of the game`s Naval sequences by excessive nitpicking..

Oh look this should be----
Oh crap there is not a ----
AW Man they forgot the ----

OH eff this game, it sucks..

No offense to anyone...

To many, a ship is a piece of wood with some ropes and a sail. Those who claim otherwise are nitpickers. Fair enough.
What if all cars in the upcoming GTA V were caterpillar tracted, going 400 MPH, with no bumpers or rear view mirrors. Would the throngs calling for more realistic vehicles be called nitpickers ?

I understand most have only basic knowledge of ships (among other things featured in AC games) and are not interrested in gaining any. That's all good with me. But some would certainly be glad to learn a few stuff about life during the revolution while playing AC 3.
Threads like this one may help Ubisoft realise it.

Assassin_M
08-21-2012, 10:38 PM
To many, a ship is a piece of wood with some ropes and a sail. Those who claim otherwise are nitpickers. Fair enough.
What if all cars in the upcoming GTA V were caterpillar tracted, going 400 MPH, with no bumpers or rear view mirrors. Would the throngs calling for more realistic vehicles be called nitpickers ?

I understand most have only basic knowledge of ships (among other things featured in AC games) and are not interrested in gaining any. That's all good with me. But some would certainly be glad to learn a few stuff about life during the revolution while playing AC 3.
Threads like this one may help Ubisoft realise it.

People have FAAAR more knowledge of cars than ships, your proposal is of no relevance, because you simply brought a comparison that simply doesn't go with what I proposed. and yes clamoring over little details in ANYTHING is Nitpicking, Cars, horses, Ships, trees, Snow, Clothes, Buildings, Weapons, Carriages, Hats, Uniform, tools, Maneuvers, events, weather, Clipping, Animation, Programming, Graphics, water, texture, rocks, wood, sky, clouds, animals..

And I never said this thread wasn't important, it may be for the future as some reference, like I said, I feel sorry for Ship experts, because 95% percent of people playing this game are not..

SteelCity999
08-21-2012, 10:47 PM
To many, a ship is a piece of wood with some ropes and a sail. Those who claim otherwise are nitpickers. Fair enough.
What if all cars in the upcoming GTA V were caterpillar tracted, going 400 MPH, with no bumpers or rear view mirrors. Would the throngs calling for more realistic vehicles be called nitpickers ?

I understand most have only basic knowledge of ships (among other things featured in AC games) and are not interrested in gaining any. That's all good with me. But some would certainly be glad to learn a few stuff about life during the revolution while playing AC 3.
Threads like this one may help Ubisoft realise it.

I think as long as the ships are close to accurate for the period, its acceptable - considering gameplay needs etc. The best the game can do is expose you to things and people - whether they are perfectly accurate or not - and then let the player do the research on their own. Even then, there are always differing viewpoints and opinions.

For me, the ships are probably the easiest part to look the part. Getting the sea to behave accurately and in turn affect the ship's dynamic movement is much more difficult and impressive if they can make it feel real. Uncharted did a pretty good job in its effort - not perfect but good.

Carlist
08-21-2012, 10:52 PM
You're quite right, there certainly is some nitpicking going on, though I guess all those complaining about those ships, me included, will enjoy the game anyway.
However most points Post-Captain raised were really no little details, they are essential to what a tall ship is, just like the number of wheels is essential to what a car is, whether you are an expert in cars or not.
To me the real experts in ships here (and in all things historical) should be the AC team, not the players who wait to be enlightenend.

Assassin_M
08-21-2012, 10:55 PM
You're quite right, there certainly is some nitpicking going on, though I guess all those complaining about those ships, me included, will enjoy the game anyway.
However most points Post-Captain raised were really no little details, they are essential to what a tall ship is, just like the number of wheels is essential to what a car is, whether you are an expert in cars or not.
To me the real experts in ships here (and in all things historical) should be the AC team, not the players who wait to be enlightenend.
This isn't a Ship-based game and like I said, they are little details, because only a VERY small amount will notice..

If a Car was made without wheels and people complain then that isn't nitpicking, because first and foremost it is a driving game and second, because its widely known how a car basically looks like..

If You are complaining about horses and notice some detail, then that is justified, because of horses being more widely known than ships and them being the main transportation in the game..

Carlist
08-21-2012, 10:57 PM
And again, to tease a little more, we are not dealing with inaccurate ships here, which would be fine, but whith ships reinvented from the ground up, at least in the naval battle sequences. And I can't quite understand why they did that...

Carlist
08-21-2012, 11:06 PM
This isn't a Ship-based game and like I said, they are little details, because only a VERY small amount will notice..

If a Car was made without wheels and people complain then that isn't nitpicking, because first and foremost it is a driving game and second, because its widely known how a car basically looks like..

If You are complaining about horses and notice some detail, then that is justified, because of horses being more widely known than ships and them being the main transportation in the game..

Again, you are right ; it's because few people know what a ship of that time looks like that Ubisoft doesn't feel the need to be realistic.
I thing that's a problem though. The less people know about a subject, the more opportunity there are to surprise them with new things and to teach them interesting stuff. But Ubisoft doesn't think that way, their main goal is of course to sell, not to teach or surprise, and if no one is shocked by inaccuracies then why worry. Nitpickers gonna nitpick.

Assassin_M
08-21-2012, 11:15 PM
Again, you are right ; it's because few people know what a ship of that time looks like that Ubisoft doesn't feel the need to be realistic.
I thing that's a problem though. The less people know about a subject, the more opportunity there are to surprise them with new things and to teach them interesting stuff. But Ubisoft doesn't think that way, their main goal is of course to sell, not to teach or surprise, and if no one is shocked by inaccuracies then why worry. Nitpickers gonna nitpick.
They don't care about teaching ? Wow... Im done

r4inm4n1991
08-21-2012, 11:26 PM
Im so doing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rlNpWYQunY&feature=relmfu)when i get the game! :p

Carlist
08-21-2012, 11:28 PM
They don't care about teaching ? Wow... Im done

You can laugh, but it's actually quite sad, coming from a franchise like AC with the potential to be different from the vast majority of games.
But maybe I used the wrong word. Instead of "teach", which is taboo, I should have said "entertain the player with something else than just killing things".
Not that there is anything wrong with killing things, mind you.

Steww-
08-21-2012, 11:31 PM
Carlist, you are saying that Ubisoft have "ships reinvented from the ground up".
What do you think their motive is for doing it?

I'll give you mine - they did it for gameplay reasons. Your objection earlier was: "I can't see how reinventing the look of ships from dreams or memory helped improve gameplay ".
To paraphrase Alex in one of the videos, if the ships took a realistic amount of time to turn, the battle would be boring. I'm sure he could also explain the rest of the changes as well.
So, do you think the people making this huge/successful franchise know less about what makes a good game than you?
You're trying to judge the gameplay value of something that you've never seen, but professionals have no doubt tested and considered.

Assassin_M
08-21-2012, 11:33 PM
You can laugh, but it's actually quite sad, coming from a franchise like AC with the potential to be different from the vast majority of games.
But maybe I used the wrong word. Instead of "teach", which is taboo, I should have said "entertain the player with something else than just killing things".
Not that there is anything wrong with killing things, mind you.
Potential to be different ? Would it be the fastest selling new IP if it wasn't different ? Would it garner a HUGE fan base in a little over 5 years ? Sell 27 Million Units ?
You are just being ridiculous now

Carlist
08-21-2012, 11:40 PM
Carlist, you are saying that Ubisoft have "ships reinvented from the ground up".
What do you think their motive is for doing it?

I'll give you mine - they did it for gameplay reasons. Your objection earlier was: "I can't see how reinventing the look of ships from dreams or memory helped improve gameplay ".
To paraphrase Alex in one of the videos, if the ships took a realistic amount of time to turn, the battle would be boring. I'm sure he could also explain the rest of the changes as well.
So, do you think the people making this huge/successful franchise know less about what makes a good game than you?
You're trying to judge the gameplay value of something that you've never seen, but professionals have no doubt tested and considered.

Agreed, they evidently have a very good reason for doing so. And I'm not trying to teach them how to make their game successful (my God, they are quite good at that). Sorry if I sounded too assertive or full of myself.
I'm just complaining a bit (with others) about the lack of credibility of their ships, which has me doubt the accurracy of the rest of the game world (and that's a shame).
But I never the said I resented ships going faster than actual vessels or steering better. It's their strange fantasy looks that puts me off.

Carlist
08-21-2012, 11:46 PM
Potential to be different ? Would it be the fastest selling new IP if it wasn't different ? Would it garner a HUGE fan base in a little over 5 years ? Sell 27 Million Units ?
You are just being ridiculous now

I don't want to go into a heated argument, these ships are not worth it. And I insist, I LOVE the AC franchise just like you do, which is why I would want it to be ever better.
But I think we can all think of franchises (which were new at some point in time) selling very well whithout taking any risk or ever trying to be different.

Assassin_M
08-21-2012, 11:48 PM
I don't want to go into an heated argument, these ships are not worth it. And I insist, I LOVE the AC franchise just like you do, which is why I would want it to be ever better.
But I think we can all think of franchises (which were new at some point in time) selling very well whithout taking any risk or ever trying to be different.
Not to challenge you or anything.. Give me a franchise that started as something that didn't take risks or was the same as every other game and is now a HUGE multi-million franchise

Steww-
08-21-2012, 11:50 PM
Agreed, they evidently have a very good reason for doing so. And I'm not trying to teach them how to make their game successful (my God, they are quite good at that). Sorry if I sounded too assertive or full of myself.
I'm just complaining a bit (with others) about the lack of credibility of their ships, which has me doubt the accurracy of the rest of the game world (and that's a shame).
But I never the said I resented ships going faster than actual vessels or steering better. It's their strange fantasy looks that puts me off.

Ah, I see. The references to powerboats and 400MPH cars threw me off, but if it's aesthetics that's the real issue, I apologise for missing the point in relation to your argument (they are still relevant to Post-Captain).

In that case, I'd like to take up Captain's offer - "5. All the ships' hulls are completely inaccurate, along with the decks, guns, crews, etc. I can elaborate further, if requested."
What is it about the appearance that is causing the problem?

Carlist
08-22-2012, 12:40 AM
Ah, I see. The references to powerboats and 400MPH cars threw me off, but if it's aesthetics that's the real issue, I apologise for missing the point in relation to your argument (they are still relevant to Post-Captain).

In that case, I'd like to take up Captain's offer - "5. All the ships' hulls are completely inaccurate, along with the decks, guns, crews, etc. I can elaborate further, if requested."
What is it about the appearance that is causing the problem?

I wish Post_Captain were still here to answer that, as it is a very good question and I am not the ship expert that he seems to be (plus the few nautical terms I know are in French, since I'm French, sorry). Also there are no good pictures available of the layout of the Aquila or any other ship involved in the naval battles we saw so it's quite difficult to prove my point and I'm making a fool of myself again.
Still you can look at the bow of Connor's ship and compare its shape whith that of a frigate of that time (I don't know what kind of vessel the Aquila is supposed to be ; she's close to frigate in size), take the replica of the HMS Surprise for instance. Surprise's bow is flat, with a piece of wood jutting out supporting the figurehead. The huge figurehead on Aquila is directly attached to the hull and her bow is angled like that of modern ships. That's a detail amongst many.
It's quite difficult to make sense and it would be a lot simpler if I could point out all the dissimilarities on two models (I'd understand if you took me for a dolt for being unable to explain why I seemed so angry at the AC artists). Yet it's not so much about small details (that would be nitpicking) than the general aspect of those ships' hulls and rigging plan. The proportions are off, the shapes are strange, and whoever has ever observed a marine from the 18th century can feel that without being able to point out what's wrong specifically.

Steww-
08-22-2012, 12:56 AM
Have some confidence in your knowledge, you clearly know more than you're giving yourself credit for. Or you're being disingenuous, but I'll doubt that.
You've felt strongly enough to sign up to the site and start posting in this thread - either you're Post-Captain or you genuinely care and know what you're talking about.

"and whoever has ever observed a marine from the 18th century can feel that without being able to point out what's wrong specifically."
Have you?

I appreciate the details you're giving, and if it wasn't 1AM I'd be taking some screenshots to see the points you're making. I'll look forward to doing that in the morning. Perhaps it would be better to use the British ships for comparison, as Connor's may well have a backstory that makes it strange for some reason.
Don't get me wrong, I do trust the differences you are outlining, I would just like to see if there is any reason why they exist. Ubisoft aren't ones to drop the ball on historical accuracy for no reason.

Carlist
08-22-2012, 01:01 AM
http://www.prdobson.com/images/gallery/5-agamemnon_250905-1127669008.jpghttp://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb58377/assassinscreed/images/b/b6/Connor_steering_ship.jpg
Even better, you can compare the two decker in the top right hand corner of the screenshot with that nice 3D render of the HMS Agamemnon (of about the same class, maybe).
I don't say models in the game should look exactly like that, with all those stays and tacks and stuff, but why not modeling ships to ressemble what existed. If the guy who did this Agamemnon model could do it, why not the AC team.

GeneralTrumbo
08-22-2012, 01:11 AM
I agree. I am a bit upset myself that they aren't trying to be realistic with the game, when that is one of the selling points of the games. I know this for a fact.

Steww-
08-22-2012, 01:13 AM
I'm sorry that I'm having to ask you to spell this out, but what makes that ship in the corner so outlandish for a third-rate?

Surely it wouldn't be hard to find a similar ship that looked like that.
Am I just lacking that much knowledge? I won't be offended if the answer is yes.

Carlist
08-22-2012, 01:29 AM
http://www.prdobson.com/images/projects/1-aga_058-52-1075395873.jpg

That's the profile of a third rate, and really at that time they didn't differ much. Plans were drawn (many can still be found at Greenwich) and shipwrights stuck to it. All men of war looked basically the same.
See the snub-nosed bow and the steep stern, the flatness of the general line whithout forecastle or rear castle. The ship in the screenshot is difficult to make out well but her stern is protruding, her bow is angled, and to top it off she has a weird fighting top on top of her mainmast which should be placed way lower along the mast and gives the ship a strange appearance (maybe that's for gameplay purposes though, so I will shut up about that).
And no, you don't lack knowledge, It's just me not making my point very well.

Steww-
08-22-2012, 01:40 AM
Thanks, that's much clearer. If that ship from the screenshot is indeed the same type of ship, then there is a clear difference.

I still don't believe Ubisoft would change that kind of detail without a motive, but it's something that I'll have to think about.

Like you say, while this certainly isn't game-breaking (it's an issue of appearance), and doesn't deserve so much discussion, it's still an interesting topic.

GeneralTrumbo
08-22-2012, 01:43 AM
http://www.thedearsurprise.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ausnavy-640x250.jpg

It looks closer to the game's depiction than what you thought. Here is a ship in what I believe to be Boston.

Assassin_M
08-22-2012, 01:43 AM
Are you sure those 2 are the same ships ? Again, Not challenging you or anything (seeing as you ignored my last post) they just look too different to be the same..Or maybe Im just an Idiot ?

Steww-
08-22-2012, 01:46 AM
Oh, before I go, have you ever played Empire Total War? If the ships on that are accurate (and I very, very much suspect they are) they would be useful reference points.

Carlist
08-22-2012, 01:52 AM
Thanks, that's much clearer. If that ship from the screenshot is indeed the same type of ship, then there is a clear difference.

I still don't believe Ubisoft would change that kind of detail without a motive, but it's something that I'll have to think about.

You're very welcome.
Ships in Venice in AC 2 or in Constantinople shipyard in Revelations looked similarly odd for their time period (and if I were to nitpick, I'd ad that all ships from AC 1 forward sported steering wheels, which were not invented before long into the 18th century, but that's petty). Quite frankly, I think artists over at Ubisoft simply think ships look better, more interesting the way they draw them. If they do, I believe they are right, and in any other game I wouldn't peep. But in Assassin's Creed, where everything is almost perfect, weird ships have always itched me.

Carlist
08-22-2012, 01:54 AM
Oh, before I go, have you ever played Empire Total War? If the ships on that are accurate (and I very, very much suspect they are) they would be useful reference points.

Indeed I have, and ships look very cool and very practical in that game, even though the team didn't render every plank.

Assassin_M
08-22-2012, 01:55 AM
Am I invisible ? Hello ? HELLO ??

Carlist
08-22-2012, 02:03 AM
Are you sure those 2 are the same ships ? Again, Not challenging you or anything (seeing as you ignored my last post) they just look too different to be the same..Or maybe Im just an Idiot ?

Sorry if I didn't answer earlier. I would have quoted any war game like Call of Duty or Battlefield which are very good games I suppose, sell very well but don't appear to be very different from the competition exept in terms of quality (it would be easy to prove me wrong though, but we would be off topic quickly).

Indeed those ships look very different, but as I said, men of war from that time didn't differ much in design and I have never seen a vessel like the one in the screenshot in any painting or drawing.
I'm not allknowing, far fom it, but I think that difference kinds of proves the point Post_Captain was making.

Carlist
08-22-2012, 02:07 AM
Nice picture GeneralTrumbo.
So far, the ships we've seen in Boston Harbor in AC 3 looked quite good, to the exception of some minor details like stays (which are not minor in a ship's rigging, but well).
The naval battles are another kettle of fish.

Assassin_M
08-22-2012, 02:15 AM
Of course he makes valid points, every one here agrees to that, I said "Ship experts" I never said "Expert wannabes". The point of difference was something else rather than the authenticity of his claims that ships looked awful..

He wanted the Ship to look accurate, but most guys here are fine by a ship just looking like..... a "Ship" know wha`am sayin` ?

Carlist
08-22-2012, 02:27 AM
Of course he makes valid points, every one here agrees to that, I said "Ship experts" I never said "Expert wannabes". The point of difference was something else rather than the authenticity of his claims that ships looked awful..

He wanted the Ship to look accurate, but most guys here are fine by a ship just looking like..... a "Ship" know wha`am sayin` ?

Right, right, I hear you.
We shouldn't shoot for accuracy, rather believablility (is that a word ?). I understand how ships are a minor part of the game, and an even more minor part of players' expectations regarding historical accuracy, and rightly so. Nothing to get excited over I know.
It's just something I don't like about AC, how they mix very thoroughly researched facts with stuff they completely invent because they think they look cool or pretty and market the whole package as "history". To me moderate realism will always look cooler than anything an artist can invent, at least in the context of an AC game.

Calvarok
08-22-2012, 02:42 AM
Right, right, I hear you.
We shouldn't shoot for accuracy, rather believablility (is that a word ?). I understand how ships are a minor part of the game, and an even more minor part of players' expectations regarding historical accuracy, and rightly so. Nothing to get excited over I know.
It's just something I don't like about AC, how they mix very thoroughly researched facts with stuff they completely invent because they think they look cool or pretty and market the whole package as "history". To me moderate realism will always look cooler than anything an artist can invent, at least in the context of an AC game.
Dude, that's the whole point of AC.
To be real mixed with imagined.
And in the end it's a video game, so sometimes gameplay must come first, and it's the artist's personal style, so the boat is going to be modeled to fit that style.

Photorealism to me is boring.

AC was never marketed as a perfectly accurate game.
It contains elements of history because it's cool to show people elements of real history while still doing your own thing.

I don't want the future of gaming to be one where all the graphics are the same, perfectly optimized engine with the same objects that you pick from a drop-down list.

Artists and artistic style should always be involved in video games. Period.

Carlist
08-22-2012, 02:56 AM
Dude, that's the whole point of AC.
To be real mixed with imagined.
And in the end it's a video game, so sometimes gameplay must come first, and it's the artist's personal style, so the boat is going to be modeled to fit that style.

Photorealism to me is boring.

AC was never marketed as a perfectly accurate game.
It contains elements of history because it's cool to show people elements of real history while still doing your own thing.

I don't want the future of gaming to be one where all the graphics are the same, perfectly optimized engine with the same objects that you pick from a drop-down list.

Artists and artistic style should always be involved in video games. Period.

That's all too true. The artists from Ubisoft do a marvelous job. Every AC looked stunning so far, be it inspired by orientalist painters or Renaissance Italian artists. Yet there is a delicate trade-off between pure inspiration and realism. You can't just ditch one in favor of the other.
Turner painted ships like no other, all his works are truly original and yet the vessels he pictured looked perfectly realistic. There are many manners to depict the same subject (history in this particular case) whithout having to reinvent it.

Calvarok
08-22-2012, 03:32 AM
Yes, I know that, but an artist was assigned who decided to.
From all I know about how art teams in video games work, they are told to reflect certain themes and styles in their work, but how they do it is up to them. And it's important that you leave it up to them. You can't come in and say "this should be more realistic" if the artist is doing his own thing. (Unless it starts to stop reflecting the style they want for the game.)

That's the beauty of art. Sometimes it's very realistic, sometimes it's interpretative, sometimes it's anywhere on the spectrum in-between.

And in a game like Assassin's Creed, where there are a lot of ridiculous and fantasy elements, they unified those styles in a way that captures the flavour of the time, without being pixel perfect.

It's the same with the cities: each building's architecture is not exactly right. An architecture expert could probably come in and point out as many "flaws" as a ship expert. A city planner could show you that the cities are actually condensed from their original size.

but that's because it's not the actual renaissance, or crusades, or revolution: it's a piece of art that reflects those time periods and places.

Realism in the all encompassing sense works far better for art that is only focusing on one subject, like that ship you mentioned. But to be emblematic of a whole era requires a more sweeping focus, and thus a more stylistic form of realism.

Every AC game undoubtledly gives you the style of the places displayed, though I can assure you from experience, that being physically there is another thing entirely.

And there is merit in those games which try to capture the physicality of an area, rather than just its style and history, but I find them to be far less interesting artistically.

Carlist
08-22-2012, 04:13 AM
Really I can't argue with that. It's beatifully said and to the point. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

AC should be accepted as a piece of art and respected as a singular vision of a time period.

Yet it remains at the same time a video game, a product of the entertainment industry, and unfortunately one of the fiew which deal in history. To me, one of the big thrills when playing an AC game is imagining myself transported through time, or at least the romantic idea I have of past times built from films, paintings or books I saw or read. Not the real past but the idea I and people of my generation and cultural background have of said past. When I see something that stands glaringly out, like the bizarre robes of Ezio or the strange ship Connor is captaining, the thrill ends. To someone else with a different story, weapons can be off-putting, or as you said buildings or city plans.

As an art lover, you've got to respect the poetic licence, but as a player, you cringe.

In the interest of players, the best way to avoid this and to reconcile the many different images people have of past time periods would be to stay close to reality whenever possible, so as to avoid breaking the immersion for a majority people, be they shipbuilding buffs, architecture buffs and whatnot.

But it would infringe on artistic liberties and ruin the game for the art lover.
I fear there is no solution to content everyone, but I must admit that at the end of the day the team behind AC does a pretty good job at drawing the thin line between art and entertainment.

Calvarok
08-22-2012, 04:33 AM
In regards to the way the Assassins look, I've always thought they've looked like a more iconic capturing of their era. And you can hear in guard dialogue that it's considered strange clothing. It's not as if they're saying it was normal back then. Assassins look iconic, because when they want to be unseen, they are unseen, but when they are in the open, they want their actions to be remembered.

And honestly, the ships look very, very much like the ships I've seen in the drawings posted on this thread. I may not be an expert, but as I've said before, an expert on any part of the particular time period could name you a hundred ways in which it is not perfectly recreated.

And many times it's for game-play reasons or simply because they did not have time to build the assets, or and engine which could support it being in-game.

Take for example Philedalphia, non-playable because of wide and long streets, which caused both gameplay and technical problems.

I agree that AC is one of few games which takes history seriously, and has a responsibility because of that, but even though a reason for all the deviations may not be readily apparent, it's inevitable that there is one, somewhere within the huge team working on the game. The artist did not design a ship with his eyes closed, he had accurate pictures and reference, and there was some reason which required the design to be altered.

It may have been animation or gameplay concerns, engine concerns, clipping concerns, or it may have been a simpler object to render, reducing the already considerable load on the game's engine.
It's out there somewhere, and it's not because they just don't care.

In the future the tools with which games are made will become more sophisticated, and better accuracy may become easier to achieve. But things like the assassin being distinctive, or certain characters being in places they were not historically, or things they were not historically, is explained as a part of the fiction, a different part of the artistic process. Assassins are supposed to dress this way, and in this universe, history unfolded a bit differently. It's not a story about the retelling of the revolution after all, but a story that COULD have happened with the surroundings of the revolution as a backdrop.