PDA

View Full Version : Guns in AC3 modern day gameplay



Legendz54
10-02-2012, 12:17 PM
So the different methods that the redcoats use their firearms got me thinking... how is Ubisoft going to implement guns into Desmond's gameplay?? We have firing lines in Connors gameplay but i dont think they would be using that firing method in modern day. It wouldn't make sense to have guns in the Ancestor gameplay and not even have them in Modern gameplay.

Will Desmond be running through firefights between the Assassins protecting their HQ from templars?? What moves do you think Desmond will have to Counter modern day guns (If it is even in the game) What do you think??

ProletariatPleb
10-02-2012, 12:25 PM
That is what I fear...when modern firearms come into AC ._.
I hope it doesn't become Splinter Cell Blacklist.

pacmanate
10-02-2012, 12:27 PM
It is a scary thought, I don't want AC to suddenly have me in a scene where it becomes a 3rd person shooter :\

Legendz54
10-02-2012, 12:28 PM
That is what I fear...when modern firearms come into AC ._.
I hope it doesn't become Splinter Cell Blacklist.

I agree, I dont want Desmond actually holding a gun, but him trying to Get to the grand temple while running through a firefight between Templars and Assassins defending their HQ would be cool.

In other words i wouldn't mind them implementing Bunker hill like fights into Templar vs Assassin firefights for JUST 1 mission.

Think about it, the templars will attack the Assassins HQ at one point... and it wont be with batons...

True_Assassin92
10-02-2012, 01:03 PM
That is what I fear...when modern firearms come into AC ._.
I hope it doesn't become Splinter Cell Blacklist.

I guess that's about it. He'll have to make very stealthy, sneaky kills and not be detected...

DeSabellis
10-03-2012, 01:55 AM
I never got this argument. I think it's been brought up literally 35 times since Assassins Creed 2.

So heres a thought then:

Remember the last fight at the end of Assassins Creed 2 with Desmond? Is it awesome that he is using an antiquated blade on his wrist and an oddly sized baton? No it doesn't make sense nor is it awesome- it makes it totally unbelievable and campy. It won't become Blacklist, Ghost Recon, Call of Duty, or anything game, it will still be Assassins Creed. He will probably use firearms like Conner does, except with modern day equivalents- which probably will get rid of the reload time that Conner seems to have with his firearms. It's not that complex- either the narrative gets ruined because we're expected to believe that a trillion dollar corporation (Abstergo) cannot afford to arm their agents (which contradicts AC Initiates), or they simply implement the same system that they use for Conner.

It could easily be done, and I have a lot of faith that Ubisoft can manage to blend long range and close range combat effectively- after all, that's probably why they got rid of the need to lock on and instead changed it to an aim button.

tre289
10-03-2012, 01:59 AM
I never got this argument. I think it's been brought up literally 35 times since Assassins Creed 2.

So heres a thought then:

Remember the last fight at the end of Assassins Creed 2 with Desmond? Is it awesome that he is using an antiquated blade on his wrist and an oddly sized baton? No it doesn't make sense nor is it awesome- it makes it totally unbelievable and campy. It won't become Blacklist, Ghost Recon, Call of Duty, or anything game, it will still be Assassins Creed. He will probably use firearms like Conner does, except with modern day equivalents- which probably will get rid of the reload time that Conner seems to have with his firearms. It's not that complex- either the narrative gets ruined because we're expected to believe that a trillion dollar corporation (Abstergo) cannot afford to arm their agents (which contradicts AC Initiates), or they simply implement the same system that they use for Conner.

It could easily be done, and I have a lot of faith that Ubisoft can manage to blend long range and close range combat effectively- after all, that's probably why they got rid of the need to lock on and instead changed it to an aim button.

I like this post.

Legendz54
10-03-2012, 02:06 AM
I never got this argument. I think it's been brought up literally 35 times since Assassins Creed 2.

So heres a thought then:

Remember the last fight at the end of Assassins Creed 2 with Desmond? Is it awesome that he is using an antiquated blade on his wrist and an oddly sized baton? No it doesn't make sense nor is it awesome- it makes it totally unbelievable and campy. It won't become Blacklist, Ghost Recon, Call of Duty, or anything game, it will still be Assassins Creed. He will probably use firearms like Conner does, except with modern day equivalents- which probably will get rid of the reload time that Conner seems to have with his firearms. It's not that complex- either the narrative gets ruined because we're expected to believe that a trillion dollar corporation (Abstergo) cannot afford to arm their agents (which contradicts AC Initiates), or they simply implement the same system that they use for Conner.

It could easily be done, and I have a lot of faith that Ubisoft can manage to blend long range and close range combat effectively- after all, that's probably why they got rid of the need to lock on and instead changed it to an aim button.

The guards had batons because (SPOILERS!!!!!! ) Them getting away from Abstergo was planned, Lucy went with Desmond so the Templar's could find more of the Assassins, Why did the Templar's have guns in AC1 when the facility was attacked?? Because that was not planned. But now its all real, The Templar's are launching an attack on the Assassins as stated at the last of the Multi player cut scenes. I think Abstergo does have money to arm their agents as shown here.


http://youtu.be/eSfXLL1zeAk

Calvarok
10-03-2012, 02:28 AM
More specifically, the people firing those guns on those assassins were abstergo guards from the complex where Desmond was held. And the only times Desmond ever encountered those guards, they were unarmed. And we know that Vidic has no problem sacrificing people to get results.

MRNMRSPACER
10-03-2012, 02:40 AM
im also worried about the guns in modern time,we will know soon enough though

Calvarok
10-03-2012, 02:42 AM
I love how worried people are about guns, and how they use Splinter Cell Conviction/Blacklist as an example. Why be pessimistic. The Splinter Cell series FIRST showed that you could have a game that was stealthy and tactical in modern times with guns.

Jexx21
10-03-2012, 03:20 AM
..I like Conviction, and I think that Blacklist looks good...

But whatever...

MRNMRSPACER
10-03-2012, 05:06 AM
I love how worried people are about guns, and how they use Splinter Cell Conviction/Blacklist as an example. Why be pessimistic. The Splinter Cell series FIRST showed that you could have a game that was stealthy and tactical in modern times with guns.
i love the splinter cell series....but i like how the assassins dont use guns as their main source of killing people,they sneak around to stab people in the back not just open fire on everybody.

roostersrule2
10-03-2012, 05:09 AM
I don't think there will be guns as they have made the guns in the historical part of the game really bad so that there's more melee combat.

warangel66
10-03-2012, 06:42 AM
a compound bow may work instead of a gun

Kit572
10-03-2012, 09:31 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if they added in guns in the Desmond parts of the game, on the wikia they mention that the assassins now use guns more than hidden blades and that hidden blades are more like memorial weapons now. However, high ranking assassins sometimes wear them.

dxsxhxcx
10-03-2012, 09:53 AM
since now they don't have their advantage over the Assassins (Lucy) I don't think they'll try to kill Desmond or the others, IMO they're more valuable alive than dead because there are still some Assasssins teams around the world that could eventually become a problem, William and the others could provide valuable information about the remaining Assassins or even other PoEs... if AC3 will have Abstergo agents using weapons, they'll probably be in a position where we can take them out in a stealthy way safely..

BBALive
10-03-2012, 10:15 AM
I love how worried people are about guns, and how they use Splinter Cell Conviction/Blacklist as an example. Why be pessimistic. The Splinter Cell series FIRST showed that you could have a game that was stealthy and tactical in modern times with guns.

http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac108/zaibach_2010/splintercell.gif

Kit572
10-03-2012, 10:19 AM
http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac108/zaibach_2010/splintercell.gif

Haha I saw that on the splinter cell forums.

I think he is referring to the old Splinter Cell games.

BBALive
10-03-2012, 10:21 AM
I think he is referring to the old Splinter Cell games.

I know, I just wanted to post it. I loved Chaos Theory.

Kit572
10-03-2012, 10:24 AM
I know, I just wanted to post it. I loved Chaos Theory.

Chaos theory was good.

ProletariatPleb
10-03-2012, 10:40 AM
http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac108/zaibach_2010/splintercell.gif
Precisely the example I was referring to, this was exactly the GIF I was thinking of when I made that remark about Conv/BList.(I love the SC before Conv, even Double Agent wasn't that bad)

Kit572
10-03-2012, 10:45 AM
.(I love the SC before Conv, even Double Agent wasn't that bad)

^This.

Umbra_Blade
10-03-2012, 12:01 PM
The reason I don't see Ubi implementing guns in AC3 for Desmond, is that in every other game before, Desmond simply DOESN'T die, you can't kill him. If he was to be fired at with modern guns he would die after a few seconds, and what would happen then? the deaths in the animus could be explained by a de-syncronisation to the ancestor's memory. How could ubi explain, in a narrative sense, how Desmond could die, and then come back to life for another attempt.

To me it would feel totally weird, coming back to life with someone who's gameplay and story is practically set in stone. What I mean is; following on from previous games, Desmond won't die, until the writers have said he dies at a particular moment in the story, not at a point where the player makes the mistake of going against ten armed guards with automatics at once.

If ubisoft can explain the presence of guns in Desmond's sections, while making sure that they make sense from both a narrative and gameplay perspective, then I have no problem with their inclusion.

hadarm18
10-03-2012, 12:10 PM
I think there is now way that in AC3 will we have modern gunfights with desmond
Besides he is too busy with the temple he cant be fighting templars thats what other assassins are doing

Legendz54
10-03-2012, 12:32 PM
I understand what u guys are saying above but as indicated by the multiplayer cutscenes Danial cross and his Goons will be attacking the Assassins, Do you think this attack will be launched with firearms or batons, they may want Desmond and William alive but they might want to wipe out other unnecessary resistance?

Legendz54
10-03-2012, 12:34 PM
The reason I don't see Ubi implementing guns in AC3 for Desmond, is that in every other game before, Desmond simply DOESN'T die, you can't kill him. If he was to be fired at with modern guns he would die after a few seconds, and what would happen then? the deaths in the animus could be explained by a de-syncronisation to the ancestor's memory. How could ubi explain, in a narrative sense, how Desmond could die, and then come back to life for another attempt.

To me it would feel totally weird, coming back to life with someone who's gameplay and story is practically set in stone. What I mean is; following on from previous games, Desmond won't die, until the writers have said he dies at a particular moment in the story, not at a point where the player makes the mistake of going against ten armed guards with automatics at once.

If ubisoft can explain the presence of guns in Desmond's sections, while making sure that they make sense from both a narrative and gameplay perspective, then I have no problem with their inclusion.


Games let their main characters die all the time... If they are going to make Desmond's gameplay fun there is going to be a risk of dying.

Umbra_Blade
10-03-2012, 12:40 PM
Games let their main characters die all the time... If they are going to make Desmond's gameplay fun there is going to be a risk of dying.

I know they do, I am just curious as to how it will work, as Desmond in all other games has infinite health. I am not saying that if guns are included he will still be immortal, i am just saying that a checkpoint system for Desmond would seem... irregular, to me anyway.
I am not against the inclusion of Desmond dying in-game, I am just unsure how they would do it, or if it would feel 'right'.

Legendz54
10-03-2012, 12:45 PM
I know they do, I am just curious as to how it will work, as Desmond in all other games has infinite health. I am not saying that if guns are included he will still be immortal, i am just saying that a checkpoint system for Desmond would seem... irregular, to me anyway.
I am not against the inclusion of Desmond dying in-game, I am just unsure how they would do it, or if it would feel 'right'.

Im sure they will make it feel right if we do slip of a building as Desmond. It will probably be the blue room that Connors in replaced with Desmond. What types of missions do you hope Desmond takes part in.