PDA

View Full Version : Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted in AC3



Captain Tomatoz
11-07-2012, 09:26 PM
I may be wrong so sorry if I am, but I don't recall the use of the assassin's creed (nothing is true, everything is permitted) used in AC3 at all.

Why was this?

scooper121s
11-07-2012, 09:31 PM
really, hmm maybe its a glitch

TrueAssassin77
11-07-2012, 09:43 PM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

WTF UBISOFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

freddie_1897
11-07-2012, 10:02 PM
i'm sure its still a basis of the way they act, but maybe its not a phrase they use as much anymore.

scooper121s
11-07-2012, 10:05 PM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

WTF UBISOFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol

Captain Tomatoz
11-08-2012, 12:33 AM
well these are serious replies :/

ZoMBee-HitMAN
11-08-2012, 01:04 AM
I agree. It was absent in the game. I don't remember it being stated even once. Perhaps they thought it had been stated in the previous games so much that most everybody understood or heard of the creed; therefore there was no need to keep on reiterating. But if that is the case, then I disagree. The creed should've been stated and explained to Connor. The ideology of the creed is as important to the assassins in the Age of Revolution as it was during their founding moments.

TrueAssassin77
11-08-2012, 01:06 AM
the hood and the phrase is treated horribly in this game

Sickull
11-08-2012, 01:32 AM
The scene when Achilles inducts Connor into the order lets you know neither of them really care for the traditions or at least that's the way I took it.

Captain Tomatoz
11-08-2012, 12:02 PM
For a game called Assassin's Creed you'd think that they would include the actual phrase

MT4K
11-08-2012, 12:02 PM
If everything is permitted. They are permitted to leave this phrase out :rolleyes:

Legendz54
11-08-2012, 12:23 PM
meh, didn't even notice the line was missing.

creedalien
11-08-2012, 01:39 PM
didn't even notice.. i don't care.. the game was good..

Captain Tomatoz
11-08-2012, 01:53 PM
didn't even notice.. i don't care.. the game was good..

I didn't say the game was bad, it's absolutely brilliant. I was just pointing out one thing :)

DarkDreamer95
11-08-2012, 04:13 PM
If everything is permitted. They are permitted to leave this phrase out :rolleyes:

Lol, tru dat xD

I haven't finished the game yet, but it doesn't look like Connor and Achilles are strict assassins anyway :/

twenty_glyphs
11-08-2012, 04:33 PM
This is a great point that just drives home how little the Assassins are even represented in this game. I basically get the sense that the Assassin Order in America consists of two people living on their own little homestead who don't share the creed or ideology with anyone, and don't particularly like each other. Instead, they just build up a little village and don't worry about the Assassin Order at all. Ditto for the Templars -- there are basically 6 of them in the New World, and don't seem too concerned with the typical goals of the organization. The story never feels like Assassins versus Templars, or gives you any sense of how ancient the two orders are. AC2 did a great job of showing you how the Assassins had migrated out into the world and eventually to Italy. AC3 just never feels like the Assassins or their Creed mean anything.

luckyto
11-08-2012, 04:51 PM
I think that's part of the story. They are meant to be separate. It's a different time period for the Order.

KamisoriTenno
11-08-2012, 05:30 PM
I always thought the phrase was in AC2 only and was a hack to remind them that it's not real. since in the end of the AC2 saga you met subject XX (16?) the whole thing was done. AC3 goes in another direction.
Heck, the old guy wasn't even an assassin any more when connor found him. and connor was a rather half hearted assassin who just wanted to kill his daddy and didn't know jack about the history of the assassins creed nor does he care and the old guy didn't seem very eager to teach him anything history wise XD

ZoMBee-HitMAN
11-08-2012, 05:40 PM
I thought Achilles spent months teaching him the history of the assassins...

Aethlwin
11-08-2012, 06:19 PM
I may be wrong so sorry if I am, but I don't recall the use of the assassin's creed (nothing is true, everything is permitted) used in AC3 at all.

Why was this?

Because it wasn't an Assassin's Creed game.

Free_Hidings
11-08-2012, 08:39 PM
really, hmm maybe its a glitch

lol'd


Who cares though, no offence? It's just a phrase. Anyway Connor was more about saving his people and enforcing his own idea of justice rather than living for the brotherhood and so on.

scooper121s
11-08-2012, 09:14 PM
if everything is permitted. They are permitted to leave this phrase out :rolleyes:
hahahashahahahahahahauahahazhasahahahahahhahahahah ahah

godsmack_darius
11-08-2012, 11:20 PM
Assassins creed have been disbanded so maybe some of their teachings are lost...At least between Achilles and Connor

Captain Tomatoz
11-08-2012, 11:34 PM
Assassins creed have been disbanded so maybe some of their teachings are lost...At least between Achilles and Connor

But would the actual assassin's creed be lost?

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2012, 12:46 AM
I may be wrong so sorry if I am, but I don't recall the use of the assassin's creed (nothing is true, everything is permitted) used in AC3 at all.

Why was this?

Because the developers of AC3 don't seem to have any regard for what's important to fans of the series. As a result, they removed half the stuff that's essential to the game, leaving us with a pretty game-world that lacks any of the previous games' character and atmosphere. To me, the game feels more like a Revolutionary War era version of Red Dead Redemption than an Assassin's Creed game.

Caeser_of_Rome
11-09-2012, 12:49 AM
First off, they pretty much left the Brotherhood out of this. Yes you can get Assassins, but it's nothing like it used to be. So I have to say this, Nothing is true, they forgot about you!

BlackLight3578
11-09-2012, 01:08 AM
Because the developers of AC3 don't seem to have any regard for what's important to fans of the series. As a result, they removed half the stuff that's essential to the game, leaving us with a pretty game-world that lacks any of the previous games' character and atmosphere. To me, the game feels more like a Revolutionary War era version of Red Dead Redemption than an Assassin's Creed game. Personally, i prefer "Revolutionary War era version of Red Dead Redemption"(which sounds pretty ****ing badass) to keeping it the same for a 4th time. We shouldn't confuse a lack of atmosphere with simply changing the atmosphere.

I'd like the atmosphere of runnign through the frontier, seeing the struggles and buildings of the people thier, hearing the noises of animals and seeing them clash with humanity, and among other things as much as i liked Italy.

Plus, I really doubt "they removed half the stuff that's essential to the game". It's not perfect,sure(id give it an 8.5 personally), but that just seems like a far fetched statement.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-09-2012, 01:32 AM
First off, they pretty much left the Brotherhood out of this. Yes you can get Assassins, but it's nothing like it used to be. So I have to say this, Nothing is true, they forgot about you!

I guarantee you, this right here is the primary reason some feel it isn't an Assassin's Creed game. There is a lack of the Brotherhood, and Connor hardly seems like an Assassin. And, for those who will argue against this: killing people doesn't make one an Assassin of the AC Series. It's actually holding to the Creed. Connor was just a guy who was trained by an Assassin and who wore the Assassin's garb. His only focus was a misplaced sense of revenge (those he wanted to kill and did kill ultimately aren't responsible). Yes, that statement is spoilery, but not too much.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2012, 01:51 AM
Personally, i prefer "Revolutionary War era version of Red Dead Redemption"(which sounds pretty ****ing badass) to keeping it the same for a 4th time.

Then they should do that and call it Red Dead Revolution, not Assassin's Creed III. The problem is, Ubisoft don't own the Red Dead franchise (it's Rockstar's) and they have no right to turn Assassin's Creed into it. If you want Red Dead Revolution, go tell Rockstar, but don't pretend you're an Assassin's Creed fan when it's clear from what you've written that you have no interest in, or reverence for, the series.

The whole problem we have here is that those who are defending this game pretend that they are Assassin's Creed fans, but in reality, when push comes to shove, they couldn't give a toss about Assassin's Creed.

This should be an Assassin's Creed game. That's what we paid for. You don't care what you paid for as long as you got a game out of it, but I do care, as do many others who are true Assassin's Creed fans. The sad thing is, if this game ends up killing the franchise, you won't care - you'll be just as happy playing a Rockstar game or any other garbage. But we will miss Assassin's Creed because it can and should be better than this.

Captain Tomatoz
11-09-2012, 01:57 AM
Then they should do that and call it Red Dead Revolution, not Assassin's Creed III. The problem is, Ubisoft don't own the Red Dead franchise (it's Rockstar's) and they have no right to turn Assassin's Creed into it. If you want Red Dead Revolution, go tell Rockstar, but don't pretend you're an Assassin's Creed fan when it's clear from what you've written that you have no interest in, or reverence for, the series.

The whole problem we have here is that those who are defending this game pretend that they are Assassin's Creed fans, but in reality, when push comes to shove, they couldn't give a toss about Assassin's Creed.

So because I liked the game, that means I'm not an Assassin's Cred fan?....seems legit

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2012, 02:03 AM
So because I liked the game, that means I'm not an Assassin's Cred fan?....seems legit

The whole argument I just made, that you quoted but apparently didn't bother to read, is based on the premise that this is not a true Assassin's Creed game. Hell, they could have stuck any name on this excuse for an Assassin's Creed title and it would make more sense.

So yeah, you are not a true AC fan if you like this game. Because this game is not Assassin's Creed. It's the American Revolution with a bare minimum of stuff stolen from Assassin's Creed to enable them to sell it as such.

Captain Tomatoz
11-09-2012, 02:11 AM
The whole argument I just made, that you quoted but apparently didn't bother to read, is based on the premise that this is not a true Assassin's Creed game. Hell, they could have stuck any name on this excuse for an Assassin's Creed title and it would make more sense.

So yeah, you are not a true AC fan if you like this game. Because this game is not Assassin's Creed. It's the American Revolution with a bare minimum of stuff stolen from Assassin's Creed to enable them to sell it as such.

But it had social stealth, navigation, freedom. The only thing it was lacking was atmosphere because of the lack of ambient music. When I was playing it, it sure as hell felt like an Assassin's Creed game.

I have no problem with people not liking the game but please don't just label people who disagree with your opinion non fans. I love Assassin's Creed, played every single one of them from the start and have loved all of them. I have loads of extra merchandise as well. So please don't call me a non fan.

Oh and also, I did read your whole post.

TrueAssassin77
11-09-2012, 02:16 AM
The whole argument I just made, that you quoted but apparently didn't bother to read, is based on the premise that this is not a true Assassin's Creed game. Hell, they could have stuck any name on this excuse for an Assassin's Creed title and it would make more sense.

So yeah, you are not a true AC fan if you like this game. Because this game is not Assassin's Creed. It's the American Revolution with a bare minimum of stuff stolen from Assassin's Creed to enable them to sell it as such.

most stupid thing i've read today. get over yourself. This is an assassins creed game, adapted to colonial america. please just stop posting. I use to think you had some valid arguments agaisnt the game. that you were actually being thoughtful about it. but nevermind you are just another whiner. i am disgusted, and you should be ashamed of yourself

zhengyingli
11-09-2012, 02:20 AM
most stupid thing i've read today. get over yourself. This is an assassins creed game, adapted to colonial america. please just stop posting. I use to think you had some valid arguments agaisnt the game. that you were actually being thoughtful about it. but nevermind you are just another whiner. i am disgusted, and you should be ashamed of yourselfI suggest you stop wasting your breath (or clicks). You have no right to say he should self-shame any more than he has no right to call me a fanboy. Regardless of huge criticisms I've posted in the feedback thread or in any thread, we'll always be fanboys in his eyes. I liked the Star Wars prequels, not a Star Wars fan at all, yet I got called a fanboy, anyway.

BlackLight3578
11-09-2012, 02:21 AM
Then they should do that and call it Red Dead Revolution, not Assassin's Creed III. The problem is, Ubisoft don't own the Red Dead franchise (it's Rockstar's) and they have no right to turn Assassin's Creed into it. If you want Red Dead Revolution, go tell Rockstar, but don't pretend you're an Assassin's Creed fan when it's clear from what you've written that you have no interest in, or reverence for, the series.

The whole problem we have here is that those who are defending this game pretend that they are Assassin's Creed fans, but in reality, when push comes to shove, they couldn't give a toss about Assassin's Creed.
Alright man first of all, if we are goign to have any discussion lets not try getting all heated up or try to be insulting over a video game okay? :)

Obviously i wasn't directly calling it red dead redemption, as much as saying they were similar in only regards to having wilderness and hunting. I was saying the mix of the revolutionary period with an outdoor setting like reddead was cool. Judging by most opinions of the frontier, i'm not the only one.

Even then, that is something pretty broad when considered. It has the feel of the open out doors like red dead, but comparison ends there. Even that feeling of the outdoor is different with it feeling dangerous in red dead, but calmer in assassins creed.

Now to say "those who are defending this game pretend that they are Assassin's Creed fans, but in reality, when push comes to shove, they couldn't give a toss about Assassin's Creed." is kind of an ignorant statement to make. The assassin's creed series needed something new after what?, 4 main console games in a city scape? Climbing buildings in the usual fashion you would climb in game like splinter cell or even uncharted loses it charms quick. Adding trees, rocks, and cliffs into that formula is not only a unique idea, but changes up your movements a lot.

A series shouldn't be held down or left hanging in a noose simply because of the way things were before. How goes a series ever hope to grow if it doesn't step out of it's usual boundaries?'

And how is an assassin's creed fan defined? Are they people who love only city scapes and Italy? or love the aberration that is the dark ages? Or logically, is an assassin's creed fan someone who simply enjoys assassin's creed? The game was overly ambitious in some aspects, it has issues, it missed a few ideas from it's predecessors, but the core meat of assassin's creed is there as usual.

I have no interest in assassin's creed 3? Basically your assuming that ive only gained interest in the series at ac3, when in fact i played every single one starting with the first. So........ shame on you.

The discriminative mentality against an entire group of a different opinion is hazardous sir. Perhaps nobodies wrong, and all of our opinions about the game are simply subjective? How do you under stand 'reality' without first understanding other people?
If you plan on making statements like "but don't pretend you're an Assassin's Creed fan when it's clear from what you've written that you have no interest in, or reverence for, the series." in response, there will be no point in me making a response. keep in mind i'm not goign to get into some drawn out argument about the whole game being good or bad, as this has been discussed. I simply wanted to put my 2 cents. Regardless of the tone of your response, i'll wrap this up in no response or only one.

Other than that, nice talking with ya. I mean no offense, but i can't agree with your views. I do respect them however.

TrueAssassin77
11-09-2012, 02:26 AM
I suggest you stop wasting your breath (or clicks). You have no right to say he should self-shame any more than he has no right to call me a fanboy. Regardless of huge criticisms I've posted in the feedback thread or in any thread, we'll always be fanboys in his eyes. I liked the Star Wars prequels, not a Star Wars fan at all, yet I got called a fanboy, anyway.

i actually do have a right to say he should be ashamed of himself. because im not actually labeling but expressing an opinion on how he should feel.

he on the other hand is labeling people based on foolish beliefs. and equally foolish assumptions. but he does actually have the right to label people as such.

you actually don't have the right to tell us what we dont have a right to :p

Captain Tomatoz
11-09-2012, 02:27 AM
Blacklight. Couldn't have said it better myself :D

Now I think we should get back on topic before this gets locked

zhengyingli
11-09-2012, 02:30 AM
i actually do have a right to say he should be ashamed of himself. because im not actually labeling but expressing an opinion on how he should feel.

he on the other hand is labeling people based on foolish beliefs. and equally foolish assumptions. but he does actually have the right to label people as such.

you actually don't have the right to tell us what we dont have a right to :p

What a contradiction. I did say "suggest," at the very least, didn't I?:)

BlackLight3578
11-09-2012, 02:43 AM
Blacklight. Couldn't have said it better myself :D

Now I think we should get back on topic before this gets locked Thanks, but your right, we need to stay on subject.

projectpat06
11-09-2012, 03:29 AM
The scene when Achilles inducts Connor into the order lets you know neither of them really care for the traditions or at least that's the way I took it.

Achilles doesn't anymore because everyone was wiped out except for him. Including [spoiler removed]. By the time Connor is becoming an assassin, the traditions and order are gone. Connor is the beginning of the new brotherhood which I think we'll see him continue to build it's strength in the next game during the french revolution.

zhengyingli
11-09-2012, 03:40 AM
Achilles doesn't anymore because everyone was wiped out except for him. Including [spoiler removed]. By the time Connor is becoming an assassin, the traditions and order are gone. Connor is the beginning of the new brotherhood which I think we'll see him continue to build it's strength in the next game during the french revolution.

On that point, all three assassin's have the similar situation of either rebuilding the Brotherhood from the ground up or starting a Brotherhood outright. Maybe there'll be a new creed under Connor's revolution, or maybe revert to the old one.

agentpoop
11-09-2012, 08:44 AM
because the developers of ac3 don't seem to have any regard for what's important to fans of the series. As a result, they removed half the stuff that's essential to the game, leaving us with a pretty game-world that lacks any of the previous games' character and atmosphere. To me, the game feels more like a revolutionary war era version of red dead redemption than an assassin's creed game.

exactly

godsmack_darius
11-10-2012, 12:20 AM
Ezio did not even start to build up the Assassins guild until his 2nd game, so maybe it will be the same with Connor.


Spoiler!!!!

There was that other guy who was friends with Achilles who's father was an assassin...

zhengyingli
11-10-2012, 12:21 AM
Spoiler!!!!

There was that other guy who was friends with Achilles who's father was an assassin...
...There you go! Didn't even remember that, myself.

TheHumanTowel
11-10-2012, 01:27 AM
I was disappointed the phrase wasn't in the game as well. I thought Connor would say it to his last assassination target in Mohawk. Just like Altair said it to Al Mualim in arabic and Ezio said it to Rodrigo Borgia in italian. But he didn't. I don't know why they wouldn't just throw it in as a bit of fan service.

zhengyingli
11-10-2012, 02:18 AM
I was disappointed the phrase wasn't in the game as well. I thought Connor would say it to his last assassination target in Mohawk. Just like Altair said it to Al Mualim in arabic and Ezio said it to Rodrigo Borgia in italian. But he didn't. I don't know why they wouldn't just throw it in as a bit of fan service.
Both Altair and Ezio had been properly inducted into the order by the end of their respective games. Connor is a special case. So though it may be fanservice, new comers might think "where did that come from?" And I would agree with them, as Achilles didn't teach him in a traditional way. We don't know if Connor was given knowledge to the Order's history during his stay with Achilles, but Connor as a character may not believe in such a cynical phrase, anyway.

Krayus Korianis
11-10-2012, 02:27 AM
Then they should do that and call it Red Dead Revolution, not Assassin's Creed III. The problem is, Ubisoft don't own the Red Dead franchise (it's Rockstar's) and they have no right to turn Assassin's Creed into it. If you want Red Dead Revolution, go tell Rockstar, but don't pretend you're an Assassin's Creed fan when it's clear from what you've written that you have no interest in, or reverence for, the series.

The whole problem we have here is that those who are defending this game pretend that they are Assassin's Creed fans, but in reality, when push comes to shove, they couldn't give a toss about Assassin's Creed.

This should be an Assassin's Creed game. That's what we paid for. You don't care what you paid for as long as you got a game out of it, but I do care, as do many others who are true Assassin's Creed fans. The sad thing is, if this game ends up killing the franchise, you won't care - you'll be just as happy playing a Rockstar game or any other garbage. But we will miss Assassin's Creed because it can and should be better than this.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

TheHumanTowel
11-10-2012, 02:40 AM
Then they should do that and call it Red Dead Revolution, not Assassin's Creed III. The problem is, Ubisoft don't own the Red Dead franchise (it's Rockstar's) and they have no right to turn Assassin's Creed into it. If you want Red Dead Revolution, go tell Rockstar, but don't pretend you're an Assassin's Creed fan when it's clear from what you've written that you have no interest in, or reverence for, the series.

The whole problem we have here is that those who are defending this game pretend that they are Assassin's Creed fans, but in reality, when push comes to shove, they couldn't give a toss about Assassin's Creed.

This should be an Assassin's Creed game. That's what we paid for. You don't care what you paid for as long as you got a game out of it, but I do care, as do many others who are true Assassin's Creed fans. The sad thing is, if this game ends up killing the franchise, you won't care - you'll be just as happy playing a Rockstar game or any other garbage. But we will miss Assassin's Creed because it can and should be better than this.
Wow. People who like this game aren't real AC fans? You are the worst type of complainer. You have to demean other people because they have a different opinion than you. How about you go back to playing AC1 and thinking about how superiour you are to us AC3-liking plebs.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-10-2012, 02:54 AM
You are the worst type of complainer. You have to demean other people because they have a different opinion than you.

LOL! Do the words hypocrisy and irony mean anything to you?

And I didn't demean anyone. The guy said that he would prefer it if AC turned into RDR! The guy ADMITS he wants AC to die and be revamped as a completely different game. That is not what an Assassin's Creed fan would ever want, and to defend that as if I'M the one who is attacking an Assassin's Creed fan is just ludicrous.

This forum is so Orwellian. Here we have self-professed Assassin's Creed 'fans' defending a guy who wants to turn AC into Red Dead Redemption and attacking someone who wants Assassin's Creed to stay faithful to its roots. Incredible!

"WAR IS PEACE," "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." - and Assassin's Creed 'fans' want Assassin's Creed to be undermined. With 'friends' like that, who needs enemies?

TheHumanTowel
11-10-2012, 03:08 AM
LOL! Do the words hypocrisy and irony mean anything to you?

And I didn't demean anyone. The guy said that he would prefer it if AC turned into RDR! The guy ADMITS he wants AC to die and be revamped as a completely different game. That is not what an Assassin's Creed fan would ever want, and to defend that as if I'M the one who is attacking an Assassin's Creed fan is just ludicrous.
If you were talking specifically about that poster then you should have said so instead of accusing anyone who dared defend this game to be pretending to be an AC fan.

KamisoriTenno
11-10-2012, 12:50 PM
this thread turned stupid very fast but I find it highly entertaining. i wish Ren n Stimpy were be back on the air :(

kuled2012
11-10-2012, 01:31 PM
I disappointed it wasn't in the game, I was looking forward to Connor saying it in Mohawk language :(

Captain Tomatoz
11-10-2012, 01:48 PM
this thread turned stupid very fast but I find it highly entertaining

I know, I just wanted a nice discussion. It wasn't a complaint or praise. It was starting point for a conversation. But then it turned into insults

lothario-da-be
11-10-2012, 03:16 PM
Some people don't understand what a new ac means, a NEW story inside the assassin's creed universe. Connor has his own story its completly different but that doesn't make it bad. The story itself is also not in the highly populated europe, its in the americas a new contnent that has still to be discovered for a big part. Different conditions = different story. also desmond his task now is to find the key for the grand temple. well its Connors story that will lead him there i think, i'am only in sequence 6 now. But this game delivers a story inside the ac universe and thats all i expect. He fights for freedom and against templars = ASSASSIN

Pr0metheus 1962
11-10-2012, 04:17 PM
Some people don't understand what a new ac means, a NEW story inside the assassin's creed universe.

But it's not. It seems to be in the Red Dead Redemption universe with a few Assassin's Creed features thrown in on an ad-hoc basis. Heck, Connor even has a scar on the same cheek as Red Dead Redemption's John Marston - not saying it's anything more than a coincidence, but the point is, this game looks more like a clone of RDR than an Assassin's Creed game. The most telling feature is the hunting - hitherto never a part of Assassin's Creed but a very important part of Red Dead Redemption - and Connor uses the exact same movement as John Marston when skinning an animal. While I like RDR and I think hunting works okay in AC3, it has no precedent and it makes the game feel less like Assassin's Creed. And when we factor in the fact that the developers cut back so much on AC canon features, it just becomes hard to see how this game belongs in the AC universe.


He fights for freedom and against templars = ASSASSIN

But for most of the game, he's not fighting Templars at all. He's fighting against the British. All the homestead missions involve dealing with British scoundrels, none of them connected in any way with the Templars. The seagoing missions are, with one exception, the same deal - no Templar involvement. Even many of the storyline missions involve very little Templar focus and the Templars really could be any enemy faction at all. There are no Templar dungeons, too few towers and therefore too few leaps of faith - and unlike any previous AC game, the towers can't be used to fully open up the map view. There are no 'Truth' missions, no glyphs, no useable inventions and very few Assassin's Creed style puzzles. The game seems more like 'Red Dead Revolution' than Assassin's Creed. It's so 'not Assassin's Creed' that I very rarely found myself on rooftops - there's little if any point even climbing buildings at all.

And unlike any AC game that's come before, the missions are almost entirely linear - you must complete them PRECISELY as the designer demands. This is at its most frustrating in sequence 12 mission 2. They have an open world setting in which they have managed to effectively remove the open world from every story mission. No alternative paths = no open world = NOT ASSASSIN'S CREED.

Finally, there are fewer assassinations than any previous Assassin's Creed title. How does reducing assassinations make this game legitimately part of the same series?

lothario-da-be
11-10-2012, 05:24 PM
[QUOTE=Pr0metheus 1962;8692090]But it's not. It seems to be in the Red Dead Redemption universe with a few Assassin's Creed features thrown in on an ad-hoc basis. Heck, Connor even has a scar on the same cheek as Red Dead Redemption's John Marston - not saying it's anything more than a coincidence, but the point is, this game looks more like a clone of RDR than an Assassin's Creed game. The most telling feature is the hunting - hitherto never a part of Assassin's Creed but a very important part of Red Dead Redemption - and Connor uses the exact same movement as John Marston when skinning an animal. While I like RDR and I think hunting works okay in AC3, it has no precedent and it makes the game feel less like Assassin's Creed. And when we factor in the fact that the developers cut back so much on AC canon features, it just becomes hard to see how this game belongs in the AC universe.




But for most of the game, he's not fighting Templars at all. He's fighting against the British. All the homestead missions involve dealing with British scoundrels, none of them connected in any way with the Templars. The seagoing missions are, with one exception, the same deal - no Templar involvement. Even many of the storyline missions involve very little Templar focus and the Templars really could be any enemy faction at all. There are no Templar dungeons, too few towers and therefore too few leaps of faith - and unlike any previous AC game, the towers can't be used to fully open up the map view. There are no 'Truth' missions, no glyphs, no useable inventions and very few Assassin's Creed style puzzles. The game seems more like 'Red Dead Revolution' than Assassin's Creed. It's so 'not Assassin's Creed' that I very rarely found myself on rooftops - there's little if any point even climbing buildings at all.

They started developping ac3 before rdr came out so the hunting isen't a valed point
And do you want them to built cities like rome and Constantinople in colonial America? Aslo not a valid point.
edit: something went wrong with the quoting, only the last 2 sentences are from me.

godsmack_darius
11-10-2012, 05:45 PM
Both Altair and Ezio had been properly inducted into the order by the end of their respective games. Connor is a special case. So though it may be fanservice, new comers might think "where did that come from?" And I would agree with them, as Achilles didn't teach him in a traditional way. We don't know if Connor was given knowledge to the Order's history during his stay with Achilles, but Connor as a character may not believe in such a cynical phrase, anyway.


Achilles taught him everything about the Assassins. Connor even says so. He gets taught knowledge, philosophy, and history of the assassins and templars.

As for the phrase...It is only cynical phrase to the average joe. Connor of all people would have been all for the ancient phrase. ESPECIALLY if he was getting taught by Achilles

alientraveller
11-10-2012, 05:47 PM
Let's see:

Connor stays his blade from the flesh of innocents. In fact you cannot kill civilians at all.

He has to be more discreet, as notoriety is a lot more punishing (Hessians, whoa).

And Connor never compromised the Brotherhood, [Spoiler removed]

All in all the Creed is not something you have to discuss in every game. The maxim may have been quoted in each game, but not until ACR's ending was it necessary to explain for the first time since AC1.

kuled2012
11-10-2012, 06:03 PM
Let's see:

Connor stays his blade from the flesh of innocents. In fact you cannot kill civilians at all.

He has to be more discreet, as notoriety is a lot more punishing (Hessians, whoa).

And Connor never compromised the Brotherhood, [Spoiler removed]

All in all the Creed is not something you have to discuss in every game. The maxim may have been quoted in each game, but not until ACR's ending was it necessary to explain for the first time since AC1.
You can actually, hold L1 Not sure for Xbox, LT? And when a civilian is highlighted you can kill him, only found out 2 days ago, was surprised that you could :p

Iamsosobad
11-10-2012, 06:14 PM
Ya, honestly I didn't think it felt like much of an Assassin's Creed game either. I like that Ubisoft changed this game up a bit from the previous ones, but I guess in their efforts to do so they lost a lot of what made the other games great. I miss the background music playing, the shops you can buy new armor, weapons, art, bags, clothing dye, and more at. There's no real sense of any assassin brotherhood in this game at all, it's just some old man who was apparently an assassin teaches some kid about the brotherhood. Connor doesn't feel like an assassin really, he's just some angry brat who hates Templars because, well, some old guy told him to hate Templars. This game doesn't have the interesting and fun supporting characters that the other games had, and in a lot of cases I actually preferred the villains to Connor. The combat system was boring, and repetitive, at least in the previous games you had more options on how to kill someone. I don't even know how an American assassin's guild would survive with Connor as their leader, as he is nothing like the former assassins we've seen, and doesn't seem to care about their traditions or beliefs.

shobhit7777777
11-10-2012, 07:39 PM
Then they should do that and call it Red Dead Revolution, not Assassin's Creed III. The problem is, Ubisoft don't own the Red Dead franchise (it's Rockstar's) and they have no right to turn Assassin's Creed into it. If you want Red Dead Revolution, go tell Rockstar, but don't pretend you're an Assassin's Creed fan when it's clear from what you've written that you have no interest in, or reverence for, the series.

The whole problem we have here is that those who are defending this game pretend that they are Assassin's Creed fans, but in reality, when push comes to shove, they couldn't give a toss about Assassin's Creed.

This should be an Assassin's Creed game. That's what we paid for. You don't care what you paid for as long as you got a game out of it, but I do care, as do many others who are true Assassin's Creed fans. The sad thing is, if this game ends up killing the franchise, you won't care - you'll be just as happy playing a Rockstar game or any other garbage. But we will miss Assassin's Creed because it can and should be better than this.

Dude, I share your views on how the franchise is at a stalemate and how it could be better with a deeper focus on ASSASSINS...

BUT

You are being extremely elitist and narrow minded not to mention obtuse by writing off people who like the current direction....I'm no fan and don't support it but it doesn't give me the right to look down upon others or label myself as a "true" fan...that's being a fanatic.

alientraveller
11-10-2012, 07:43 PM
Funny, I'd never seen Prometheus on this forum or even the Wiki before AC3's release. So I wonder why he feels he has the right to lecture people on being fans.

KamisoriTenno
11-10-2012, 09:01 PM
@Pr0metheus 1962, to be honest, none of the AC games after the first were real AC games since only the first was about the messengers of death from alamut aka hashashims (yes, they were a bunch of pot-heads XD)
But you act like you are the only one who has the right to call out if a game can be a AC game. Well, you are not.
AC3 is not suppose to be AC1 nor AC2 but AC3. It's a **** fine game even if buggy and sometimes inconsistent at times. One can argue even that during AC2 period the church was extremely strong and they pretty much represented the templars or vice versa.
I also think that after 4 games ubi thought everyone knows already how the initiation works and we do not need to see it in every sequel since it will be always the same: Conny, look, the AC is super secret and used to cut of fingers but we don't roll that way any more. so here is a hoody . Now go out there and kill templars. there was a hugh time laps from when C met the ol dude and the later sequence. He practically turned from a teeny to an old ugly man in an instant. Connor that is. Besides that, the old guy (what was his name? achiles?) already gave up the assassins life. it's more a revival tour in the new world with the lectures of an old man who is just tired of it.

blablabla you are wrong blablabla who are you to tell people not to enjoy a game they like only because you got to much time on your hands blablabla the end. XD


[EDIT] I don't usually get involve in this kinda things. More a sit back and enjoy the show type but with each new crap you posted I thought I wanna write something, too XD

Pr0metheus 1962
11-11-2012, 12:44 AM
Let's see:

Connor stays his blade from the flesh of innocents. In fact you cannot kill civilians at all.

You just haven't been trying hard enough. I assure you, you can kill civilians in this game.


All in all the Creed is not something you have to discuss in every game. That's true for the first time in this game, but in every previous game, the Creed was kinda important. So important that every true fan of the series expects it to be mentioned at least once. I don't think it's too much to expect.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-11-2012, 12:49 AM
Dude, I share your views on how the franchise is at a stalemate and how it could be better with a deeper focus on ASSASSINS...

BUT

You are being extremely elitist and narrow minded not to mention obtuse by writing off people who like the current direction....I'm no fan and don't support it but it doesn't give me the right to look down upon others or label myself as a "true" fan...that's being a fanatic.

'Fan' is short for 'fanatic' and I gladly admit to being one.

And I am indeed being elitist and narrow-minded because Assassin's Creed is better than all those other games and it has a specific narrow focus. With so many people wanting to change Assassin's Creed into the latest flavor of the month game franchise, someone has to be elitist and narrow-minded if Assassin's Creed is to survive. Assassin's Creed games should be better than this and Assassin's Creed fans should not be happy to see the franchise turned into something that it was never intended to be.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-11-2012, 12:51 AM
Funny, I'd never seen Prometheus on this forum or even the Wiki before AC3's release. So I wonder why he feels he has the right to lecture people on being fans.

Yet I've been around since 2003. I was posting on AC1 long before you showed up, kid.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-11-2012, 12:54 AM
who are you to tell people not to enjoy a game they like

I'm a guy with a computer. This is an internet forum. I can tell anyone what the heck I like as long as the forum guidelines allow it. That's what the internet is all about. If you don't like it, you chose a pretty funny place to spend your time. And trust me, if you don't like what I have to say, the internet is just going to be one long exercise in frustration for you, because there's one thing that is always true on the 'net - there are always going to be people who are going to strongly disagree with you. Get used to it, or if you can't stand the heat, you probably should get out of the kitchen.

Alternatively, if you just can't stand what I have to say, click on my name, then click on 'View Profile', then 'Add to ignore list', then click on the 'Yes' button and you never have to see anything I write here ever again. Why people continue to allow themselves to get frustrated with other members when this forum feature exists is a mystery to me. Maybe it's a form of masochism.

But having said all that, I'm NOT telling anyone not to enjoy the game. Enjoy it all you want. I'm just telling you why it's not the game it ought to be, and I'm explaining why true fans of the series should be against what the recent batch of developers are doing to it. If some guy complaining about the game spoils your enjoyment, that's entirely your problem. It has nothing to do with me. Maybe if you liked the game more, my complaints wouldn't have the effect they're obviously having on you, because if you REALLY liked the game, no amount of complaining would affect your enjoyment.

It's a game. If you like it, play it and stop worrying about what other people think of it. Too many people get themselves emotionally tied to this stuff. Criticism of the game is not an attack on you and it's never going to delete the game from your hard drive.

KamisoriTenno
11-11-2012, 03:32 AM
I'm a guy with a computer. This is an internet forum. I can tell anyone what the heck I like as long as the forum guidelines allow it. That's what the internet is all about. If you don't like it, you chose a pretty funny place to spend your time. And trust me, if you don't like what I have to say, the internet is just going to be one long exercise in frustration for you, because there's one thing that is always true on the 'net - there are always going to be people who are going to strongly disagree with you. Get used to it, or if you can't stand the heat, you probably should get out of the kitchen.

Alternatively, if you just can't stand what I have to say, click on my name, then click on 'View Profile', then 'Add to ignore list', then click on the 'Yes' button and you never have to see anything I write here ever again. Why people continue to allow themselves to get frustrated with other members when this forum feature exists is a mystery to me. Maybe it's a form of masochism.

But having said all that, I'm NOT telling anyone not to enjoy the game. Enjoy it all you want. I'm just telling you why it's not the game it ought to be, and I'm explaining why true fans of the series should be against what the recent batch of developers are doing to it. If some guy complaining about the game spoils your enjoyment, that's entirely your problem. It has nothing to do with me. Maybe if you liked the game more, my complaints wouldn't have the effect they're obviously having on you, because if you REALLY liked the game, no amount of complaining would affect your enjoyment.

It's a game. If you like it, play it and stop worrying about what other people think of it. Too many people get themselves emotionally tied to this stuff. Criticism of the game is not an attack on you and it's never going to delete the game from your hard drive.

Did ya look in the mirror while ya wrote that? XD