PDA

View Full Version : Full sync has got to go.



Blind2Society
11-10-2012, 08:11 AM
I've been a hardcore fan of AC since the beginning but was rather upset with the addition of full sync requirements. It has only gotten more and more annoying. There is nothing worse in a game than breaking immersion and killing the flow. Full sync does exactly that. Having to restart over and over because I didn't play a mission exactly how they wanted me to and having to restart to find the one perfect path is just terrible.

Ubisoft made note that they wouldn't keep stuff just because it was there before so why was the worst part of the series kept?

Agree, yae or nay?

Aphex_Tim
11-10-2012, 08:24 AM
I don't really see a problem with it since it's fully optional.

BATISTABUS
11-10-2012, 08:42 AM
If I had it my way, the Full Synch options should be mandatory. The way things are now, if we didn't even have these options, the game would be stupid-easy and I couldn't disagree with you more. They're optional, so I don't know how this even affects you. Full Synch was one of the best additions in Brotherhood, as it added some challenge and replay value.

Blind2Society
11-10-2012, 08:46 AM
You want optional difficulty? Add a difficulty slider.

BATISTABUS
11-10-2012, 08:52 AM
Why? There's nothing wrong with what we have now. A "Master Assassin" mode after you beat the game would be nice, though.

Full Sych makes sense with the games' canon, and allows you to pretty much change the difficulty setting on the fly. There are (and should be) rewards for getting 100% synch that aren't integral to the gaming experience, but are nice to have. It all works out for me.

shobhit7777777
11-10-2012, 09:03 AM
I've been a hardcore fan of AC since the beginning but was rather upset with the addition of full sync requirements. It has only gotten more and more annoying. There is nothing worse in a game than breaking immersion and killing the flow. Full sync does exactly that. Having to restart over and over because I didn't play a mission exactly how they wanted me to and having to restart to find the one perfect path is just terrible.

Ubisoft made note that they wouldn't keep stuff just because it was there before so why was the worst part of the series kept?

Agree, yae or nay?

I agree. Any such system only restricts players using simple punitive "WRONG!" feedback cues. Hitman is an excellent example of how the rating system spawned a legion of players that think there is only ONE right way to play the game when in fact the game is an all-encouraging sandbox.

Also to posters above who say that it is completely optional fail to comprehend the fact that inspite of it being technically optional a big red "Fack YOU! Player" popping up during gameplay and being uber restrictive in the first place is more than enough to ruin the experience.

Games interface with humans, we are susceptible to subtle psychological persuasion and games lock onto this and feed on it. The Full Sync more often than not feel like the game is watching over your shoulder and tut tutting at every deviation you make....sneering at you and saying "A REAL Assassin wouldn't do it this way". This minor thing does go a long way in increasing frustration and making the player restricted.

Its 'Feedback 101' and preys on our compulsion loop.....guess which other game does that? Farmville. -__-

Also, this directly feeds into the way the missions are designed...which are getting more and more linear, deviating from the core pillars of the game and are plagued by a heavy case of handholding corridoritus. Where the previous game stuck you in an area, gave you a target and let you do it your way...AC3 feels severely limiting.

BATISTABUS does have a great idea with 'Master Assassin' mode. Which would impose the full sync requirements AND switch off the majority of the handholding features.

zhengyingli
11-10-2012, 09:18 AM
I know how you feel, having to go back over and over again to do the option objective. But at the same time, I always move on during my first playthrough to experience the story without any hassle. I have to agree that the optional objective is like a difficulty level; it lets you replay the level with restrictions that sometimes actually open up more freedom as you're forced to use everything in your arsenal to gain the upperhand. No sync is just like easy mode or even better, Mass Effect 3's "narrative difficulty;" just experience the story without any difficulty.

What I disliked about the full sync system in Revelations was during that one scene where Ezio left Constantinople after the Greek Fire incident, the triumphant moment was ruined by big red texts "FULL SYNCHRONIZATION FAILED." They improved that in ACIII. The mission reports never happens during the story sequences anymore, like Tenchu; it can call me a THUG as long as it doesn't plaster the word during a cutscene. Also, in previous games, the moment you fail your sync, the game automatically saves the game so that you'll have to restart the whole mission again. Not so in ACIII; just restart the moment you fail to the last check point. It's all good.

Rithrius
11-10-2012, 10:03 AM
I don't mind bonus objectives, but some of them are ridiculous.

Like, in sequence 9 there's this one bonus objective where you have to tail some guys through the frontier, and the bonus is lost if you choose to jump in the back of the cart to hide all the way to the destination. So you'd punish a player for basically doing the smartest thing...

BATISTABUS
11-10-2012, 10:10 AM
I don't mind bonus objectives, but some of them are ridiculous.

Like, in sequence 9 there's this one bonus objective where you have to tail some guys through the frontier, and the bonus is lost if you choose to jump in the back of the cart to hide all the way to the destination. So you'd punish a player for basically doing the smartest thing...
It's also the easiest thing! How is this in any way ridiculous? Are you unable to figure out how to do it any other way? Is there something wrong with not going with your first instinct and trying something else? Is this so out of character for Connor that you would think he would never do this? Could you not see any potential danger in hiding 2 feet away from the guy you're tailing?

The point of Full Synch in the canon is that Desmond is playing within Connor's memories. He is able to pass from one memory to the next by completing objectives, but the Animus allows him the leniency to actually achieve these things differently (within limitations). The Full Synch option is just how Connor would've done it if it were a book or something.

And if you guys are really getting your feelings hurt by some red text on the screen, I'm not sure what to say.

zhengyingli
11-10-2012, 10:45 AM
And if you guys are really getting your feelings hurt by some red text on the screen, I'm not sure what to say.

I wouldn't go that far.....but I'm such a masochist that I kind of like the game virtually beating and scolding at me. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I just like my games challenging, I guess. Even with these challenges, it's still too easy.

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 01:03 PM
I have to agree w/ Bat up there. KEEP IT. Those synch *options* are what help force me to stay out of my comfort zone in this game.
I tend to stick with what's familiar & do things the way that's easiest to me which limits me in this game & it's by my own selfish choice.
Synch forces me to learn new & different ways of doing a mission - it also usually makes it harder & more challenging [for me].
In ACR, I mostly used the poison darts thru the whole thing. Esp. on Janisarry's - they were simple to take out that way.

I think synching is AC's 'level of difficulty' option to a point - at best I'd be willing to try difficulty level instead of synching just one game & see how it differs.
But it needs to be one or the other - not neither or else the game loses alot in challenge and variety.
No matter the red letters, it's still mostly all choice & option for the most part. If anything, maybe you need an added option of turning off those 'red letter fails' so you don't see them.

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 01:07 PM
and a ps. they still need to structure Mission objectives. Not every mission should you be able to go in guns-a-blazing & take out everyone.
Some missions you shouldn't kill people to accomplish a goal - so it shouldn't just be some free-for-all to go on killing spree's imo.
That's not what AC is about, so there should be restrictions in missions even without a synch system imo.

playassassins1
11-10-2012, 01:12 PM
why do you want it to go if it's optional? Plus, there's still people who actually like it.........

It's simple, if you don't want to complete the objectives, you can just complete the mission and do it your own way. the full sync was just added to create a little challenge for the player....

UrDeviant1
11-10-2012, 01:17 PM
As a completionist, I have to do all these mission objectives, even though some of them are annoying and frustrating and actually cause me to have less fun from when I completed the mission the first time (I always do objectives on second playthrough). So I do agree that certain mission objectives can ruin the immersion when you have to restart again and again.

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 01:35 PM
I'm a completionist too and I'm naturally compelled to full synch... so just condition your mind in the opposite direction on another playthru and work hard not to synch any at all.
Once I miss one that's too hard for me, I'm fine not getting others afterwards. The first one is the hardest & then it turns into no big deal.

But still if they give an optional shut off of the red letter fail text, this should help completionists at least on a playthru where they want to do their own thing.

TheHumanTowel
11-10-2012, 01:59 PM
I would have agreed with you before AC3 was released but not now. My problem with full sync in ACB and ACR wasn't so much that it was there but how it was presented. If didn't do full sync you got a loud siren sounding off and a big red notice telling you FULL SYNC FAILED and 50% sync at the end. I think AC3 does it so it much less negative in it's presentation. Just a small x appearing in the top left corner. It's less invasive.

I do think in some cases the full sync requirements restrict the choice you have in a mission though. Like if a requirement is kill 5 guards with your gun you have to go about the mission that way if you want full sync, when you could have assassinated one, used a poison dart on the other, etc. Even if the notices are less invasive it's still sometimes hard to shake the feeling you're doing something wrong when you don't go for full sync. Maybe it would work better as a bonus mode unlocked after you complete the game?

CRANK 132
11-10-2012, 02:03 PM
I like them and they are optional. Makes the game a little more challenging.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 02:32 PM
I don't really see a problem with it since it's fully optional.

even if it says it's optional that doesn't mean that people will play it as such, I like to get everything in the game (if i don't then why buy the game). I enjoy having 100% and having everything that comes with it, but I hate having the way I want to play a game change because the devs want us to play it their way. AC wasn't originally like this and that is why people don't like it as much. Originally you could just approach the target and kill him anyway you want (with what options you have) without the game saying you did it wrong. Now if I kill all the boats at sea and 30 seconds with a fire cannonball then I don't get full syc. because I didn't use weaker cannons and then shoot the powder kegs... that's pointless. Or even kill a target with an air assassination but maybe I just want to shoot him in the head with the bow, or perform a running assassination and pull him down his horse and kill him.

Limiting the freedom of players is never the right path to take, by taking away the sync. system it would also allow multiple playthroughs without having a penalty.


If I had it my way, the Full Synch options should be mandatory. The way things are now, if we didn't even have these options, the game would be stupid-easy and I couldn't disagree with you more. They're optional, so I don't know how this even affects you. Full Synch was one of the best additions in Brotherhood, as it added some challenge and replay value.

No, sorry. I do see what you're getting at but rather than make it mandatory, those should be side missions that are part of the bigger missions. I'm referring to the beat these guys before you kill the target or whatever. But stuff about ramming your boat into other boats is just plain dumb, I could easily just kill all the ships with my cannons.


Why? There's nothing wrong with what we have now. A "Master Assassin" mode after you beat the game would be nice, though.

Full Sych makes sense with the games' canon, and allows you to pretty much change the difficulty setting on the fly. There are (and should be) rewards for getting 100% synch that aren't integral to the gaming experience, but are nice to have. It all works out for me.

What we have now is something that limits our freedom and creativity, something that AC didn't do until they started to milk the series and make the game super easy. They thought that adding a sync. system would make the game more challenging but instead it mainly added an annoying factor to the game rather than difficulty. I don't find the challenges difficult but rather pointless (some aren't though, like the destroy the barrels with explosives and stuff). But they need to find another way, adding a difficulty system would be best, that way they can have a normal difficulty which is what AC is on now. Then a hard, which has 8 hits total and you die, and then a master setting which has 3-4 hits and you die, and guns takes away half your health.

BBALive
11-10-2012, 02:38 PM
I agree. They also need to work a lot on mission design. Open world games should not feel this linear.

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 02:41 PM
What we have now is something that limits our freedom and creativity, something that AC didn't do until they started to milk the series and make the game super easy. They thought that adding a sync. system would make the game more challenging but instead it mainly added an annoying factor to the game rather than difficulty. I don't find the challenges difficult but rather pointless (some aren't though, like the destroy the barrels with explosives and stuff). But they need to find another way, adding a difficulty system would be best, that way they can have a normal difficulty which is what AC is on now. Then a hard, which has 8 hits total and you die, and then a master setting which has 3-4 hits and you die, and guns takes away half your health.

But you are NOT limited if you opt out. It's there for 2 types of AC fans. Those who want it and those who want to do the game their own way.
Are we now going to Force AC to make the entire game 'limitless' to do anything we want everywhere? We have 3 playthru/game slots at the beginning - use one playthru for synching (for the completionist in you) and another one for NO synching & enjoy your limitless assassination techniques & choices.

You're telling them to stop doing something many of us do enjoy about AC when it IS optional for everyone. We're opting to do it.
If it's so impossible to handle, then please just ask devs to allow the option of blocking of red text fail alerts.

>>a difficulty system would be best, that way they can have a normal difficulty which is what AC is on now. Then a hard, which has 8 hits total and you die, and then a master setting which has 3-4 hits and you die, and guns takes away half your health. <<<

.... and then you'll get a slew of complaints if they do it that way instead too. They cant' win for losing anyways.

BBALive
11-10-2012, 02:51 PM
But you are NOT limited if you opt out. It's there for 2 types of AC fans. Those who want it and those who want to do the game their own way.
Are we now going to Force AC to make the entire game 'limitless' to do anything we want everywhere? We have 3 playthru/game slots at the beginning - use one playthru for synching (for the completionist in you) and another one for NO synching & enjoy your limitless assassination techniques & choices.

You're telling them to stop doing something many of us do enjoy about AC when it IS optional for everyone. We're opting to do it.
If it's so impossible to handle, then please just ask devs to allow the option of blocking of red text fail alerts.

>>a difficulty system would be best, that way they can have a normal difficulty which is what AC is on now. Then a hard, which has 8 hits total and you die, and then a master setting which has 3-4 hits and you die, and guns takes away half your health. <<<

.... and then you'll get a slew of complaints if they do it that way instead too. They cant' win for losing anyways.

Assassin's Creed 1 had the best mission design, but it was hindered due to repetitiveness. They need to take AC1's mission design and evolve it. Keep the freedom, drop the repetition. They can leave full-sync in if they did that.

kriegerdesgottes
11-10-2012, 02:52 PM
I agree. I have always hated it and when I saw on a demo for ACIII that there would be multiple ones per mission I thought that I it could not actually be that way because it was never really all that popular even with just one requirement but unfortunately they decided to make it even more annoying in ACIII. I'd love to see it removed all the way around.

RandomRansom
11-10-2012, 02:55 PM
I've been a hardcore fan of AC since the beginning but was rather upset with the addition of full sync requirements. It has only gotten more and more annoying. There is nothing worse in a game than breaking immersion and killing the flow. Full sync does exactly that. Having to restart over and over because I didn't play a mission exactly how they wanted me to and having to restart to find the one perfect path is just terrible.

Ubisoft made note that they wouldn't keep stuff just because it was there before so why was the worst part of the series kept?

Agree, yae or nay?

I'm ambivalent. I like the optional requirements/constraints for many reasons, but I agree that they went overboard in this edition of the game. Some of the constraints were downright ridiculous. Come on... don't shove, tackle, run into, or basically touch anyone? How about a mission where you have to know where the target is going so you can tackle him from above (otherwise your screwed because he runs as fast as you do). Or my favorite... expose all 3 weak spots on the 3 ships in the level or screw you. So I have to cheaply outsmart the ships by disabling them individually before ramming them at no sail... all because I did what seemed like the best thing to do and fully upgraded the Aquilla (even got a trophy/achievement for it, I think).

I like how full synch adds to the gameplay and story (by doing exactly what Desmond's ancestor did it gives you full synch), but I think there should be more in game incentive to do so (like bonus missions, items, money, weapons, abilities, etc. because fully synchronizing gives you better access to Desmond's ancestor's memories). I would overlook the don't touch anyone and stay within 50 meters of target or catch the bobcat by knowing where he's going to go so you can cut him off, if there were in game benefits and not just some trophy necessary for the platinum.

And for those who say these objectives are fully optional, they aren't if you ever want a platinum or whatever that translates to in achievement. Sure you can beat the game without doing a single optional objective, but that's not the point I'm (and others are) making in complaining about them. I mean even if there was an unlock for more inventory or convoy space or something that came with optional objective completion, then there would be a point to them beyond just a challenge (and some of the challenges were ridiculous, I'm pretty sure we'll all agree).

Example:
Fully Synchronize 25% of all memories - Connor gets told about a buried treasure (just unlocks another chest location that doesn't count toward any chest collection tally)
Fully Synchronize 50% of all memories - Connor is given an exclusive upgrade to his horse so the horse doesn't get tired (at all or very often) when spurring it
Fully Synchronize 75% of all memories - Connor encounters a person who opens a mission that explains some details to the story that you wouldn't get otherwise
Fully Synchronize 100% of all memories - Connor gets the ability to climb any tree because he's given shoe spikes and/or a trophy/achievement

Stuff like that would be nice and not very hard to implement, I'm sure.

I mean, if only a challenge is the major intensive, then it's like saying, "You could go to town using your car (the easy way), but wouldn't it be more fun (because it's more challenging) to use the optional way and run 20 miles to town? Did I mention you only have two and half hours to do so or you get fired?" Or like this: Sure you COULD draw a picture of yourself with your hands, but wouldn't it be more fun to use the optional way and use your feet?

By the way, I got all the trophies/achievements you can get for ACIII, at present (Platinum). There are those 4 DLC character trophies to get later, but you get my point. I'm not complaining because I haven't gotten everything done, I'm complaining because there isn't enough reason to do the optional objectives AND too many of the optional objectives were ludicrous. I think the difficulty should be the thing that is a challenge necessary to GET or in the way of GETTING an in game incentive (not just a trophy/achievement). That would also be far more congruous with the game cannon.

P.S. I'm in no way saying they should take out full synchronization. Just make the ridiculous optional objectives more... make more sense, and add some small incentive that follows with AC cannon. If Desmond (or another assassin) is fully synching with their ancestor, then there should be some benefit or unlocked abilities/memories from that ancestor. Doesn't that make sense? (and wouldn't it shut people up about there being no point to them... or give them a reason to do them beyond just a challenge?)

pirate1802
11-10-2012, 02:59 PM
Why not make a separate Master Assassin or something, as someone suggested, mode that has the full sync and all other constraints in it? If you want to play freely switch off the mode, if you want the constraints play in this mode. Best of both worlds, everyone is happy.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 02:59 PM
But you are NOT limited if you opt out. It's there for 2 types of AC fans. Those who want it and those who want to do the game their own way.
Are we now going to Force AC to make the entire game 'limitless' to do anything we want everywhere? We have 3 playthru/game slots at the beginning - use one playthru for synching (for the completionist in you) and another one for NO synching & enjoy your limitless assassination techniques & choices.

You're telling them to stop doing something many of us do enjoy about AC when it IS optional for everyone. We're opting to do it.
If it's so impossible to handle, then please just ask devs to allow the option of blocking of red text fail alerts.

>>a difficulty system would be best, that way they can have a normal difficulty which is what AC is on now. Then a hard, which has 8 hits total and you die, and then a master setting which has 3-4 hits and you die, and guns takes away half your health. <<<

.... and then you'll get a slew of complaints if they do it that way instead too. They cant' win for losing anyways.


This is when you're going to think i'm weird haha, but I hate seeing the failed or even knowing I failed a syc. even if i've already finished one save with 100% syc. The thing is Ubisoft also added the sync. system even though people didn't like it, so in the same way they have already done what I'm asking them to do. The thing I'd prefer them to do is, rather than completely remove those options, instead have them appear somewhere else. For missions that say it's optional to kill 4 other guys that are helping the main target, why not jut make that an actual side mission? The majority of the sync. system requirements aren't necessary. Do not be seen, well i feel like most people would try for that, but what if the game does some weird glitch that ends up making you seen, now you have to start over? instead how about just let the player kill the guard and then continue on the mission.

If you provide me with some great sync. system optional objectives, i'll explain how they can easily put that somewhere else in the game.

Well there wouldn't really be anything to complain about, if you can pick what to play as. AC as it is now is super easy for me, guards can't kill me and that bothers me. If AC was like it was in 2006 then I probably would have died a lot because you died in one hit if you didn't block, Is there really any reason to complain when you have more options?

As bbalive said, AC1 was a great game (imo) yes it was repetitive but the idea behind it and freedom that came with it was what made it so amazing and why I will always play AC1 over ACB and ACR, maybe even AC2. Also the atmosphere and graphics were a lot better in AC1 then AC2, B, and R imo

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 03:04 PM
Can't you achieve that trophy on a 2nd playthru? Do it later - ... ?? The synchs I can't do, I leave alone. I CAN agree that the synch's shouldn't be stupid, redundant, and SO restrictively annoying that they take all fun out of it. So far the one's I've done to Seq. 6 are normal imo.

As for AC1 mission design, I haven't played AC1 and yes I have more than heard the repetitive complaint about it. That's why a friend of mine told me not to bother with this series at all back when ACB was out a few months. I assume he had played AC1 & wouldn't buy it again.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-10-2012, 03:12 PM
If the optional objectives appeared after you beat the game, I wouldn't have much problems with them. But when you play the game for the first time and keep seeing the red "YOU FAILED THE OBJECTIVE", it just gets annoying.

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 03:13 PM
This is when you're going to think i'm weird haha, but I hate seeing the failed or even knowing I failed a syc. even if i've already finished one save with 100% syc. The thing is Ubisoft also added the sync. system even though people didn't like it, so in the same way they have already done what I'm asking them to do. The thing I'd prefer them to do is, rather than completely remove those options, instead have them appear somewhere else. For missions that say it's optional to kill 4 other guys that are helping the main target, why not jut make that an actual side mission? The majority of the sync. system requirements aren't necessary. Do not be seen, well i feel like most people would try for that, but what if the game does some weird glitch that ends up making you seen, now you have to start over? instead how about just let the player kill the guard and then continue on the mission.

If you provide me with some great sync. system optional objectives, i'll explain how they can easily put that somewhere else in the game.

Well there wouldn't really be anything to complain about, if you can pick what to play as. AC as it is now is super easy for me, guards can't kill me and that bothers me. If AC was like it was in 2006 then I probably would have died a lot because you died in one hit if you didn't block, Is there really any reason to complain when you have more options?

As bbalive said, AC1 was a great game (imo) yes it was repetitive but the idea behind it and freedom that came with it was what made it so amazing and why I will always play AC1 over ACB and ACR, maybe even AC2. Also the atmosphere and graphics were a lot better in AC1 then AC2, B, and R imo

Ya, even doing the syncs in side missions is a decent prospect.... I love side missions...maybe one or the other is a nice compromise.

Well like I said, I can absolutely agree synchs shouldn't be stupid and literally RUIN fun by being horrible synchs (and a couple that were listed up there worry me when I get to them lol)
. I always hated the ones in previous games where I can't kill anybody at all. But I admit, it made it alot more challenging that way & it helped make me a better player to push myself.
Honestly, any way they set this up I'm going to be ok with - but it has to be either difficulty level or synch system. We definitely have a diversity of AC fans that are very good gamers and we have mediocre so there has to be some sort of leveling going on somehow imho.

Only playing the Trilogy, AC3's graphics are way better. I agree there.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 03:14 PM
Can't you achieve that trophy on a 2nd playthru? Do it later - ... ?? The synchs I can't do, I leave alone. I CAN agree that the synch's shouldn't be stupid, redundant, and SO restrictively annoying that they take all fun out of it. So far the one's I've done to Seq. 6 are normal imo.

As for AC1 mission design, I haven't played AC1 and yes I have more than heard the repetitive complaint about it. That's why a friend of mine told me not to bother with this series at all back when ACB was out a few months. I assume he had played AC1 & wouldn't buy it again.

I can't, i've already beaten the game twice (well kinda, i went to sequence 6 and started over because a glitch and then beat it after that) and i already know if I replay it i'm going to have to get everything again because that's the type of player i am. I'm that guy that when i played halo, i wanted every human soldier to live o.O (every sync. that i didn't get i would restart the mission, I won't continue the game unless i get that sync.). And trust me they get weird, don't touch a person when you run, ram your ship into other ships (harming yourself), kill all ships in this time limit (hate those, i prefer to enjoy the game not rush through it), expose the powder kegs and destroy the 3 ships by shooting that (why not just destroy the ships, it's faster??), etc.

AC1 to me is one of the greatest games out there, and is better then ACB, ACR and almost as enjoyable as AC2 to me. It really depends, when I first played it (well my first 5 times) i never thought about if it was repetitive. I loved the freedom it gave you. You could prepare your attacks before you actually went after the templar, kill archers on the rooftops so when you run they wouldn't be there when you ran away. They took that out in AC2 and beyond. You should play it, unless the missions really are going to bother you. and you can't skip cut-scenes, but even with all of that I loved the game and couldn't wait to see how they would improve on this formula. Not remove it :(

Have you seen the 2006 first Assassin's Creed demo ever shown?



Ya, even doing the syncs in side missions is a decent prospect.... I love side missions...maybe one or the other is a nice compromise.

Well like I said, I can absolutely agree synchs shouldn't be stupid and literally RUIN fun by being horrible synchs (and a couple that were listed up there worry me when I get to them lol)
. I always hated the ones in previous games where I can't kill anybody at all. But I admit, it made it alot more challenging that way & it helped make me a better player to push myself.
Honestly, any way they set this up I'm going to be ok with - but it has to be either difficulty level or synch system. We definitely have a diversity of AC fans that are very good gamers and we have mediocre so there has to be some sort of leveling going on somehow imho.

Only playing the Trilogy, AC3's graphics are way better. I agree there.


Yea that's why i think if they just switched all sync. system requirements into side missions then they wouldn't really harm a lot of people, because all the requirements would still be there just in another form.

As for the not killing anyone, I never really kill anyone anymore. I always looked at is as, the Hassassin was suppose to only kill the main target which is what I normally did. Even in AC3 i pretty much use my hands for non-lethal fights and takedowns for normal guards.

AC1's graphics are similar to AC3. the top two in graphics and atmosphere are AC3 and AC1.

xboxauditore
11-10-2012, 03:23 PM
Failing the first few missions ones while raging over the new controls got to me.

RandomRansom
11-10-2012, 03:37 PM
Failing the first few missions ones while raging over the new controls got to me.

Don't worry... the freerunning or no running will only get worse... :( I can't believe they took away functionality from the players. I miss being able to job without freerunning off, up, or onto everything in my path. Then there's not jumping far enough while free running... see... only worse from there...

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 03:41 PM
I can't, i've already beaten the game twice (well kinda, i went to sequence 6 and started over because a glitch and then beat it after that) and i already know if I replay it i'm going to have to get everything again because that's the type of player i am. I'm that guy that when i played halo, i wanted every human soldier to live o.O (every sync. that i didn't get i would restart the mission, I won't continue the game unless i get that sync.). And trust me they get weird, don't touch a person when you run, ram your ship into other ships (harming yourself), kill all ships in this time limit (hate those, i prefer to enjoy the game not rush through it), expose the powder kegs and destroy the 3 ships by shooting that (why not just destroy the ships, it's faster??), etc. AC1 to me is one of the greatest games out there, and is better then ACB, ACR and almost as enjoyable as AC2 to me. It really depends, when I first played it (well my first 5 times) i never thought about if it was repetitive. I loved the freedom it gave you. You could prepare your attacks before you actually went after the templar, kill archers on the rooftops so when you run they wouldn't be there when you ran away. They took that out in AC2 and beyond. You should play it, unless the missions really are going to bother you. and you can't skip cut-scenes, but even with all of that I loved the game and couldn't wait to see how they would improve on this formula. Not remove it :( Have you seen the 2006 first Assassin's Creed demo ever shown? Yea that's why i think if they just switched all sync. system requirements into side missions then they wouldn't really harm a lot of people, because all the requirements would still be there just in another form. As for the not killing anyone, I never really kill anyone anymore. I always looked at is as, the Hassassin was suppose to only kill the main target which is what I normally did. Even in AC3 i pretty much use my hands for non-lethal fights and takedowns for normal guards. AC1's graphics are similar to AC3. the top two in graphics and atmosphere are AC3 and AC1. lol w/ the Halo thing. I'm seriously going to try to get back into Halo & rent #4 to give it another go. :) & I need to correct my previous posts - I'm not a completionist, I meant perfectionist. I think there is a difference. ;) (oh and a bonified HOARDER) lol

Oh & did you know you could kick a downed guard that's writhing & kill them? I don't remember if we could do that in previous games but it was kool. A nice touch. I do actually remember seeing the AC1 Commercials when it was releasing... I was very interested in it but at the time I was all FPS & I just stuck to that. ACB got me out of FPS genre & more into RPG style games. But I do enjoy some good shoot em up stuff from other titles I haven't dropped.
(forum glitch... messed up the spacing, sorry)

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 04:03 PM
lol w/ the Halo thing. I'm seriously going to try to get back into Halo & rent #4 to give it another go. :) & I need to correct my previous posts - I'm not a completionist, I meant perfectionist. I think there is a difference. ;) (oh and a bonified HOARDER) lol

Oh & did you know you could kick a downed guard that's writhing & kill them? I don't remember if we could do that in previous games but it was kool. A nice touch. I do actually remember seeing the AC1 Commercials when it was releasing... I was very interested in it but at the time I was all FPS & I just stuck to that. ACB got me out of FPS genre & more into RPG style games. But I do enjoy some good shoot em up stuff from other titles I haven't dropped.
(forum glitch... messed up the spacing, sorry)

I honestly thing im both a completionist and perfectionist when it comes to AC.I have to do everything and be perfect at it when i do it :P. but yea with halo i was that guy that would kill every single enemy before moving on to the next location even if the game said i could leave the aliens alone to the normal soldiers.

Yea i did it a few times by accident, and was confused the first few times lol. I was like what? why did i kick him, he must have been getting up. You should try AC1 out though, it was really fun.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSWEXlkBTTo&amp;feature=related

This is the video i was talking about, i remember seeing this and thinking wow this is going to be really amazing. of course there were a few things they would have to change

NumberSix1967
11-10-2012, 04:25 PM
The simplest and most effective sync options are the tried and tested 'do not be detected' and 'assassinate target using the hidden blade'. I mean if it's a stealth game, just add a desynch element to certain sections of a mission should it be relevant to the story. If you need to infiltrate a fort: do not be detected. If you need to transport something then you know, be original. Some of the synchs in AC3 were a bit tacked on but it does give each mission a certain level of re-playablity....when done well. For example, Enter the Castello in Sequence 4 of Brotherhood is brilliant. I love that level as you have so many opportunities to be detected and you really have to try and plan your approach. Contrast that with 'do not push anyone' in a chase mission and you see the pros and cons of the synch system. It does, as someone has mentioned, work in context with the story.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 04:34 PM
The simplest and most effective sync options are the tried and tested 'do not be detected' and 'assassinate target using the hidden blade'. I mean if it's a stealth game, just add a desynch element to certain sections of a mission should it be relevant to the story. If you need to infiltrate a fort: do not be detected. If you need to transport something then you know, be original. Some of the synchs in AC3 were a bit tacked on but it does give each mission a certain level of re-playablity....when done well. For example, Enter the Castello in Sequence 4 of Brotherhood is brilliant. I love that level as you have so many opportunities to be detected and you really have to try and plan your approach. Contrast that with 'do not push anyone' in a chase mission and you see the pros and cons of the synch system. It does, as someone has mentioned, work in context with the story.

One way they could remove the sync. system but keep the great missions like the Brotherhood enter Castello, is to have your mentor tell you if you do something the way I want you to, enter without being seen, then I'll give you a special gift or whatever. But in terms of how you should kill a person, or most of the other missions aren't that great. I loved the ACR one that said beat the other assassins and to the location, that was fun though.

WarriorAegis
11-10-2012, 04:48 PM
I think Full Synch should stay only on these terms:

1) You get a reward for every full Synch mission you do (that has optional objectives)
2) The optional objectives are NOT insanely hard.

RandomRansom
11-10-2012, 04:55 PM
I think Full Synch should stay only on these terms:

1) You get a reward for every full Synch mission you do (that has optional objectives)
2) The optional objectives are NOT insanely hard.

You should read my post on the previous page. I basically said both of those and even gave an easy example of incentives for full synch (and why it would make sense according to AC lore).

I don't mind difficult as long as it makes sense in the game (and isn't insanely difficult, which there may have only been 2-3 of those in this game). Connor not pushing anyone is just illogical... he can move faster by pushing off of someone. Why wouldn't he do it? Among other things that just didn't add up (like having to destroy 3 ships and only 3 ships with weak spot hits... that was fun with a fully upgraded ship battering ram...).

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 05:12 PM
I think Full Synch should stay only on these terms:

1) You get a reward for every full Synch mission you do (that has optional objectives)
2) The optional objectives are NOT insanely hard.

1) rework the missions so that the things we are rewarded without limiting our freedom and creativity during missoins. Perhaps have the things we are rewarded from side missions that our mentor or friend tells us that to do something for him and if we do then we are get the rewards we would have if from the removed sync. system.

2) It isn't a question about difficulty, but rather limiting the player's freedom, creativity and enjoyment. I and others do not want the game to tell us what to do, AC originally wasn't like this. It actually gave the players options and then said nothing, it allowed the player to pick what path they wanted, that is what it should be like

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 05:13 PM
I honestly thing im both a completionist and perfectionist when it comes to AC.I have to do everything and be perfect at it when i do it :P. but yea with halo i was that guy that would kill every single enemy before moving on to the next location even if the game said i could leave the aliens alone to the normal soldiers.

Yea i did it a few times by accident, and was confused the first few times lol. I was like what? why did i kick him, he must have been getting up. You should try AC1 out though, it was really fun.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSWEXlkBTTo&amp;feature=related

This is the video i was talking about, i remember seeing this and thinking wow this is going to be really amazing. of course there were a few things they would have to change

Thanks for the link, I'll check that out.
I did that w/ halo too - but alot of it was becuz they may have dropped me some better weaponry to use too. :D The only time I didn't do that was if the mission was hard & I struggled to make it at all - then I just run & don't look back. haha

>>> One way they could remove the sync. system but keep the great missions like the Brotherhood enter Castello, is to have your mentor tell you if you do something the way I want you to, enter without being seen, then I'll give you a special gift or whatever. But in terms of how you should kill a person, or most of the other missions aren't that great. I loved the ACR one that said beat the other assassins and to the location, that was fun though. <<<

=-0 O_o Your idea of fun is my idea of cursing, throwing the controller thru the window & tearing my hair out lol.
I had to do that at least 9 times to beat them there. Chasing/Racing I abhor & dread. There was one chase I had to do on a homestead mission that I actually enjoyed tho & I got it on my first try.
& I was SO relieved when they brought out the Hookblade in ACR for faster climbing/maneuvering.

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 05:23 PM
@ pdavid, The AC1 Vid - wow, you definitely feel that AC vibe. I just love it. I loved the Barricade thing to put obstacles in their way - liked that you could push people down... the crowds, great Vid. At the same time, things have to evolve too.
The issue turns into what do you change & what do you leave alone & keep doing.

alientraveller
11-10-2012, 05:40 PM
I kept thinking throughout playing AC3 that Ubisoft listened to the fans and it is a lot more difficult than the Ezio trilogy, so that the sync requirements are unnecessary now.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 05:48 PM
@ pdavid, The AC1 Vid - wow, you definitely feel that AC vibe. I just love it. I loved the Barricade thing to put obstacles in their way - liked that you could push people down... the crowds, great Vid. At the same time, things have to evolve too.
The issue turns into what do you change & what do you leave alone & keep doing.

well yeah things have evolved in the sereis, even when it came out there were noticeable changes that were for the better. graphics were improved, the assassinations (the weird slideshow thing when he killed the templar was odd), people throwing rocks in the final game, and then after 6 years there has been more improvements to these.

But the horse gameplay was only introduced in ACB, 5 years (counting when this demo was shown in 2006) after it was already shown in AC1. ACR's weaker version of the barricade thing, in ACR you pulled a a scaffold to kill guards but in the video it was 10 times better because it was bigger, and actually blocked the whole street. And in AC1 (released version) till now when you kill the target you never had to leave the city. I liked the idea after you kill the target the entire city goes looking for you and you have to escape. If you're too late then the gates close and would have to find another way. Finally the 2006 version of AC1 was 100x harder then any of the AC games out now :(, that's what I want when i say difficulty An actual challenge if i get into a fight.

of course I think dying in one hit is a bit much but maybe 3 would be perfect.



Thanks for the link, I'll check that out.
I did that w/ halo too - but alot of it was becuz they may have dropped me some better weaponry to use too. :D The only time I didn't do that was if the mission was hard & I struggled to make it at all - then I just run & don't look back. haha

>>> One way they could remove the sync. system but keep the great missions like the Brotherhood enter Castello, is to have your mentor tell you if you do something the way I want you to, enter without being seen, then I'll give you a special gift or whatever. But in terms of how you should kill a person, or most of the other missions aren't that great. I loved the ACR one that said beat the other assassins and to the location, that was fun though. <<<

=-0 O_o Your idea of fun is my idea of cursing, throwing the controller thru the window & tearing my hair out lol.
I had to do that at least 9 times to beat them there. Chasing/Racing I abhor & dread. There was one chase I had to do on a homestead mission that I actually enjoyed tho & I got it on my first try.
& I was SO relieved when they brought out the Hookblade in ACR for faster climbing/maneuvering.


lol yea there were times when I had to leave the people in halo to fight for themselves only to find out they all died HAHA. but oh well, I used to get a kick out of switch weapons with them and making them use a alien pistol while i took their rocket launcher :P

yea i've been told that i'm weird with games, meaning games that should be hard aren't really that hard for me. I win against all my friends in fighters even though i don't play them and button mash. Even if they own the game, so move that to AC. I really never lose any races against the npcs, except for the ACR one because i wasn't paying attention. but once i redid it again i beat them. I think i really liked it because i was running to a location with other assassins :P... are you talking about the mission where you had to chase the hunter girl when she was running from you?

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 05:49 PM
I think they should stay. I love having incentives to replay games.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 05:59 PM
I think they should stay. I love having incentives to replay games.

those aren't incentive to replay the game for me though, if they are for you then that's perfect :). but I replayed AC1 more then 5 times, and certain missions more then 10 just because I loved the choices i could make :)

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 06:04 PM
Huh? I replay AC1 too- for the story and environments. In all honesty,I never felt like AC1 had as much freedom as others say.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 06:14 PM
Huh? I replay AC1 too- for the story and environments. In all honesty,I never felt like AC1 had as much freedom as others say.

freedom to as in the game tells you different ways you can go kill your target but never once says kill him this way (stealthy or run in there [the only two options really]). Did you know that the letters and information you eavesdrop on actually does give you stuff. If you open up the dna menu and click the mission you just finished, it would show you guard paths, areas you can climb, etc. depending on what information you found/overheard/stole.

Then add preparation, go kill a few archers on the rooftops in AC1 right before you kill the target. if you run along the same path you will see that all the archers are gone because you killed them. But in AC2 and beyond you can't do the same thing.

Those key elements made the gameplay amazing to me.

edit: wasn't saying you didn't replay AC1 :)

RatonhnhakeFan
11-10-2012, 06:24 PM
I agree. I have always hated it and when I saw on a demo for ACIII that there would be multiple ones per mission I thought that I it could not actually be that way because it was never really all that popular even with just one requirement but unfortunately they decided to make it even more annoying in ACIII. I'd love to see it removed all the way around.
I don't think it should be removed, it provides additional challenges to do and can be great. However, they should be locked until you beat the game. Right now, we're going down the story for the first time, trying to enjoy it and be creative and think of ways to complete our missions and we have giant red letters saying "YOU FAILED" and blue letters saying "yeah yeah, you're not bad but THIS is how you should do it". It's distracting and spoiling the game for the first time.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 06:31 PM
I don't think it should be removed, it provides additional challenges to do and can be great. However, they should be locked until you beat the game. Right now, we're going down the story for the first time, trying to enjoy it and be creative and think of ways to complete our missions and we have giant red letters saying "YOU FAILED" and blue letters saying "yeah yeah, you're not bad but THIS is how you should do it". It's distracting and spoiling the game for the first time.

I highly doubt it would be like that, where once you beat the game then you have to replay it with restrictions. I stick by the get rid of the sync. system but every thing that says kills these people (the stop the delivery guys one) should be a side mission.

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 06:33 PM
Yea, I noticed them... but I tend not to use those ways to escape or get in at all. Like Altair, I think my way is better.

I like the freedom of choosing what weapons to kill with. Since I choose the stealthy route, AC1 has the least amount of freedom for me.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 06:51 PM
Yea, I noticed them... but I tend not to use those ways to escape or get in at all. Like Altair, I think my way is better.

I like the freedom of choosing what weapons to kill with. Since I choose the stealthy route, AC1 has the least amount of freedom for me.

Well you proved my case there, you tend to do your way because you believe your way to be best. In the recent games your way is the wrong way. My way is the wrong way and so on. The only right way is the way the devs say so.

Yes Altiar had the least amount of weapons, but you were provided with the means to play your own way with what was given to you. The way you look at freedom is as simple as add more weapons, freedom is allowing you to pick what path you want. You used the freedom that they gave you in a 6 year old game to go stealthy if they had introduced AC1 with all the weapons they have in AC3 then you would have the same amount of freedom but with more choices.

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 07:02 PM
Nah, I go my own way anyway. It's better, it's just not what Connor did. I like the objectives.

Also, I still pick how to approach my target.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 07:08 PM
Nah, I go my own way anyway. It's better, it's just not what Connor did. I like the objectives.

Also, I still pick how to approach my target.

by you going your own way you fail the objectives then, thus you don't get 100% sycn and everything in the game. And you can't pick how you want to approach the target when the game tells you to approach the target in a certain way.

this is where we as gamers split, when I play the game i like to play it and get everything on my first try. I can't do that and play the way I want to at the same time. So rather than splitting the players desire for everything and desire to play the game the way they want it would be in their interest to combine that and remove the sync. system or perhaps alter it (get rid of the sync. but the objectives could be changed into side missions of some way)

twenty_glyphs
11-10-2012, 07:11 PM
I've been defending the Full Sync system for the last two years and saying it has some potential, but AC3 made me absolutely despise the system and want it gone. They've just added more of the same thing and made it even more annoying. The objectives are often ludicrous and do not add challenge or fun, just frustration. Don't shove anyone on this chase even though you can only run on the ground after your target and can't climb any buildings at all, and oh yeah, when you're running now you'll automatically shove everyone in your way because we took that control option away from you. Yeah, that's a blast. Adding multiple objectives just made it more annoying. And the ones that require you to meet all the objectives on one playthrough are even more maddening.

And they're "optional", but the game goes out of its way to constantly throw them in your face, which just ruins the experience. It's hard to enjoy missions the first time I play them because these optional objectives are going to keep popping up as the mission goes along, distracting me. The worst ones are the timed objectives, because in those missions every single optional objective stays on the screen just so they can show you the countdown timer for the objective. There were several missions that have 1/4 of the screen taken up with optional objectives for 2-3 minutes, just killing any fun and distracting from what's on the screen.

The other problem is that there are no rewards for completing the objectives. They are literally pointless. When they were first introduced in Brotherhood, they were interesting because they unlocked the small Cristina missions that really tied the game back to AC2. So you felt like there was some reward for doing it, and the nice thing was you got rewarded as you went, not only once you got all the way to 100%. In Revelations there was no reward at all for doing them, and in AC3 the reward is basically an achievement and a crappy Altaļr outfit. Each objective has a point value, and you can see the points you accumulate, but those points are literally pointless. The only thing that matters is getting to 100%. We were told that you would unlock useful/interesting things with that "sync bar", and there was nothing. As little as 3 weeks before the game, a Game Informer article said you would unlock stuff like concept art and outfits with the Full Sync system. They must have removed something from the game that used those point values, but in the final game they are pointless.

If they're going to keep the Full Sync, they need to fundamentally rethink the system and come up with a core value for why they're there. Are they to add a challenge? Then stick to that. Are they to encourage exploration and experimentation with the fun toys the game gives you? Then stick to that. Right now, I feel like it's trying to do both of those things and failing pretty bad. I think they should open up the mission structure and improve upon the AC1 way of having maps and notes that give you clues to how your actual assassination will play out. So you can eliminate guards on the rooftops to make it easier to escape or reach your target, and all kinds of options like that. Then, the Full Sync requirements could encourage you to explore that system, such as a Full Sync requirement to eliminate the archers before an assassination, or to escape using a secret passageway you can only find with a map before the mission.

zhengyingli
11-10-2012, 07:13 PM
this is where we as gamers split, when I play the game i like to play it and get everything on my first try.

Out of all the arguments you made against having optional objects, this one I understand the most. Though I move on with the story if I failed a sync, I always derp around in the open world for so long to complete side quests before getting back to the story.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 07:15 PM
I've been defending the Full Sync system for the last two years and saying it has some potential, but AC3 made me absolutely despise the system and want it gone. They've just added more of the same thing and made it even more annoying. The objectives are often ludicrous and do not add challenge or fun, just frustration. Don't shove anyone on this chase even though you can only run on the ground after your target and can't climb any buildings at all, and oh yeah, when you're running now you'll automatically shove everyone in your way because we took that control option away from you. Yeah, that's a blast. Adding multiple objectives just made it more annoying. And the ones that require you to meet all the objectives on one playthrough are even more maddening.

And they're "optional", but the game goes out of its way to constantly throw them in your face, which just ruins the experience. It's hard to enjoy missions the first time I play them because these optional objectives are going to keep popping up as the mission goes along, distracting me. The worst ones are the timed objectives, because in those missions every single optional objective stays on the screen just so they can show you the countdown timer for the objective. There were several missions that have 1/4 of the screen taken up with optional objectives for 2-3 minutes, just killing any fun and distracting from what's on the screen.

The other problem is that there are no rewards for completing the objectives. They are literally pointless. When they were first introduced in Brotherhood, they were interesting because they unlocked the small Cristina missions that really tied the game back to AC2. So you felt like there was some reward for doing it, and the nice thing was you got rewarded as you went, not only once you got all the way to 100%. In Revelations there was no reward at all for doing them, and in AC3 the reward is basically an achievement and a crappy Altaļr outfit. Each objective has a point value, and you can see the points you accumulate, but those points are literally pointless. The only thing that matters is getting to 100%. We were told that you would unlock useful/interesting things with that "sync bar", and there was nothing. As little as 3 weeks before the game, a Game Informer article said you would unlock stuff like concept art and outfits with the Full Sync system. They must have removed something from the game that used those point values, but in the final game they are pointless.

If they're going to keep the Full Sync, they need to fundamentally rethink the system and come up with a core value for why they're there. Are they to add a challenge? Then stick to that. Are they to encourage exploration and experimentation with the fun toys the game gives you? Then stick to that. Right now, I feel like it's trying to do both of those things and failing pretty bad. I think they should open up the mission structure and improve upon the AC1 way of having maps and notes that give you clues to how your actual assassination will play out. So you can eliminate guards on the rooftops to make it easier to escape or reach your target, and all kinds of options like that. Then, the Full Sync requirements could encourage you to explore that system, such as a Full Sync requirement to eliminate the archers before an assassination, or to escape using a secret passageway you can only find with a map before the mission.


MUAHAHAHAHAHA join my dark side :D... lol i've been fighting the sync. system for two years, it's good to turn an enemy into a friend :P




Out of all the arguments you made against having optional objects, this one I understand the most. Though I move on with the story if I failed a sync, I always derp around in the open world for so long to complete side quests before getting back to the story.

lol i've stated that before. Every time someone brings up "but it's optional", the thing is there are games that like to get and do everything the first time. That is the type of gamer I have always been and i never really had any problems with it until ACB, ACR and AC3.

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 07:16 PM
by you going your own way you fail the objectives then, thus you don't get 100% sycn and everything in the game. And you can't pick how you want to approach the target when the game tells you to approach the target in a certain way.

this is where we as gamers split, when I play the game i like to play it and get everything on my first try. I can't do that and play the way I want to at the same time. So rather than splitting the players desire for everything and desire to play the game the way they want it would be in their interest to combine that and remove the sync. system or perhaps alter it (get rid of the sync. but the objectives could be changed into side missions of some way)
I'm like that too, but I do the mission the way I want to do it and then I redo it to get full sync.

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 07:19 PM
I'm just saying, I don't see a true reason to remove it.

I do, however, see why it should be modified. I'll go into more detail when my internet is back and I can use a keyboard.

zhengyingli
11-10-2012, 07:21 PM
I'm like that too, but I do the mission the way I want to do it and then I redo it to get full sync.
I'm the same way. If they want to please everybody, I feel that instead of adding a difficulty setting, how about just unlock the optional objectives AFTER you finished the mission? It wouldn't change anything for the both of us.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 07:23 PM
I'm like that too, but I do the mission the way I want to do it and then I redo it to get full sync.

I don't want to redo an entire mission just to get the sync. when I could have just as easily got it the first time. and I don't want to redo the mission after i got the sync. just to replay it my way but still see that i have a red x on my screen. I want to get everything in the game my first playthrough and still play my way.



I'm just saying, I don't see a true reason to remove it.

I do, however, see why it should be modified. I'll go into more detail when my internet is back and I can use a keyboard.


I'll be interested to see how you would modify it, the thing is they haven't modified it after 3 years (modified it for the better). They have just continued to fall down the rabbit hole and they act like it's a good thing. It's really just causing more problems, so they could cut their losses and go back to a formula people like.

This relates to zhengyingli as well,

What is the point of the sync. system, it's not to reward us with anything since they haven't really given us anything great since ACB. If it's for a challenge, it's not challenging but just pointless and annoying. If they want to actually make the game difficult, and a difficulty setting. Normal being what we already play it on, since what it's on now is super easy. Hard where we take about 8 hits or so and we die. Master and it's 3 hits you die. That's more challenging then what they have now.

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 07:26 PM
I don't want to redo an entire mission just to get the sync. when I could have just as easily got it the first time. and I don't want to redo the mission after i got the sync. just to replay it my way but still see that i have a red x on my screen. I want to get everything in the game my first playthrough and still play my way.
So you would remove something others enjoy to have it your way?

NumberSix1967
11-10-2012, 07:29 PM
I don't think it should be removed, it provides additional challenges to do and can be great. However, they should be locked until you beat the game. Right now, we're going down the story for the first time, trying to enjoy it and be creative and think of ways to complete our missions and we have giant red letters saying "YOU FAILED" and blue letters saying "yeah yeah, you're not bad but THIS is how you should do it". It's distracting and spoiling the game for the first time.

I like this idea. As long as the objectives are relative to the missions/game/story then it's fine. But, as it stands they're more a hindrance simple because say for example you're requested to use the hidden blade to kill a target, you're instantly deferring to a certain path within the mission. What I mean by that is, say you practically can only approach your target from one path (a bush to up a tree, so you can get high enough to use the blade and not get spotted for example) then you are deferring to the 'higher points' of doing things a certain way as opposed to 'the' point of killing your target. Synchs are fin as long as the level and controls don't work against you. If there were multiple ways to use your blade on a target in one or more areas, then fine. But limiting your approach path to just one is limited level design and thus, limited in-game action.

You could just open the synchs up afterwards or have them more wound to the level. Benches, trees, hiding spots are all blade-usable - taking that as an example. But maybe you want to poison one guy, distract a few others, sneak up in bushes, escape on a horse etc...you shouldn't be 'punished' for that by not going in to attack one way. Just get the guy killed and deal with 'the game' later. If anything, synchs can be a bit of a cop out on having a well-designed level. I say 'well', I mean 'challenging'. A challenge isn't just invincible enemies, but that which you can get your teeth into and use your brain to solve.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 07:33 PM
So you would remove something others enjoy to have it your way?

again like i said, what is the point of the sync. system, to provide a challenge?? there are better ways. To provide the gamers with some kind of reward, there hasn't been any rewards in the past 2 years (none that actually matter like ACB had). What they could do is instead, which i've said before, instead of having it in every single mission harming more then helping. They could have a set of side missions that have the same rules (don't get caught, beat these people to this location, and others that actually are useful and enjoyable). But keep them to the side missions, having some missions that limit the gameplay and focus more on the story would be fine. If it wasn't on every mission

edit: also are you saying that you would keep something that others don't enjoy to have it your way? it works both ways my friend

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 07:45 PM
I kept thinking throughout playing AC3 that Ubisoft listened to the fans and it is a lot more difficult than the Ezio trilogy, so that the sync requirements are unnecessary now.

Imo your observation is spot on. Devs did alot of listening to fan input last year & combat's harder. ACR was super easy for even me but some of the most fun missions all around.
The synch's I remember doing so far haven't so much been that much harder, just forcing me to do it another way than I normally would have.
Like the early one w/ Haytham using all the boxes or tents... at least for me, but then there's alot of better gamers out there that need more challenge than I do


. Finally the 2006 version of AC1 was 100x harder then any of the AC games out now :(, that's what I want when i say difficulty An actual challenge if i get into a fight.

of course I think dying in one hit is a bit much but maybe 3 would be perfect.
[cropped]

[cropped] I really never lose any races against the npcs, except for the ACR one because i wasn't paying attention. but once i redid it again i beat them. I think i really liked it because i was running to a location with other assassins :P... are you talking about the mission where you had to chase the hunter girl when she was running from you?

Well,... any chase/race. The only one I had problems w/ in ACR was the actual recruit I had to race. I couldn't follow the bubbled arrows well & sometimes lept off the building or fell or got lost & couldn't find where to go. :nonchalance: Well over 10 times on that one w/ ALOT of cursing. The one that was theeee hardest for me was in ACB - the side mission w/ the female who killed someone & you have to go to that bath house place with all the columns. That was pure hell. You had to get her w/ the blade. SURE. lol
I liked to send in my assassins to wipe out all the guards first & then instead of run around up top, I just followed the arrow from the ground without guards going after me.

Anyways, I'm sure there's some kind of compromise the 2 sides could reach on this - but I would hate to see it completely taken out - just make the sync's reasonable and fun.

As for AC1 - ya one hit is insane... that might be way too impossible.

>>>edit: also are you saying that you would keep something that others don't enjoy to have it your way? it works both ways my friend <<<
But don't forget that it's an *optional* keep for most missions outside what they desynch/penalize you for.
Not mandatory. Removing it is a mandatory on those who enjoy it.

BATISTABUS
11-10-2012, 07:47 PM
What we have now is something that limits our freedom and creativity, something that AC didn't do until they started to milk the series and make the game super easy. They thought that adding a sync. system would make the game more challenging but instead it mainly added an annoying factor to the game rather than difficulty. I don't find the challenges difficult but rather pointless (some aren't though, like the destroy the barrels with explosives and stuff). But they need to find another way, adding a difficulty system would be best, that way they can have a normal difficulty which is what AC is on now. Then a hard, which has 8 hits total and you die, and then a master setting which has 3-4 hits and you die, and guns takes away half your health.
The game became super-easy in AC2.

It's not an annoying feature.

They seem pointless, but you have to go out of your way to do them, which is good. You have to plan your approach differently, put restrictions on yourself, and overall use more strategy. People keep crying about all the freedom and creativity being gone, but honestly, that's crap. Total freedom is what made these games so easy and brainless in the first place; you would just pick the fastest and easiest way to complete an objective, do it, and have no incentive to try things differently. Freedom with restrictions is the way to go, and I'd argue it encourages MORE creativity. It reigns you in, but still lets you do what you want within that objective. I'm tired of everyone complaining about this (IGN), because what the team has done is a good thing.

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 07:56 PM
^ That's exactly what sync does for me in my gameplay & why I prefer it even tho sometimes it causes me serious grief at the same time.
On second playthru's, I don't bother with alot of the syncs & just do my own thing more - some syncs I prefer & try to achieve every time.

zhengyingli
11-10-2012, 07:56 PM
I like this idea. As long as the objectives are relative to the missions/game/story then it's fine. But, as it stands they're more a hindrance simple because say for example you're requested to use the hidden blade to kill a target, you're instantly deferring to a certain path within the mission. What I mean by that is, say you practically can only approach your target from one path (a bush to up a tree, so you can get high enough to use the blade and not get spotted for example) then you are deferring to the 'higher points' of doing things a certain way as opposed to 'the' point of killing your target. Synchs are fin as long as the level and controls don't work against you. If there were multiple ways to use your blade on a target in one or more areas, then fine. But limiting your approach path to just one is limited level design and thus, limited in-game action.

You could just open the synchs up afterwards or have them more wound to the level. Benches, trees, hiding spots are all blade-usable - taking that as an example. But maybe you want to poison one guy, distract a few others, sneak up in bushes, escape on a horse etc...you shouldn't be 'punished' for that by not going in to attack one way. Just get the guy killed and deal with 'the game' later. If anything, synchs can be a bit of a cop out on having a well-designed level. I say 'well', I mean 'challenging'. A challenge isn't just invincible enemies, but that which you can get your teeth into and use your brain to solve.
I think there are standout missions that already applied what you have proposed. The counterfeiter chase scene and the final chase scene. No spoilers. Both of those feature not shoving people as an optional objective. For the former, I ran for God knows how long, and I started to recognize a pattern. Granted, the pattern was forced on you even without the optional objective because he just runs so quickly, but there's a short cut without having to come in close proximity of anyone. As for the latter, keeping close within 50 radius was nonsense until I figure I could divert my path onto the ship, and chase him down that way. All had to do with level design. Just a small question though: Do you dislike trial and error type of challenge which I feel the full sync system as a whole is built upon? Because honestly, I like that type of challenges, while acknowledging the fact that a lot of gamers really don't like trial and error. Nothing against the dissenters.

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 07:58 PM
Proposal for changes to the Sync System

I noticed that some people have problems with the current synchronization system. It limits their freedom, some of the objectives are absurd, and you don’t feel fully rewarded for it. I can’t personally speak on those opinions since I have not played Assassin’s Creed 3 yet, but I have watched the main missions and a couple of the side missions up until the end of Sequence 6. I don’t personally have a huge problem with the way it is done, but I do propose some ideas that I think will make others, and me, happier with the full-sync system.

Don’t show them the first time you play a mission
When you read that you might be going ‘Huh? How does that make sense?’ My idea is that, since the idea behind the full-sync system is that it’s supposed to synchronize you more with the ancestor, is that you shouldn’t know exactly what the ancestor did until after you went through the mission. After you play the mission, you have the opportunity to replay it exactly as the ancestor did. But, you also get the option to replay the mission with no full-sync objectives, and you get to play the mission with the same gear you had before you started it (sort of like a New Game+ mission mode). This will provide more freedom the first time you play the mission, and then unlocking two ways to re-play the memory, which I’ll call No-Sync (no objectives, all gear you currently have) and Full-Sync (objectives, gear you had at the time of mission).

Reward those who complete the objectives with things
Now, instead of being rewarded with things like concept art, I’m thinking of rewarding us with things that make sense in the context of the Animus. Like, if Connor had a journal, for completing it in full-sync we should be rewarded with what Connor wrote in his journal that covered that mission. This idea actually comes from the first Assassin’s Creed, where once you completed a mission you got a paragraph of Altair’s thoughts on what happened in the mission on the sequence screen. Also, once you reach certain total sync increments (let’s say there would be 4-5 in total), you get a special cutscene (or mission) that covers a more secret, personal, and intimate detail of the ancestors life. Sort of like the Christine missions in Brotherhood.

Have the objectives make more sense
Now, I personally do not mind the objectives not making absolute sense. I actually like the idea, as they make you deviate from the path the mission initially presents. Now, I would use optional objectives like that sparingly, but what annoys me is the presence of even more absurd objectives, like: don’t shove people in the crowd when running after your target. Now, that would work if you didn’t automatically shove people in the game, but you do. So I’d say that you should scrap weird objectives like that from the game. Instead, keep with some of the standard ‘Kill target with this weapon’, ‘Don’t be detected’, ‘Don’t Swim’, ‘Don’t run on the rooftops’, ‘don’t touch the ground’ objectives, but evolve them. Maybe instead of having an objective be ‘don’t be detected’, have it say ‘Be Detected by this many guards, but kill those who detect you’, or ‘Knock out all guards who detect you’. Now things like that are cooler to do, and make more sense. Try not to make any of them really frustrating; people prefer the game to be harder by having it harder to defeat enemies, not by it being harder to complete some absurd optional objective. If it takes one of the QA teams pro players more than 5-10 tries to complete, consider changing that objective a bit.

These are just my suggestions on how to make the synchronization system better.

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 08:03 PM
Imo your observation is spot on. Devs did alot of listening to fan input last year & combat's harder. ACR was super easy for even me but some of the most fun missions all around.
The synch's I remember doing so far haven't so much been that much harder, just forcing me to do it another way than I normally would have.
Like the early one w/ Haytham using all the boxes or tents... at least for me, but then there's alot of better gamers out there that need more challenge than I do



Well,... any chase/race. The only one I had problems w/ in ACR was the actual recruit I had to race. I couldn't follow the bubbled arrows well & sometimes lept off the building or fell or got lost & couldn't find where to go. :nonchalance: Well over 10 times on that one w/ ALOT of cursing. The one that was theeee hardest for me was in ACB - the side mission w/ the female who killed someone & you have to go to that bath house place with all the columns. That was pure hell. You had to get her w/ the blade. SURE. lol
I liked to send in my assassins to wipe out all the guards first & then instead of run around up top, I just followed the arrow from the ground without guards going after me.

Anyways, I'm sure there's some kind of compromise the 2 sides could reach on this - but I would hate to see it completely taken out - just make the sync's reasonable and fun.

As for AC1 - ya one hit is insane... that might be way too impossible.

it's sad but i honestly don't remember half of the missions in ACB and ACR anymore. Idk but it's not like AC1, and AC2 for me. Those games were the ones are the ones which i'd remember the most of because i replayed them sooo many times haha

but yea one hit, if you sneeze then you're dead o.O


The game became super-easy in AC2.

It's not an annoying feature.

They seem pointless, but you have to go out of your way to do them, which is good. You have to plan your approach differently, put restrictions on yourself, and overall use more strategy. People keep crying about all the freedom and creativity being gone, but honestly, that's crap. Total freedom is what made these games so easy and brainless in the first place; you would just pick the fastest and easiest way to complete an objective, do it, and have no incentive to try things differently. Freedom with restrictions is the way to go, and I'd argue it encourages MORE creativity. It reigns you in, but still lets you do what you want within that objective. I'm tired of everyone complaining about this (IGN), because what the team has done is a good thing.

Yes AC2 was super easy as well, my seven year old cousin couldn't even die from the guards -.-

But i have to disagree with you there, it appears that a lot of people would now too. The sync. system has become more of an annoyance than something that could be tolerated for the reward of getting interesting rewards (ACB) now you don't get really anything. just a outfit... yay -.-... Idk what you're talking about when plan your approach differently, when the game says i have to kill these people i just kill them. If it says ram my ship into others i do it but it's annoying because why would i want to do that (3 or 4 times) when i could just shoot them all and they would die faster. Or when it says hey destroy the powder kegs on ships, now i have to hurt the ship but not bad enough that it sinks. But just right enough so that it reveals the kegs, that's pointless. I could just destroy them, or if it allowed board them and steal their resources. I wish they allowed that but with the sync. system even if they allowed it you wouldn't be allowed to do that on that mission.

No what made this game easy and brainless was the bad AI, if a seven year old can beat the game and never played a game like AC before then you know that's bad.

Again you are wrong about picking the fastest way to complete the objective, seeing how the fastest way is just run in and kill everyone. I wouldn't do that, i would play the stealthy way, like I always do. That's like saying, "hey I can kill everyone in dishonered so i'm just going to do that". No, I played the game not killing one person, the completely stealth way. My second playthrough was killing people, they didn't say i was doing it wrong but rather rewarded you for playing both ways.

If what the team has done is a good thing then why are more and more people complaining about it? Why are the reviews of the games, both by critics and fans falling. What you say doesn't show the facts of what's actually happening. Maybe when you play a game you pick the easiest way but that doesn't mean everyone does.



Aghh i have to add Jex's comment :P



Proposal for changes to the Sync System

I noticed that some people have problems with the current synchronization system. It limits their freedom, some of the objectives are absurd, and you don’t feel fully rewarded for it. I can’t personally speak on those opinions since I have not played Assassin’s Creed 3 yet, but I have watched the main missions and a couple of the side missions up until the end of Sequence 6. I don’t personally have a huge problem with the way it is done, but I do propose some ideas that I think will make others, and me, happier with the full-sync system.

Don’t show them the first time you play a mission
When you read that you might be going ‘Huh? How does that make sense?’ My idea is that, since the idea behind the full-sync system is that it’s supposed to synchronize you more with the ancestor, is that you shouldn’t know exactly what the ancestor did until after you went through the mission. After you play the mission, you have the opportunity to replay it exactly as the ancestor did. But, you also get the option to replay the mission with no full-sync objectives, and you get to play the mission with the same gear you had before you started it (sort of like a New Game+ mission mode). This will provide more freedom the first time you play the mission, and then unlocking two ways to re-play the memory, which I’ll call No-Sync (no objectives, all gear you currently have) and Full-Sync (objectives, gear you had at the time of mission).

Reward those who complete the objectives with things
Now, instead of being rewarded with things like concept art, I’m thinking of rewarding us with things that make sense in the context of the Animus. Like, if Connor had a journal, for completing it in full-sync we should be rewarded with what Connor wrote in his journal that covered that mission. This idea actually comes from the first Assassin’s Creed, where once you completed a mission you got a paragraph of Altair’s thoughts on what happened in the mission on the sequence screen. Also, once you reach certain total sync increments (let’s say there would be 4-5 in total), you get a special cutscene (or mission) that covers a more secret, personal, and intimate detail of the ancestors life. Sort of like the Christine missions in Brotherhood.

Have the objectives make more sense
Now, I personally do not mind the objectives not making absolute sense. I actually like the idea, as they make you deviate from the path the mission initially presents. Now, I would use optional objectives like that sparingly, but what annoys me is the presence of even more absurd objectives, like: don’t shove people in the crowd when running after your target. Now, that would work if you didn’t automatically shove people in the game, but you do. So I’d say that you should scrap weird objectives like that from the game. Instead, keep with some of the standard ‘Kill target with this weapon’, ‘Don’t be detected’, ‘Don’t Swim’, ‘Don’t run on the rooftops’, ‘don’t touch the ground’ objectives, but evolve them. Maybe instead of having an objective be ‘don’t be detected’, have it say ‘Be Detected by this many guards, but kill those who detect you’, or ‘Knock out all guards who detect you’. Now things like that are cooler to do, and make more sense. Try not to make any of them really frustrating; people prefer the game to be harder by having it harder to defeat enemies, not by it being harder to complete some absurd optional objective. If it takes one of the QA teams pro players more than 5-10 tries to complete, consider changing that objective a bit.

These are just my suggestions on how to make the synchronization system better.


I'm not for the first one, the fact is you are still learning that what ever you did when you finished the mission was wrong. I finished the mission and I didn't kill anyone except the templar, and was never seen even by him/her. But then when i finish it, the game says "Oh you did it wrong, you were suppose to kill 5 guys and 3 of them with killstreaks". Why? my way caused the least amount of damage, and was more challenging (imo the stealth way is more challenging in AC then the killing everything way). Now i have to replay the same thing i was happy to finish, to get everything that I thought i was originally going to get.

Rewards are always a good thing, in ACB the reward was memories of AC2 that you didn't actually see in AC2. Which was nice, seeing Ezio show his respects to his family, and the whole lover thing. :( so sad. ACR had no reward, or if it did it didn't matter and the same with AC3.

this is where it become odd, the do not be detected and don't touch the water, stay on the rooftops and kill with this weapon i'm fine with. As long as the weapon one doesn't change me from wanting to go stealthy, I'm sure you can't assassinate with a gun stealthy. time based ones should go away, the kill these people with this many killstreaks should go. I know it's not hard to do but I remember on one mission, the fort one that was shown (the one that is being attacked by your people while you escape) you had to kill 3 guys in a kill streak. But I jumped down and double assassinated two and then lost my opportunity and had to restart.

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 08:08 PM
Pshh lol, you don't die in one hit in AC1. Guards die in three, you die in 20 at full sync from non Templars.

All AC games are easy.

Jexx21
11-10-2012, 08:11 PM
Also, health regenerates during Combat in AC1.

ProdiGurl
11-10-2012, 08:12 PM
Only issue is there are TONS of synchs... that's alot of rewarding after awhile

DavisP92
11-10-2012, 08:15 PM
Pshh lol, you don't die in one hit in AC1. Guards die in three, you die in 20 at full sync from non Templars.

All AC games are easy.

???? what are you talking about, the one hit thing was the original idea in AC1. Look at the vid i posted a few pages back, Jade Raymond says it and the guy playing the demo dies in one hit.


And yea all AC games are easy, and that is why people have been asking for more of a challenge

I replied to everyone except for this one :P here, in my last message the page before this one :)

Blind2Society
11-11-2012, 12:22 AM
Don't shove anyone on this chase even though you can only run on the ground after your target and can't climb any buildings at all, and oh yeah, when you're running now you'll automatically shove everyone in your way because we took that control option away from you. Yeah, that's a blast. Adding multiple objectives just made it more annoying. And the ones that require you to meet all the objectives on one playthrough are even more maddening.


Funny, that was the one (the last chase) that caused me to write this thread. Though, the frustration with the system had been building since they added it to the series.

LightRey
11-11-2012, 12:34 AM
I don't think it necessarily has to go, but the idea for them to add challenge has always failed and they've tried to push it in this game, which only makes it worse. I think the optional objectives shouldn't be about challenge, but about extra stuff, like killing a specific extra person, saving some people or blowing up a cannon or something, not staying within x meters of someone you're chasing or not bumping into anyone.

Jexx21
11-11-2012, 12:59 AM
Light, can you comment in my thread?

LightRey
11-11-2012, 01:09 AM
Light, can you comment in my thread?
but the OP has so much text D:

Staple-Tape
11-11-2012, 01:30 AM
I had no problem with full sync. On my initial play-through I followed most of the optional objectives. And by most I mean the easy ones. When I finished the main story line, I went back and did all the optional objectives. They were all still easy. Frankly, the only one that had me annoyed was the last privateer mission where you had to destroy the three ships by shooting their powder stores. It took me a while, but eventually I got it.

UrDeviant1
11-11-2012, 01:32 AM
I don't think it necessarily has to go, but the idea for them to add challenge has always failed and they've tried to push it in this game, which only makes it worse. I think the optional objectives shouldn't be about challenge, but about extra stuff, like killing a specific extra person, saving some people or blowing up a cannon or something, not staying within x meters of someone you're chasing or not bumping into anyone.

If they were to replace it with anything i'd want it to be this. Like on the mission where Haytham Infiltrates a Brit camp and has a choice to kill the general and perform corner kills. More things to do with KILLING, less to do with..meh.

zhengyingli
11-11-2012, 01:37 AM
If they were to replace it with anything i'd want it to be this. Like on the mission where Haytham Infiltrates a Brit camp and has a choice to kill the general and perform corner kills. More things to do with KILLING, less to do with..meh.
You mean like DMC, where rankings have to do with the fighting mechanics?

luckyto
11-11-2012, 02:37 AM
It's optional, I have no major problem with it.

Though, I really really wish I didn't a BIG RED "FAILED" on my screen for not meeting them. It's kind of a bummer and takes some of the fun out of it.

Blind2Society
11-11-2012, 03:01 AM
I don't think it necessarily has to go, but the idea for them to add challenge has always failed and they've tried to push it in this game, which only makes it worse. I think the optional objectives shouldn't be about challenge, but about extra stuff, like killing a specific extra person, saving some people or blowing up a cannon or something, not staying within x meters of someone you're chasing or not bumping into anyone.

That's a good point. There actually was one case like that in AC3. Killing the captain of the ship in sequence 12.

DavisP92
11-11-2012, 03:51 AM
I don't think it necessarily has to go, but the idea for them to add challenge has always failed and they've tried to push it in this game, which only makes it worse. I think the optional objectives shouldn't be about challenge, but about extra stuff, like killing a specific extra person, saving some people or blowing up a cannon or something, not staying within x meters of someone you're chasing or not bumping into anyone.

BOOM now we have the answer, that actually was pretty fast. Just remove all objectives and turn them into the ones mentioned by lightrey, that way we won't have to do any of the dumb objectives.

Now on to the difficulty, lightrey you are one for one. Can you go two for two o.O?

Jexx21
11-11-2012, 04:05 AM
..I essentially said the same thing he did on my third point.

But thanks man, you really boost my self confidence. *rollseyes*

DavisP92
11-11-2012, 04:15 AM
..I essentially said the same thing he did on my third point.

But thanks man, you really boost my self confidence. *rollseyes*

lol come on man, don't be like that :(... you'll make me sad too, I'll say that your third point is similar to lightreys (in your proposal) but it also is a bit different. His only states kill extra target, while yours is kill target with a certain weapon which is what I was fighting against. But They were very close, also maybe i just needed sometime away from the computer :P..

Chin up champ :)


edit: I stated why i didn't completely agree with your third point, but I kinda was opening up to the fact that if they change every single optional task and just made them kinda like side missions and that kinda is. Kill this extra guy for this reason, that would be a good alternative.

Jexx21
11-11-2012, 04:23 AM
Er.. I said much more than that, and both Rey and I presumably meant the same thing in the broader sense. Besides that, it was mentioned before I said it anyway.

DavisP92
11-11-2012, 04:31 AM
Er.. I said much more than that, and both Rey and I presumably meant the same thing in the broader sense. Besides that, it was mentioned before I said it anyway.

really, i never saw it before. Although I was only looking at your messages and prodigirl's messages. Unless someone mentioned my name or quoted me :P. But again it could also be the fact that the time away from the computer could have helped as well :P

so now you should be happy :)

edit: re-reading your third point, i have to say I really like your second to last sentence. ". Try not to make any of them really frustrating; people prefer the game to be harder by having it harder to defeat enemies, not by it being harder to complete some absurd optional objective." I wish Ubisoft would see that and take it to heart.

JBO_1885
11-11-2012, 04:31 AM
While in general I have always enjoyed the extra challenge posed by full sync requirements in previous games I feel like the 100% sync objectives in this game have gotten somewhat pointless. For instance I remember a lot of "only kill your target", "do not be detected", and such that make sense in AC2, ACB, and ACR. With this game you get "don't shove or tackle anyone" on a mission where your MAIN objective IS to tackle someone. (I get that they are referring to civilians but still since when does an assassin care about bumping into someone?) Also when they combine two competing objectives like "don't be detected" and "perform an air assassination on a grenadier." Only the most attention grabbing thing you can do next to firing off your gun.

All in all I don't mind them so long as they make sense to the story/character and don't contradict each other.

Death_Angel733
11-11-2012, 04:49 AM
These are optional, not compulsory. If you're talking about going loud rather than being stealthy, of course you'd be desynchronized.

It awards the Altair outfit. It's pretty ugly too, seems poorly rendered. The skirt (I don't know what it's called) is glued to your legs. It looks awkward to wear.

TrueAssassin77
11-11-2012, 04:57 AM
they don't need removed. the need to be re-thought

tho they are optional. they really do break the flow, of a mission. in AC2, i was able to get full sync because all i had to do was adjust to the mission objectives without changing my overall playing style.

in AC3, i have to change my playstyle, just to almsot accomplish the objectives. its really disheartning sometimes.

zhengyingli
11-11-2012, 05:09 AM
they don't need removed. the need to be re-thought

tho they are optional. they really do break the flow, of a mission. in AC2, i was able to get full sync because all i had to do was adjust to the mission objectives without changing my overall playing style.

in AC3, i have to change my playstyle, just to almsot accomplish the objectives. its really disheartning sometimes.

The missions from ACII and on, though has more variety, are pretty restrictive/linear themselves. Is that what you are saying? Because I do agree that the more they improved the variety of the missions, the missions became more linear as more and more full sync requirements are added on. From your pov, it seems that the linearity started in ACII is more than enough to warrant a full sync.

WaReAgLeReBeL
11-11-2012, 05:31 AM
I have to agree with you to a certain extent, while I do not like the interruption of seeing my failure, but some of the missions with out these optional objectives would be way to easy. I also think that some of the OO's (optional objectives) are way to hard, there might be something I am missing but one mission task you with a bayonet-air-assassination, I could never figure out how to climb with gun, and have yet to care enough to find out how to do it. So far with AC3 I have been just as disappointed as I have impressed. But to get back to point I think that there should be a comprise between effort and reward, you should have the ability to take the free roam character down any path you see fit while still keeping the challenge going by rewarding certain actions. I think this is actually what the designers had in mind they just had to repeat the process so much that crap made it in.

Staple-Tape
11-11-2012, 05:54 AM
I have to agree with you to a certain extent, while I do not like the interruption of seeing my failure, but some of the missions with out these optional objectives would be way to easy. I also think that some of the OO's (optional objectives) are way to hard, there might be something I am missing but one mission task you with a bayonet-air-assassination, I could never figure out how to climb with gun, and have yet to care enough to find out how to do it. So far with AC3 I have been just as disappointed as I have impressed. But to get back to point I think that there should be a comprise between effort and reward, you should have the ability to take the free roam character down any path you see fit while still keeping the challenge going by rewarding certain actions. I think this is actually what the designers had in mind they just had to repeat the process so much that crap made it in.


For the bayonet air assassination, find a fence or a slightly elevated surface. You can run up a fence or a stack of boxes and still hold on to the bayonet. If I'm not mistaken, you are talking about the Boston Tea Party mission. Simply grab a bayonet and then stand on the guard rails of the ship next to one of the bridges that connect to the ship. As soon as a red coat get to the bridge, you'll be able to do it.

Ragnarok0130
11-11-2012, 08:35 AM
I agree OP, they often have the most ridiculous requirements for full sync, AC II was perfect regarding sync, then ACB went and detracted from the core game play with sync requirements. What I would like is for us to simply get a mission and then be allowed to accomplish it any way we wish so it's truly an open world game more akin to Mass Effect where our decisions actually matter and affect the game. I hate it when they give you a mission and won't let you use a piece of equipment in your assassin's kit just "because" when it would do the job better - this happens mostly with ranged weapons and happened to me today playing ACR where my throwing knives were not able to be selected.

Also, Ubisoft use some realism, if one of the rules of a mission is to not be detected and I kill a lone guard with a throwing knife I'm not detected, he's dead and didn't raise the alarm and nobody else is around to see the body (which I could hide) - this also goes for notoriety, if everyone who saw the act is dead my notoriety should NOT go up. Give us more freedom and less on rails missions.

rego00123
11-11-2012, 08:37 AM
the only optional objectives a found remotely hard to achieve where due to technical bugs or performance of the game. i have no issues with them as long as they never interfere with the INTENDED way the mission is made to play out.

i think people are forgetting AC is based on "what actually happened" in the games chronology, not what i did caused this affect in the world while playing. its not meant to be a mass effect style game....at least not in the assassins gameplay portions

freddie_1897
11-11-2012, 09:36 AM
i was thinking of something that might make it more interesting. and that is that they give you a difficulty setting and while each setting makes the gameplay and mechanics harder or easier, it should also work like this: easy difficulty=no optional objectives. Normal difficulty= optional objectives which don't penalise you in terms of achieving 100% synch, you have to get at least one of the optional objectives to get 100%. Hard=optional objectives are now compulsory, they are part of the main objective and you will be desynched if you do not achieve it.

i doubt many people will think this is a good system, but i personally think it could work. besides, as long as the missions are good i don't mind replaying them to get the optional objectives so i didn't dislike them

diwas13
11-11-2012, 09:58 AM
I always turn off the in-game UI, HUD, Hints/Clues etc. You want immersion that's how you do it.

misterB2001
11-11-2012, 10:38 AM
I dislike it very much. What should happen, for me, is when you do the original mission, you do it your way, then if/when you complete the game and want to replay missions or go for 100% sync, it gives you the objectives then.

AelxProter
12-03-2012, 08:22 AM
Agree. They added all sorts of idiotic schemes and synchs that require you do restart it in order to complete it

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 08:26 AM
Agree. They added all sorts of idiotic schemes and synchs that require you do restart it in order to complete it
Looks like someone had a hard time

raytrek79
12-03-2012, 08:41 AM
Why not make a separate Master Assassin or something, as someone suggested, mode that has the full sync and all other constraints in it? If you want to play freely switch off the mode, if you want the constraints play in this mode. Best of both worlds, everyone is happy.


I like that idea, a Master Assasin mode that you can turn on and off in the options menu. I am a completionist and a perfectionist so these added difficultly factors to the game make for gameplay value but I see how people may not like them. The Chase Charles Lee mission got a bit irritating trying to 100% it and if you aint as darn good as me it would drive you nuts.

Farlander1991
12-03-2012, 08:43 AM
I like full synch objectives.

In ACI, I got to Sibrand's ship without killing anybody and not being detected, killed Sibrand, and got back to the bureau without, again, getting detected and killing anybody (nobody saw me killing Sibrand). And the only reward that I've got is a feeling of self-appreciation. Which is all fine and dandy, but it would feel so much better if I had optional full synch challenges going on for that particular mission. Which is I like full synch.

That being said, sometimes full synch objectives feel TOO arbitrary. Like, I enjoy them when they're 'assassiny', so to speak. Don't get detected, don't kill a lot of people, try to save the innocents (like, you know, the first two Connor's assassination target missions). Hell, even chase sequence 'stay within 50 meters of the target that's running away' is 'assassiny', because, well, a real Assassin wouldn't get that far from his target. I like those objectives, and they're optional, so if somebody thinks they're too hard - hey, don't complete them.

But then there are totally arbitrary objectives, like 'air assassinate a grenadier'... I've completed it, I'll be honest, but I don't get the point of it. There might have been a point in some other mission, but in that particular one where we need to disable the ships - it didn't make any sense at all. I just think that arbitrary challenges should go into challenge sections, while full synch objectives for mission should be designed to make you feel more like you're an actual assassin when you're completing them.

E-Zekiel
12-03-2012, 08:44 AM
I'm sorry, how are you penalized?
...Yeah, that's what I thought.

Assassin_M
12-03-2012, 08:45 AM
I'm sorry, how are you penalized?
...Yeah, that's what I thought.
The painful, cruel red color that says "FAILED" D:

That`s so hurting ma feelings man D:

raytrek79
12-03-2012, 08:47 AM
The painful, cruel red color that says "FAILED" D:

That`s so hurting ma feelings man D:

Yes, the red X in your constraint circle is just not on, restart.

MasterAssasin84
12-03-2012, 10:49 AM
I have to dissagree masively with this post , since full sync was introduced in brotherhood i have always welcomed it as challenging aspect to Assassins Creed, it gives me satisfaction rather than just wading through the story, i just cannot understand peoples logic moaning about because its optional and you dont have to accept it. 100% sync is there for the more challenging player rather than your typical run and gun noob !!

montagemik
12-03-2012, 12:12 PM
On the whole , in this forum i read a lot about character immersion being important to many people .(supposedly)

And in general , when we all got an armour boost or a life bar extension for accomplishing 100% sync , Again , this seemed to be an accepted part of the AC series .
Now it's completely optional - No loss Or gain for accomplishing 100% - IT seems to be a major issue & going by some peoples comments almost a game ruining experience.

You don't HAVE to agree with the laid out optional objectives , You don't have to see any logic in the constraints these ask for regards mission completion .
You just have to remember . WE are not playing OUR adventure , we are supposed to be reliving the memories exactly how our ancestor accomplished them .
Do i agree with connor air assassinating a Grenadier & would i personally have done the same ?? ..........Hell no - but i'm not connor , i'm just replaying what he Did .
Do i agree with not being detected by a single guard in many AC series missions ?? .........Again NO - I personally would kill any guard that spotted me & often have my own strategy for accomplishing the tasks laid out.
BUT - Apparently THAT ISN'T WHAT OUR ANCESTOR DID ...........So i have the choice - Immerse myself in the way my ancestor achieved his goals OR Ignore the 100% strict objectives & give myself a little more freedom .

But personally - I'll do my best to accomplish missions how the Animus tells me they were done by my ancestor. And i haven't missed any optional objectives throughout the series.
Perfect timing , Chance & pure luck do play some part in many of these 100% objectives. And in reality for the Assassin's to accomplish half the tasks they did in the past as we're shown CHANCE/LUCK Would be more than neccessary - however skilled they were supposed to be.
Understanding logic & reason behind mission structure is irrelevant - Because it's not MY memories or life i'm in control of. I'm simply Choosing to immerse myself in my ancestor's way of doing things. NOT MINE.

So whatever happened to 'character immersion' being important ?? ............It was replaced by butthurt players who weren't getting a big enough pay-off for following the Optional mission objectives.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2012, 12:49 PM
I like that idea, a Master Assasin mode that you can turn on and off in the options menu. I am a completionist and a perfectionist so these added difficultly factors to the game make for gameplay value but I see how people may not like them. The Chase Charles Lee mission got a bit irritating trying to 100% it and if you aint as darn good as me it would drive you nuts.

After the Hickey chase, I've already conceded that I won't be bothering to 100% sync ACIII. I can only imagine how brutal the next chase is going to be !
:(
*edit in* & I agree w/ you Montag - I try my best to synch each mission. I just don't kill myself for failing to get 100%. I also want to enjoy the game. You have to accept that you aren't perfect sometimes. :) Once you miss one, it's alot easier to let more go as you play. I have more fun when I don't obsess on synching by the objectives definitely challenge me to do more than I normally would without them.

>>> http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20120411.419/images/UbiTheme/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by pirate1802 http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20120411.419/images/UbiTheme/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php?p=8691918#post8691918)
Why not make a separate Master Assassin or something, as someone suggested, mode that has the full sync and all other constraints in it? If you want to play freely switch off the mode, if you want the constraints play in this mode. Best of both worlds, everyone is happy.
<<<

That's fine too.

MT4K
12-03-2012, 01:35 PM
I only found 2 missions to be a little annoying to full sync. Those were the naval ones that required you to reveal the "weak points" on enemy ships... ughh Seemed so luck based but i figured it out eventually anyway. Every other mission in the game was rather easy. A few took at most 3 attempts but nothing really frustration worthy.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2012, 01:49 PM
I only found 2 missions to be a little annoying to full sync. Those were the naval ones that required you to reveal the "weak points" on enemy ships... ughh Seemed so luck based but i figured it out eventually anyway. Every other mission in the game was rather easy. A few took at most 3 attempts but nothing really frustration worthy.

You must be a really good gamer to get some of the syncs in just 3 tries. I have to admit that I would have had Hickey on about my 5th try if I had known to click the "b" button to tackle him instead of my A or X button. & Killing that Grenadier on the ship w/ an air assassination took me a LONG time to figure out but I eventually got it. At first when I scoped out the patterns of the guards, I thought there was no earthly way that could be done lol.
Alot of my problem in that challenge was my controls - Connor kept jumping onto everything & I had to hurry up & try to leap off the ship becuz the guard was coming back around & would spot me trying to get into position lol.
(same as the dumping tea mission on the ships - controlling his movements was hard back & forth).

MT4K
12-03-2012, 02:14 PM
You must be a really good gamer to get some of the syncs in just 3 tries. I have to admit that I would have had Hickey on about my 5th try if I had known to click the "b" button to tackle him instead of my A or X button. & Killing that Grenadier on the ship w/ an air assassination took me a LONG time to figure out but I eventually got it. At first when I scoped out the patterns of the guards, I thought there was no earthly way that could be done lol.
Alot of my problem in that challenge was my controls - Connor kept jumping onto everything & I had to hurry up & try to leap off the ship becuz the guard was coming back around & would spot me trying to get into position lol.
(same as the dumping tea mission on the ships - controlling his movements was hard back & forth).

It wasn't my intention to make myself sound like some pro or anything. Sorry if it came across that way.

The hickey chase i believe was altered though so i cannot really judge on that one. Playing the pc version i didn't have the chance to try that mission before the patch made it easier. All i can say is the guy did't make it around the 2nd corner before i caught him and it was rather easy to say the least lol.

The Tea Party was also easy for me, but then i never have much trouble with controlling Connor which might be a reason. He sometimes climbs and jumps on things i don't want him to, but no more than in past games lol.

The air assassinate a grenadier was a little annoying as well, but it was mostly because it would insta alert the guards when i did a dual assassination or an air assassination despite being out of sight of everybody else lol. It annoyed me because the 2 guards i dual assassinated would insta alert everybody else and cause a failure, but when i walked behind them and killed them one at a time it worked flawlessly... That kind of bugged me since they both should have been allowed.

That mission though just requires a bit of patience i found and figuring out who you can kill and when without being spotted. Although on the 2nd boat i only killed 1 guy and just left everybody else lol.

ProdiGurl
12-03-2012, 02:29 PM
It wasn't my intention to make myself sound like some pro or anything. Sorry if it came across that way.

Oh, you didn't come off that way at all - I just notice it more becuz I admire that due to struggling w/ some syncs. Not all of them are brutally difficult.

The hickey chase i believe was altered though so i cannot really judge on that one. Playing the pc version i didn't have the chance to try that mission before the patch made it easier. All i can say is the guy did't make it around the 2nd corner before i caught him and it was rather easy to say the least lol.

The Tea Party was also easy for me, but then i never have much trouble with controlling Connor which might be a reason. He sometimes climbs and jumps on things i don't want him to, but no more than in past games lol.
I seem to have a problem controlling him in tighter areas like ships... lots for him to gravitate towards... crates, ship railings, masts, etc.
& on the tea party one, I was so busy with the guard aspect, that I didn't realize I was supposed to be dumping crates lol
I'm like, 'how long is this mission? hahah
I swear I'm my own worst enemy in missions for failure to hurry up & grasp the entire mission. I frustrate myself :p


The air assassinate a grenadier was a little annoying as well, but it was mostly because it would insta alert the guards when i did a dual assassination or an air assassination despite being out of sight of everybody else lol. It annoyed me because the 2 guards i dual assassinated would insta alert everybody else and cause a failure, but when i walked behind them and killed them one at a time it worked flawlessly... That kind of bugged me since they both should have been allowed.

That mission though just requires a bit of patience i found and figuring out who you can kill and when without being spotted. Although on the 2nd boat i only killed 1 guy and just left everybody else lol
Exactly - it took patience on that one & ditto on the dual assassinate ... the bad thing was that it happened to be a bad mission to take time on as they were blowing away the City & killing innocent people. lol
"just hang on till I air assassinate this guy & then I can stop the cannon fire for you" hahah
The 2nd boat was a breeze - I did the same & just did a ledge assassinate & went right to it. (they at least gave us a break on the 2nd boat's crew).
:)

.

.

UncappedWheel82
12-03-2012, 04:46 PM
the optional objectives should be unlocked after you beat it the first time. It would give you a reason to replay the mission, plus it wouldn't make you feel as though you were a failure, or that you were playing wrong, first time through.

Wh00ster
12-03-2012, 05:03 PM
But they are completely optional...I could understand if ur annoyed by the optional objectives that make no sense and encourage u to do nonsensical things just to make it artificially harder, though

Wh00ster
12-03-2012, 05:06 PM
the optional objectives should be unlocked after you beat it the first time. I would give you a reason to replay the mission, plus it would make you feel as though you were a failure, or that you were playing wrong, first time through.

I found AC:B and AC:R to be much much much more enjoyable in the second playthroughs since I knew what I was doing and didn't have to repeat story missions 10x to figure out how to get full sync :S

ProdiGurl
12-03-2012, 05:12 PM
I found AC:B and AC:R to be much much much more enjoyable in the second playthroughs since I knew what I was doing and didn't have to repeat story missions 10x to figure out how to get full sync :S

Exactly my problem. I put more focus on synching after a first playthru, never my first time thru. Even then I don't obsess about it. Enjoyment is more important to me than tearing my hair out, wanting to whip my controller thru the window.

UncappedWheel82
12-03-2012, 05:53 PM
Exactly my problem. I put more focus on synching after a first playthru, never my first time thru. Even then I don't obsess about it. Enjoyment is more important to me than tearing my hair out, wanting to whip my controller thru the window.

Agreed. The red text that pops up when you fail one of the optional objectives takes you out of the experience; the first time through a scene the games flow gets broken because of it.

TrueAssassin77
12-03-2012, 06:09 PM
new suggested system: there are 3 type of objectives
each fall into a category:
Assassin
Warrior
Mentor

in every mission there are specific optional objectives tailored to each category.

The Assassin ex) stealth kill with hidden-blade, don't be detected, don't take damage, etc
The Warrior ex) achieve a 5 kill streak, counter 3 bad guys. kill with a certain weapon, etc
The Mentor ex) use recruits to lure guards away, call assassins while in conflict, etc

you can complete any combination of the objectives, and it will feed into a certain rating. this rating will change depending on what category objectives you completed the most or the least. ex). you were more of a stealth guy rather than a warrior and leader throughout the entire game. at the end it gives you a unique reward based on that rating. ex) you completed all of the assassin objectives, so you get ??? that has to do with assassins mindset(maybe a suit? new assassin stealth weapon?). you will also get a rank title at the end of the game that varies a lot. ex) you had a mix rating between Assassin and Warrior, you get the title " Hit man"(or something similar). if you are more recruit oriented you may get a new feature to utilize for the recruits at the end of the game. your titles(rank) will vary accordingly. maybe you are a mix between them, but not awesome at them all(by that i mean optional objective wise) you get a ranking like " assassin of all trades"

Wh00ster
12-03-2012, 06:12 PM
new suggested system: there are 3 type of objecives
each fall into a category:
Assassin
Warrior
Mentor

in every mission there are specific optional objectives taliored to each category.

The Assassin ex) stealth kill with hiddenblade, don't be detected, don't take damage, etc
The Warrior ex) achieve a 5 kill streak, counter 3 badguys. kill with a certain weapon, etc
The Mentor ex) use recruits to lure guards away, call assassins while in conflict, etc

you can complete any combination of the objectives, and it will feed into a certain rating. this rating will change depending on what category objectives you completed the most or the least. ex). you were more of a stealth guy rather than a warrior and leader throughout the entire game. at the end it gives you a unique reward based on that rating. ex) you completed all of the assassin objectives, so you get ??? that has to do with assassins mindset(maybe a suit? new assassin stealth weapon?). you will also get a rank title at the end of the game that varies alot. ex) you had a mix rating between Assassin and Warrior, you get the title " Hitman"(or something similar). if you are more recruit oriented you may get a new feature to utilize for the recruits at the end of the game. your titles(rank) will vary accordingly. maybe you are a mx between them, but not awesome at them all(by that i mean optional objective wise) you get a ranking like " assassin of all trades"

im just spewing nonsense aren't I?...
Well I was going to say the optional objectives should focus on making u act more like an assassin (like encouraging u to run from guards and get chased instead of mowing down 20 guards), but that makes a lot of sense from gameplay perspective.

TrueAssassin77
12-03-2012, 06:16 PM
freedom is the true key to every game. restriction is the start of destruction

montagemik
12-03-2012, 06:23 PM
the optional objectives should be unlocked after you beat it the first time. It would give you a reason to replay the mission, plus it wouldn't make you feel as though you were a failure, or that you were playing wrong, first time through.

And by your reasoning - What happens if you'd actually played well enough to accomplish everything it wanted on Your 1st playthrough ?? .......
THEN The game tells you - "Sorry you did everything required - but i wasn't keeping track of those things at the time - WOULD YOU MIND DOING IT ALL AGAIN SO I CAN TICK OFF YOUR OBJECTIVES."

Doesn't that make you feel like YOU JUST WASTED YOUR TIME ???

montagemik
12-03-2012, 06:28 PM
freedom is the true key to every game. restriction is the start of destruction

& IN an open world game Where you play as the main character - THAT logic is fine .................
But this is AC & The concept is You replay existing memories THE WAY YOUR ANCESTOR DID.

Bit late in the series to start playing the "I WANNA DO THIS" Game . You're thinking of GTA , sorry, this is AC.

TrueAssassin77
12-03-2012, 06:34 PM
the synch system was added in ACB to add replay value to the game. that was it's purpose...
i honestly think it failed in that regard, and for the majority of AC gamers it is simply an annoyance, not even worth bothering over, or optional. it also doesn't help that you don't get any significant reward for it. in regards to AC3, the reward is actually contradicting to AC logic and AC lore. in multiplayer storyline it has been hinted that the Templar are researching ways to use the animus to literally change the past. in the nest AC game, i think they should succeed... but only to a slight degree. this would be the proper excuse to why the system is removed from future games. instead it should introduce a new system that i explained on page 12 of this thread. it allows the player to be free to do what he/she wishes without the psychological pressure of the current system

TrueAssassin77
12-03-2012, 06:37 PM
& IN an open world game Where you play as the main character - THAT logic is fine .................
But this is AC & The concept is You replay existing memories THE WAY YOUR ANCESTOR DID.

Bit late in the series to start playing the "I WANNA DO THIS" Game . You're thinking of GTA , sorry, this is AC.

you sure do feel strongly about this.

to bad, AC is a open-world game. where there are 2 main characters...

ShrunkLawyer0
12-03-2012, 06:38 PM
yea but the eavesdropping is a ****ing ***** to do so jumping in the cart is the smarest thing to do

ShrunkLawyer0
12-03-2012, 06:43 PM
that i really like makes you want to go the extra mile

montagemik
12-03-2012, 06:45 PM
the synch system was added in ACB one to add replay value to the game...
i honestly think it failed in that regard, and for the majority of AC gamers it is simply an annoyance, not even worth bothering over, or optional. it also doesn't help that you don't get any significant reward for it. in regards to AC3, the reward is actually contradicting to AC logic and AC lore. in multiplayer storyline it has been hinted that the Templar are researching ways to use the animus to literally change the past. in the nest AC game, i think they should succeed... but only to a slight degree. this would be the proper excuse to why the system is removed from future games. instead it should introduce a new system that i explained on page 12 of this thread. it allows the player to be free to do what he/she wishes without the psychological pressure of the current system

Or the future games disregard the established concept at the core of the series to accomadate the growing number of whiny kids who recently jumped on the AC Popularity bandwagon & WANT - WANT -WANT -WANT ..........................Yeah i realise this - I'm honestly reading very little but that fact.

Let's have tap in cheats too in game that don't affect stats OR let us BUY all weapons & abilities on level 1 with cash in an online store - So we don't have to actually achieve or earn anything .
THE FUTURE SOUNDS AWWWEEESOOOME ! (Can't wait)

Sushiglutton
12-03-2012, 06:50 PM
I thought it made the game more fun. But I'm no that obsessive to get 100%. When I failed to get all objectives sometimes I replayed, sometimes I didn't. Can't see the big deal really. It's a way for Ubi to offer those who want it a little extra challenge, while at the same time not preventing those who don't from progressing.

soulscythe80
12-03-2012, 06:52 PM
I kinda of like the full sync feature. It more of a challenge, it make you think more on how to do the mission. You can use complete the mission without doing the full sync, its not mandatory to do the full sync, but it give you a challenge to do the full sync and makes you a much better assassin's creed player both in the single player and multiplayer. Its just my opinion.

TwoDents
12-03-2012, 10:31 PM
This has probably been said at least 100 times, but nah. They are completely optional. I may be a bit bias, because I enjoyed doing them, save a few frustrating ones.

UncappedWheel82
12-03-2012, 11:49 PM
freedom is the true key to every game. restriction is the start of destruction

Lol! Yeah. Ubisoft should take a page out of the Assassin's Creed and give us freedom, instead of making us follow the rule of those Templar bastards.

Everything [should be] permitted.

Cactiii
12-04-2012, 12:15 AM
What I think would work would be redesigning the flow of the game, to a mix between AC1 and how it is now. There should be a series of general missions which are usually short and have optional objectives, but the final mission should be a very open assassination, with all the info you got from the previous missions available in the menu.

MasterAssasin84
12-04-2012, 12:21 AM
Lol! Yeah. Ubisoft should take a page out of the Assassin's Creed and give us freedom, instead of making us follow the rule of those Templar bastards.

Everything [should be] permitted.


well I would say there is plenty of freedom in AC3 because the 100% sync is optional and I don't see why it's an issue and secondly the side missions are optional , me personally like the flexibility and freedom to play the game at my own pace and do missions at my own accord ! so I would certainly freedom has been totaly embraced in this game.

montagemik
12-04-2012, 12:28 AM
you sure do feel strongly about this.

to bad, AC is a open-world game. where there are 2 main characters...


MMM But not strongly enough to spam the same idea in a few threads - Then post the exact same idea word for word as a separate thread in itself .
Enjoy your future I WANT THIS AC ..............Sounds great really. If you're lucky they may add bullet proof vests or jetpacks too - Only if every objective is achieved of course .
Assassin of all trades = But Master of NONE . sounds like a worthy goal.

TrueAssassin77
12-04-2012, 12:30 AM
MMM But not strongly enough to spam the same idea in a few threads - Then post the exact same idea word for word as a separate thread in itself .
Enjoy your future I WANT THIS AC ..............Sounds great really. If you're lucky they may add bullet proof vests or jetpacks too - Only if every objective is achieved of course .
Assassin of all trades = But Master of NONE . sounds like a worthy goal.

wow. you are such a troll, man lol.

you really feel strongly about this.

UrDeviant1
12-04-2012, 12:46 AM
The concept of the optional objectives are fine. No need to go put In some stupid little accolade system like It's multi-player.

montagemik
12-04-2012, 12:50 AM
wow. you are such a troll, man lol.

you really feel strongly about this.

So someone states the truth - Disagrees with you - Gives their own view , Which somehow instantly equals they're a TROLL ??
Though you can bang on about the prologue for weeks , & Spam your idea in multiple topic threads & that's somehow different .........................OK

Enjoy your jetpack .

TrueAssassin77
12-04-2012, 01:01 AM
So someone states the truth - Disagrees with you - Gives their own view , Which somehow instantly equals they're a TROLL ??
Though you can bang on about the prologue for weeks , & Spam your idea in multiple topic threads & that's somehow different .........................OK

Enjoy your jetpack .

lol.
if you cant see that you are trolling, then maybe you should look in the mirrior and have a long, and deep conversation with yourself regarding your pathetic tendencies and low anger management skills lol.

i don't disagree with anyone. The optional objectives have never bothered me. just posting an interesting idea is all imo. just calm down bro lol.

MasterAssasin84
12-04-2012, 01:14 AM
I want to see full sync in future games because I really love the challenge but I use admit I have seen a few good ideas on here as to how ubi can improve the sync system , I mean after all the game has to evolve and I would to so some sort enhanced or even upgraded elements to the current system .

montagemik
12-04-2012, 01:20 AM
lol.
if you cant see that you are trolling, then maybe you should look in the mirrior and have a long, and deep conversation with yourself regarding your pathetic tendencies and low anger management skills lol.

i don't disagree with anyone. The optional objectives have never bothered me. just posting an interesting idea is all imo. just calm down bro lol.

LOL Even your response isn't original - the whole look in a miiror line - Is from a comment i made in another thread.
"Give me the I WANT version of AC & more rewards " ..... This isn't a free to do what you like type of game & Never was Nor ever should be .
& Ironically you call yourself Trueassassin & claim to be a fan of the series. Yet your fundamental ideas go against the core concept of the game.

Gi1t
12-04-2012, 01:20 AM
What I think would work would be redesigning the flow of the game, to a mix between AC1 and how it is now. There should be a series of general missions which are usually short and have optional objectives, but the final mission should be a very open assassination, with all the info you got from the previous missions available in the menu.

That sounds pretty good, though it might be a lot of work for them, (but shouldn't that be the goal anyway? To put a lot of work into it?) :)

Either way, it's a tough issue in games: Self-imposed difficulty v. Game-imposed difficulty. Sometimes going out of your way to make things tougher can feel a little unsatisfying because know you could just play normally and be very picky about your performance---same result in a way. I don't do three heart runs in Zelda games because it feels that way. However, when I played AC2 I deliberately avoided any upgrades that would increase Ezio's health and that felt natural rather than artificial. I suspect it's because the things that made the game easier were definitely optional You'd go out of your way to get them whereas in Zelda, it feels like going out of your way to avoid the health increase. It's a tough question for some games to answer. How do you measure difficulty/skill in RPGs with all the possible variations of level/stats/synthesized items/skills etc.?

One thing I agree wholeheartedly with the OP about is that games shouldn't verbally complain about anything you do even if it's objectively wrong. (If it's an outright mistake, the player KNOWS that, they don't need the game to ***** at them about it too.) Often, players can come up with solutions that aren't in the game's rulebook and it definitely kneecaps the excitement of doing something cool if the game just whines about it. (This is especially true if it's your first time doing that particular objective or mission.) I didn't mind the existence of the extra objectives in Brotherhood at all, I just didn't like the game complaining when I invented my own solutions. I think their goal was to TELL you what the bonus objectives were, and that's fine. They just need to rewrite them so they're not complaining at the same time.

TrueAssassin77
12-04-2012, 01:36 AM
LOL Even your response isn't original - the whole look in a miiror line - Is from a comment i made in another thread.
"Give me the I WANT version of AC & more rewards " ..... This isn't a free to do what you like type of game & Never was Nor ever should be .
& Ironically you call yourself Trueassassin & claim to be a fan of the series. Yet your fundamental ideas go against the core concept of the game.

lol. get over yourself. i wasn't aware that you even made a response similar to this one. believe it or not, people don't click on threads simply because your name is near the "recent post" link. lol.

the core of the game isn't optional objectives man. just so you know. please just calm down lol.

montagemik
12-04-2012, 01:42 AM
lol. get over yourself. i wasn't aware that you even made a response similar to this one. believe it or not, people don't click on threads simply because your name is near the "recent post" link. lol.

the core of the game isn't optional objectives man. just so you know. please just calm down lol.

The core concept of the game is to relive memories as they were ...........Not replay them how WE WANT . But like i said before trueassassin - The forum is fast becoming a list of I WANTS .
So Enjoy your jetpack in future , wonder how much that hack will cost.

TrueAssassin77
12-04-2012, 01:48 AM
I just love to troll people!!!.


lol. ok man i understand. i see what you are saying lol.

montagemik
12-04-2012, 01:57 AM
Well done kid - post #144 @ 12.48 am pretty much proves my point - Some kids here are only happy here If they Have things how they WANT it . .

TrueAssassin77
12-04-2012, 02:05 AM
"This message is hidden because montagemik is on your ignore list"

sorry man, but the best thing to do with trolls is to ignore tham.

*shakes his head in disgust. turns away from the pathetic spectacle of a man/boy. walks away with dignity and pride.*

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 02:10 AM
Calm down guys

montagemik
12-04-2012, 02:10 AM
LOL Another true assassin post - thouroughly contradicts himself & edits things exactly how he WANTS ..............Beginning to see a pattern . (Erudito the losers option.)

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 02:12 AM
Come on guys Peace..Alright ?

TrueAssassin77
12-04-2012, 02:13 AM
*searches area for the source of the noise. shurgs. continues down the path of pure awesomeness*

ace3001
12-04-2012, 04:12 AM
If I had it my way, the Full Synch options should be mandatory. The way things are now, if we didn't even have these options, the game would be stupid-easy and I couldn't disagree with you more. They're optional, so I don't know how this even affects you. Full Synch was one of the best additions in Brotherhood, as it added some challenge and replay value.Make full synch mandatory and take out the freedom to do stuff the way we want? That is one of the best things about AC. There are several ways to do a mission. I'm actually sad that the possible methods are slowly becoming less and less. So glad that you'll never have your way.


I agree, but only if the optional objectives weren't a compulsory thing. Make them ACTUAL optional objectives, that provide some kind of bonus if completed and don't penalize you in any way if you don't.

Seriously, the whole thing was ridiculous in Brotherhood and got worse and worse.How does it penalize you? You get some reward at the end if you get 100% in everything, but if you don't, there's no "penalizing".
Please don't say "red colour is too harsh". That's just stupid.

Full synch is here to stay, people, and it's going to stay optional.

Commando123987
12-04-2012, 07:51 AM
This got my attention yeah the full sync's got to go

XxFEARLESSEINxX
12-04-2012, 08:05 AM
I've been a hardcore fan of AC since the beginning but was rather upset with the addition of full sync requirements. It has only gotten more and more annoying. There is nothing worse in a game than breaking immersion and killing the flow. Full sync does exactly that. Having to restart over and over because I didn't play a mission exactly how they wanted me to and having to restart to find the one perfect path is just terrible.

Ubisoft made note that they wouldn't keep stuff just because it was there before so why was the worst part of the series kept?

Agree, yae or nay?

It add's a level of difficulty that still keeps the game enjoyable.
I also like it because it adds to the replay value.
I like the feeling of having full completion of the main missions.
It also adds to the story line the point of it isn't to challenge the player it's to do the mission as Connor did it.

Dangerzone50
12-04-2012, 08:42 AM
Another poster mentioned elsewhere that They should just make optional objects where they give you some side task to do... like killing a captain or sabotaging cannons, those are fun and add game play depth. They should loose the ones that tell you how to do something like "dont be detected" or "dont get hit"

ecWarAmp
12-04-2012, 09:48 AM
i liked the optional objectives, that are optional and give you a reward for doing them, being full sync.

Ez_187
12-04-2012, 09:58 AM
The game would be far to easy I think, the Variety of options it gives you to dispatch oponents and stuff, it gives you incentive more than anything to figure out ways to play the mission more like an Assassin, the annoying ones were the Naval missions where the accompanying ships weren't allowed to lose that much health. I think overall it adds to the experience and I always have fun getting perfect sync on the longer missions. I guess the way to fix it would be is to make it not so in your face when you fail an objective.

doogsy91
12-04-2012, 10:31 AM
Although it is better in AC3, I hate the full sync system. An open world game is all about giving the player freedom to go about his/her objectives as he/she wishes. Freedom of expression was one of the key themes promoted by Jade Raymond in the original E3 demo of AC1, yet they've thrown that concept out the window for what is a punishing system. As of Brotherhood, it has seemed to me that these games excel at punishing their players. In Brotherhood we got this and shops that you can't shop at until you buy the freaking things (WTF?!!?!?!). Then in Revelations someone had the bright idea of linking the purchasing of shops to your notoriety metre which then caused the Byzantines to constantly want to retake your dens (den defence -__-)... There's a reason that AC2 is still almost everybody's favourite...

But anyway, if it absolutely must stay, I propose the objectives be changed from freedom restricting constraints such as 'don't swim' or 'don't shove anyone', to proper side objectives, similar to those in Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. In CT, you had things like multiple phones to tap or hidden microphones to recover. It was fantastic and there was no overarching punishment for missing any of them. They could have objectives like 'free the three prisoners' or 'kill the two generals' so you'd be encouraged to actually explore the area in which the memory takes place in order to find them.

This system of piling constraints onto what have now become extremely linear memory sequences is punishing and restrictive and it seems pretty ironic to me given the whole 'struggle for freedom' thing that is a recurring theme in the franchise.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 11:34 AM
This system of piling constraints onto what have now become extremely linear memory sequences is punishing and restrictive and it seems pretty ironic to me given the whole 'struggle for freedom' thing that is a recurring theme in the franchise.
Do you want a written statement at the beginning of the game (Right next to the variety of Cultural backgrounds and Religions statement) That explicitly says "The OPTIONAL 100% Sync Objectives are completely OPTIONAL and were not intended as anything otherwise" ??

Nah...Why bother ?? people still attacked Ubisoft for Anti-British Sentiment, Anti-Christian stances... Yadda......Yadda..

shobhit7777777
12-04-2012, 11:43 AM
Do you want a written statement at the beginning of the game (Right next to the variety of Cultural backgrounds and Religions statement) That explicitly says "The OPTIONAL 100% Sync Objectives are completely OPTIONAL and were not intended as anything otherwise" ??

Nah...Why bother ?? people still attacked Ubisoft for Anti-British Sentiment, Anti-Christian stances... Yadda......Yadda..

Don't be obtuse

He is right. Read what he has written and this time try to comprehend.

Instead of expanding the gameplay experience in meaningful ways the restraints simply make an already super linear game even more banal.

It boggles the mind that someone claiming to be a student of design fails to grasp such things..SMH

Quoting Doogsy's post for the truth


Although it is better in AC3, I hate the full sync system. An open world game is all about giving the player freedom to go about his/her objectives as he/she wishes. Freedom of expression was one of the key themes promoted by Jade Raymond in the original E3 demo of AC1, yet they've thrown that concept out the window for what is a punishing system. As of Brotherhood, it has seemed to me that these games excel at punishing their players. In Brotherhood we got this and shops that you can't shop at until you buy the freaking things (WTF?!!?!?!). Then in Revelations someone had the bright idea of linking the purchasing of shops to your notoriety metre which then caused the Byzantines to constantly want to retake your dens (den defence -__-)... There's a reason that AC2 is still almost everybody's favourite...

But anyway, if it absolutely must stay, I propose the objectives be changed from freedom restricting constraints such as 'don't swim' or 'don't shove anyone', to proper side objectives, similar to those in Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. In CT, you had things like multiple phones to tap or hidden microphones to recover. It was fantastic and there was no overarching punishment for missing any of them. They could have objectives like 'free the three prisoners' or 'kill the two generals' so you'd be encouraged to actually explore the area in which the memory takes place in order to find them.

This system of piling constraints onto what have now become extremely linear memory sequences is punishing and restrictive and it seems pretty ironic to me given the whole 'struggle for freedom' thing that is a recurring theme in the franchise.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 11:48 AM
Don't be obtuse

He is right. Read what he has written and this time try to comprehend.

Instead of expanding the gameplay experience in meaningful ways the restraints simply make an already super linear game even more banal.

It boggles the mind that someone claiming to be a student of design fails to grasp such things..SMH

Quoting Doogsy's post for the truth
It boggles MY mind how you stand by ANYONE criticizing the game. No matter how absurd it may sound..You even stood with IGN...Heck IGN ???? I never claimed that system is perfect...I do not like it and thus COMPLETELY Ignore it..You know....Optional and all...But asking for it to go ?? It`s Bloody Optional !!

Why can`t you grasp this ?? Oh wait...No don't tell me, because you`re probably going to come up with a ridiculous explanation raising yourself above everyone in a manner of "LET ME TEACH YOU, BOY" That`s becoming increasingly annoying lately...

Forgive my "Obtuseness" almighty savior... or dont...... it`s OPTIONAL

MasterAssasin84
12-04-2012, 12:07 PM
I just think that the issue with the Sync requirements is seriously Menial !! it makes no difference to the gameplay and its purely optional - ubi have just added the extra element of challenge should the player decide, why cant people see this, people who constantly moan about these elements are generaly the reason why we get rubish AI in some games.

If people Assassins Creed is too dificult or complex then i suggest moving to a game that fits their style of play.

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 12:11 PM
This is what I think is "absurd" to complain about:

>>As of Brotherhood, it has seemed to me that these games excel at punishing their players. In Brotherhood we got this and shops that you can't shop at until you buy the freaking things (WTF?!!?!?!). <<

That was a form of Liberation - those shops were closed by Templars which was restricting the people which in turn tied into ACB's monetary system - that is where you spend the money that you make. It keeps the game balanced.
Otherwise, way too early in the game, you're loaded with wealth and nothing to buy with it unless you want to skyrocket weapon costs?
We usually expect extreme wealth to happen later in the game, not the beginning.
And that is far from an obscure tactic used in gaming... you have to DO things to EARN things to buy. Maybe that's a lost concept in today's world, I don't know?.

How you consider that "punishing" is beyond me.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 12:14 PM
I just think that the issue with the Sync requirements is seriously Menial !! it makes no difference to the gameplay and its purely optional - ubi have just added the extra element of challenge should the player decide, why cant people see this, people who constantly moan about these elements are generaly the reason why we get rubish AI in some games.

If people Assassins Creed is too dificult or complex then i suggest moving to a game that fits their style of play.
You`re combining 2 different complaints. People want THEIR definition of Challenge...Like...Constant Guards attacking at the same time or......ALIENS...Honestly to them it`s just a matter of preference. The game can be made difficult actually, but it`s not like people try. They want to be spoon fed challenge...THEIR challenge and then...Heh....complain about hand holding..

I know I know..twist my words explaining how I`m wrong and that that`s not what you mean Eh ?? Not aimed at you ghostsniper6...

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 12:16 PM
This is what I think is "absurd" to complain about:

>>As of Brotherhood, it has seemed to me that these games excel at punishing their players. In Brotherhood we got this and shops that you can't shop at until you buy the freaking things (WTF?!!?!?!). <<

That was a form of Liberation - those shops were closed by Templars which was restricting the people which in turn tied into ACB's monetary system - that is where you spend the money that you make. It keeps the game balanced.
Otherwise, way too early in the game, you're loaded with wealth and nothing to buy with it unless you want to skyrocket weapon costs?
We usually expect extreme wealth to happen later in the game, not the beginning.
And that is far from an obscure tactic used in gaming... you have to DO things to EARN things to buy. Maybe that's a lost concept in today's world, I don't know?.

How you consider that "punishing" is beyond me.
Of course it`s punishing....Just like having to spend 7 hours as Haytham,,,,Having to spend 3 sequences until we wear the Assassin outfit....I play this game to kill things...you pit me in a game of hide and seek ?? It`s ridiculous..

shobhit7777777
12-04-2012, 12:20 PM
It boggles MY mind how you stand by ANYONE criticizing the game. No matter how absurd it may sound..You even stood with IGN...Heck IGN ???? I never claimed that system is perfect...I do not like it and thus COMPLETELY Ignore it..You know....Optional and all...But asking for it to go ?? It`s Bloody Optional !!


Just like you standing by anyone praising the game? Or making snarky comments on people who don't?

*sigh*

I standby valid arguments regardless of who made them or if they are critical or not.

See, the thing is that you're not the only one playing -shocking I know- and the other thousands of players are bound to have a different opinion on many things. Some people cannot ignore the very basic red strikethrough an optional objective and it does screw with the experience

People are very quick to enjoy quick positive feedback however small or "pointless" it may be and the opposite also applies. People are quick to get irked by the traditional "WRONG" symbology regardless of its actual impact.
They like to do well to the point of perfection. They respond to rewards. A restrictive condition while completely optional still hampers their enjoyment because at the back of their mind they know they didn't do it perfectly and also thanks to the red cross-outs on the UI
So don't go about asking people to ignore it....or post smart arse comments like you did with Doogsy.

You're a budding designer...it would do you good to understand the above...


Why can`t you grasp this ?? Oh wait...No don't tell me, because you`re probably going to come up with a ridiculous explanation raising yourself above everyone in a manner of "LET ME TEACH YOU, BOY" That`s becoming increasingly annoying lately...

hahaha....I must thank you for providing me such opportunities by posting. You know why I take that tone? Because I AM indeed providing you a lesson....something which may help you understand the other guy/gal's POV and become a better communicator.
Also taking my advice is indeed optional....so...

Doogsy made some very valid and well articulated points, you should have addressed them directly if you disagreed and not gone the way of rhetoric bullcrap that you did

Example:

Forgive my "Obtuseness" almighty savior... or dont...... it`s OPTIONAL

I think someone is hurt or feels attacked..:rolleyes:
I can assure you thats not the case. Stick to debating and I'll never call you out or lecture you. If you make posts like you did simply brushing aside a solid argument..expect me to step in.

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 12:20 PM
I just think that the issue with the Sync requirements is seriously Menial !! it makes no difference to the gameplay and its purely optional - ubi have just added the extra element of challenge should the player decide, why cant people see this, people who constantly moan about these elements are generaly the reason why we get rubish AI in some games.

If people Assassins Creed is too dificult or complex then i suggest moving to a game that fits their style of play.

I guess when AC devs remove ALL our challenge and monetary systems in the game, scale it down to 1 small city or 2 so we don't have to travel too far, give us 5 fully stocked walk-in closets at the Assassin Headquarters & let us design all the missions our own way so we can just walk around & do whatever we want with no structure, we'll finally enjoy the AC title.
*sarc* lol That's a total exaggeration, but honestly, I just browsed thru the past 4 pages and could not believe the complaints & demands on Ubi for every little thing under the sun.
Some legit stuff for sure - - just that it's really hit me this morning what's going on in this forum & with gaming.
I should probly take a break from here if it's going to make my cynical.
But it only makes me wonder what Devs might be thinking if they've been keeping tabs on feedback. :nonchalance:

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 12:27 PM
Oh I`m sorry did someone respond to my post ?? No ? Alright..still waiting.

MasterAssasin84
12-04-2012, 12:37 PM
Oh I`m sorry did someone respond to my post ?? No ? Alright..still waiting.


I see exactly were your coming from but the point i am making is that the Sync system provides a a challenge - i for one dont want to pay £60 for a game that requires the IQ of a 3 year old i like challenge because when achieve the sync requirements it gives me a sense of achievement in the game and makes it more interesting.

Now the people that find this wrong and not to their tastes normaly as you said want to be spoonfed a challenge which totaly defeats the object of the sync system and the people that complain about the difficulty are normaly the reason why developers give us dumb AI .

By the way M i am in work at the moment so apologies if my reply is delayed lol !!

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 12:51 PM
Well ... I see both sides to this issue and I do get it. When I got to the Hickey chase with 'no shoving anyone' and went thru the first run, my jaw dropped.
There is no way I'm going to be able to do that one.... that is unless I try some other route or something that I missed. I do try to complete synch's (more on my 2nd playthru - the first one is riddled with screw up's).
II would like to complete 100% but I really do think that system is too hard in ACIII for moderate gamers like myself. The difference is, I'm ok with it. More mad at myself becuz I'm just not a pro gamer. And that's most likely what people are trying to say about a punishing system. You're made to feel bad if you can't achieve it ??

But like w/ ACB, maybe I'll get better by the time I play once through? When you try harder, you get better at the game.
So I can sort of get people's disappointment. At the same time you have to have difficulty/challenge. So.......
either make difficulty levels or keep synchs.
One thing I would suggest is paying careful attn. to the synch objectives. Make them more realistic to an assassin rather than just reaching for an obscene challenge for the sake of making it harder alone.
?

MasterAssasin84
12-04-2012, 01:00 PM
Well ... I see both sides to this issue and I do get it. When I got to the Hickey chase with 'no shoving anyone' and went thru the first run, my jaw dropped.
There is no way I'm going to be able to do that one.... that is unless I try some other route or something that I missed. I do try to complete synch's (more on my 2nd playthru - the first one is riddled with screw up's).
II would like to complete 100% but I really do think that system is too hard in ACIII for moderate gamers like myself. The difference is, I'm ok with it. More mad at myself becuz I'm just not a pro gamer. And that's most likely what people are trying to say about a punishing system. You're made to feel bad if you can't achieve it ??

But like w/ ACB, maybe I'll get better by the time I play once through? When you try harder, you get better at the game.
So I can sort of get people's disappointment. At the same time you have to have difficulty/challenge. So.......
either make difficulty levels or keep synchs.
One thing I would suggest is paying careful attn. to the synch objectives. Make them more realistic to an assassin rather than just reaching for an obscene challenge for the sake of making it harder alone.
? Actualy I found a solution to that rather than just running through the Market area you can cut him off as he aproaches the exit to the alley which you tend to miss the general public.

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 01:13 PM
Actualy I found a solution to that rather than just running through the Market area you can cut him off as he aproaches the exit to the alley which you tend to miss the general public.

See that's what I'm talking about... the sync forces you to do different things than you would have otherwise without it.
By about the 9th try (after practically losing my voice from yelling lol), I was trying to find alternate pathways than the main one you seem led to take.
Part of my problem is that when I went too close a building or ledge he'd jump onto it & I had to start over.
Pure frustration lol But that's AC. It's always been that way (at least in Ezio's trilogy).
But ya, it does bring you outside the box in gameplay.
Much as I thought the 'air assassinate the Grenadier" was obnoxious to the actual story (you taking longer to try to kill him that way forces more people to die & more damage to the city from the ships) but I managed to do that.

I don't know how difficult or easy it would be for Devs to make synching optional - turn it off or on... but that may be the solution if it doesn't mess up the missions.
After all, some missions HAVE to be pure stealth & that only makes sense. It's a major part of what Assassins do. Remain undetected so you don't draw attn. to what you're doing. Alot of missions have to be structured certain ways and not kill everyone and just kill 1 target discreetly.

One things' for sure, no matter what Devs do, people won't be happy with it lol

MasterAssasin84
12-04-2012, 02:07 PM
See that's what I'm talking about... the sync forces you to do different things than you would have otherwise without it.
By about the 9th try (after practically losing my voice from yelling lol), I was trying to find alternate pathways than the main one you seem led to take.
Part of my problem is that when I went too close a building or ledge he'd jump onto it & I had to start over.
Pure frustration lol But that's AC. It's always been that way (at least in Ezio's trilogy).
But ya, it does bring you outside the box in gameplay.
Much as I thought the 'air assassinate the Grenadier" was obnoxious to the actual story (you taking longer to try to kill him that way forces more people to die & more damage to the city from the ships) but I managed to do that.

I don't know how difficult or easy it would be for Devs to make synching optional - turn it off or on... but that may be the solution if it doesn't mess up the missions.
After all, some missions HAVE to be pure stealth & that only makes sense. It's a major part of what Assassins do. Remain undetected so you don't draw attn. to what you're doing. Alot of missions have to be structured certain ways and not kill everyone and just kill 1 target discreetly.

One things' for sure, no matter what Devs do, people won't be happy with it lol

I am all for keeping it in because you have to use your own inituative rather than just look on screen instructions and routes.

doogsy91
12-04-2012, 02:14 PM
Do you want a written statement at the beginning of the game (Right next to the variety of Cultural backgrounds and Religions statement) That explicitly says "The OPTIONAL 100% Sync Objectives are completely OPTIONAL and were not intended as anything otherwise" ??
Umm no. There's no need to get upset over an opinion that's different to your own.

Another example of ACs of late punishing the player is the new fast-travel system. Having to find a station in the underground network before you can use it is ridiculous. How many people are actually going to do that, even just in one play through? As a result, what should be a system that is there for the sake of convenience has been rendered inaccessible to the vast majority of players. It is in fact, a negative investment of time. Now, M, you can call that a challenge all you like but that's simply not how I see it and it's not how I see any of the other features that I listed previously.


This is what I think is "absurd" to complain about:

>>As of Brotherhood, it has seemed to me that these games excel at punishing their players. In Brotherhood we got this and shops that you can't shop at until you buy the freaking things (WTF?!!?!?!). <<

That was a form of Liberation - those shops were closed by Templars which was restricting the people which in turn tied into ACB's monetary system - that is where you spend the money that you make. It keeps the game balanced.
Otherwise, way too early in the game, you're loaded with wealth and nothing to buy with it unless you want to skyrocket weapon costs?
We usually expect extreme wealth to happen later in the game, not the beginning.
And that is far from an obscure tactic used in gaming... you have to DO things to EARN things to buy. Maybe that's a lost concept in today's world, I don't know?.

How you consider that "punishing" is beyond me.
What is with AC fans and justifying poor game design choices with story elements? You mean to tell me that it's completely logical that every blacksmith, art shop, tailor and bank in Rome was closed by the Templars/Borgia? In Ceseare's 'jewel in the crown' city? Every single bank? Really? mmmmk...

It's something I've noticed a bit of on these boards. For example, one person suggested that the hypersensitivity of the rooftop guards in AC2 compared to AC1 was completely justified by the fact that the Assassin Order had become more well known since 1191. Irrelevant of whether anyone believes the rooftop guards in AC2 were unnecessarily sensitive or not, using said excuse as justification is wrong on multiple levels. Not only does the story element not make sense, but such a trivial and completely subjective plot element should never beget gameplay.

MasterAssasin84
12-04-2012, 02:17 PM
Umm no. There's no need to get upset over an opinion that's different to your own.

Another example of ACs of late punishing the player is the new fast-travel system. Having to find a station in the underground network before you can use it is ridiculous. How many people are actually going to do that, even just in one play through? As a result, what should be a system that is there for the sake of convenience has been rendered inaccessible to the vast majority of players. It is in fact, a negative investment of time. Now, M, you can call that a challenge all you like but that's simply not how I see it and it's not how I see any of the other features that I listed previously.


What is with AC fans and justifying poor game design choices with story elements? You mean to tell me that it's completely logical that every blacksmith, art shop, tailor and bank in Rome was closed by the Templars/Borgia? In Ceseare's 'jewel in the crown' city? Every single bank? Really? mmmmk...

It's something I've noticed a bit of on these boards. For example, one person suggested that the hypersensitivity of the rooftop guards in AC2 compared to AC1 was completely justified by the fact that the Assassin Order had become more well known since 1191. Irrelevant of whether anyone believes the rooftop guards in AC2 were unnecessarily sensitive or not, using said excuse as justification is wrong on multiple levels. Not only does the story element not make sense, but such a trivial and completely subjective plot element should never beget gameplay.

Agreed 100% !! i amean ubisoft have always said that AC games are not intended to be totaly acurate its fiction based around historical fact and people are struggling to grasp the idea, the Templar Plots in the games have been written reflect the core gameplay.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 02:22 PM
People keep saying that Opinion bit "Oh You attack my opinion" Of course I do...People call me fan-boy what the ****.....They don't come under attack for it....

And come to think of it, I really never attacked anything...just said "OPTIONAL"

doogsy91
12-04-2012, 02:26 PM
People keep saying that Opinion bit "Oh You attack my opinion" Of course I do...People call me fan-boy what the ****.....They don't come under attack for it....

And come to think of it, I really never attacked anything...just said "OPTIONAL"
Whatever, man.

shobhit7777777
12-04-2012, 02:31 PM
It's something I've noticed a bit of on these boards. For example, one person suggested that the hypersensitivity of the rooftop guards in AC2 compared to AC1 was completely justified by the fact that the Assassin Order had become more well known since 1191. Irrelevant of whether anyone believes the rooftop guards in AC2 were unnecessarily sensitive or not, using said excuse as justification is wrong on multiple levels. Not only does the story element not make sense, but such a trivial and completely subjective plot element should never beget gameplay.

Its a serious issue here when fans support poor design by justifying everything and defending anything. In the end they are going to end up with a really stagnant and trite game.


I see exactly were your coming from but the point i am making is that the Sync system provides a a challenge - i for one dont want to pay £60 for a game that requires the IQ of a 3 year old i like challenge because when achieve the sync requirements it gives me a sense of achievement in the game and makes it more interesting.

Now the people that find this wrong and not to their tastes normaly as you said want to be spoonfed a challenge which totaly defeats the object of the sync system and the people that complain about the difficulty are normaly the reason why developers give us dumb AI .


A sync system doesn't provide a challenge....it provides an arbitrary condition, a menial task - to force a more tedious approach. You really think that chasing a guy and not pushing anyone is a "challenging" condition? That it somehow elevates the act from a simple physical task to a more cerebral level?

No.

It piles on restrictions on top of an already linear game. This is the absolute pinnacle of bad design.

Also, AI has nothing to do with this. The AI has seen **** all improvement since AC2 and the reason behind the thick as **** AI is not gamers wanting an easy game it is the sheer amount of absolute trite nonsense filling this game up....stuff like the laughable economy, trading, RPG lite nonsense etc.

If you want to point a finger point it as those beloved features which are just stripping away at the core of an AC game.

YOU lot are the "casuals" you so disdainfully mention....people blindly accepting banal features and creaming their pants at the sight of a wolf pelt. AC is THE casual game on the market.

"Is Desmond alive?"
"I hate Connor's haircut"
"I want more Homestead!!"

Jeezus effing Christ.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 02:35 PM
^ And I`m the one bashing Opinions...Right Guys ?? Right ??

Hey, Guys Look I`m right and you`re all wrong....I know better than all of you....Btw, Shobhit...please try and refrain your ego from replying to this

MasterAssasin84
12-04-2012, 02:37 PM
Its a serious issue here when fans support poor design by justifying everything and defending anything. In the end they are going to end up with a really stagnant and trite game.



A sync system doesn't provide a challenge....it provides an arbitrary condition, a menial task - to force a more tedious approach. You really think that chasing a guy and not pushing anyone is a "challenging" condition? That it somehow elevates the act from a simple physical task to a more cerebral level?

No.

It piles on restrictions on top of an already linear game. This is the absolute pinnacle of bad design.

Also, AI has nothing to do with this. The AI has seen **** all improvement since AC2 and the reason behind the thick as **** AI is not gamers wanting an easy game it is the sheer amount of absolute trite nonsense filling this game up....stuff like the laughable economy, trading, RPG lite nonsense etc.

If you want to point a finger point it as those beloved features which are just stripping away at the core of an AC game.

YOU lot are the "casuals" you so disdainfully mention....people blindly accepting banal features and creaming their pants at the sight of a wolf pelt. AC is THE casual game on the market.

"Is Desmond alive?"
"I hate Connor's haircut"
"I want more Homestead!!"

Jeezus effing Christ.

So if does not provide a Challenge then what does it provide ? some of the conditions that you have to work to achieve 100% sync are quite challengung as it forces you to find new ways and different stratagies to achieve your goal i have not moaned once about this game because i feel ubi have done a very good with this game.

To answer you question about Casual gamers i am very much involved with this series and totaly piised off with games that based on run gun and shoot !! i prefer games were you have to use your brain

Suffice to say that your post is borderlining Judgemental .

DavisP92
12-04-2012, 03:12 PM
So if does not provide a Challenge then what does it provide ? some of the conditions that you have to work to achieve 100% sync are quite challengung as it forces you to find new ways and different stratagies to achieve your goal i have not moaned once about this game because i feel ubi have done a very good with this game.

To answer you question about Casual gamers i am very much involved with this series and totaly piised off with games that based on run gun and shoot !! i prefer games were you have to use your brain

Suffice to say that your post is borderlining Judgemental .

I'm sorry but the sync. system is not challenging at all, and if anyone says it is then that is sad. The game is completely easy, from start to finish and that is what sucks about the game. After 5 years of asking for a more challenging game they haven't given us anything. The sync. system does not make me find new ways to do things, I knew I could do them that way anyways or was looking for a different way for my own personal desire. I knew I could just go and catch the guy when he escapes the alleyway, the only things that do make you restart are things that are just stupid. Oh you have to destroy the powder kegs, well seeing how i destroyed the ships already i have to restart and now make sure i don't kill them but harm them enough to kill them.

These restrictions are pointless, and are not what AC was originally about. The game was about letting the player make their own choices, to tackle a task their own way, and perhaps maybe even try a different way if they want to in the next playthrough. Not telling the players this is how you should do it, and if you don't then you won't get 100% sync. So if anyone likes doing everything in the game but wants to do it their own way, like how you used to in the original AC games, well then tough shi*.

And don't act like AC is a game where you have to use your brain, unless your brain is that weak. And I KNOW YOU'RE SMART, if my 9 year old cousin can play AC and beat it then it really isn't making us gamers that have been with the series from the beginning (people in high school and above) use our brains. Unless you think having the intelligence of a 9 year old is using our brain.

The game is too easy, the sync. system provides no real challenge and only restricts those that want to play their own way and still reap the rewards, and the games have been becoming less and less interesting. You could say it's because of the yearly releases, which it could be. But add the lack of any challenge (which reminds me of an article that said gamers today are a bunch of pussie*, and i think it's true now.), and the restrictions of the sync. system which the original AC didn't have which is why i say it is the truest AC and so does Patrice the creator of AC), those three things create a game that will only continue to fall if they keep on going down this path.

Edit: to those that will jump on the word fall, it means not in sales (because they are going for new customers rather than make current ones happy) but rather it means that the series will continue to be seen as a disappointment until it becomes the new COD and doesn't get better.

They should have never focused on pure combat and war, it's an assassin game stealth should be their top priority, not their third or fourth.

montagemik
12-04-2012, 03:26 PM
Its a serious issue here when fans support poor design by justifying everything and defending anything. In the end they are going to end up with a really stagnant and trite game.

A sync system doesn't provide a challenge....it provides an arbitrary condition, a menial task - to force a more tedious approach. You really think that chasing a guy and not pushing anyone is a "challenging" condition? That it somehow elevates the act from a simple physical task to a more cerebral level?

No.

It piles on restrictions on top of an already linear game. This is the absolute pinnacle of bad design.

Also, AI has nothing to do with this. The AI has seen **** all improvement since AC2 and the reason behind the thick as **** AI is not gamers wanting an easy game it is the sheer amount of absolute trite nonsense filling this game up....stuff like the laughable economy, trading, RPG lite nonsense etc.

If you want to point a finger point it as those beloved features which are just stripping away at the core of an AC game.

YOU lot are the "casuals" you so disdainfully mention....people blindly accepting banal features and creaming their pants at the sight of a wolf pelt. AC is THE casual game on the market.

"Is Desmond alive?"
"I hate Connor's haircut"
"I want more Homestead!!"

Jeezus effing Christ.

It's an already LINEAR game !! ................Yes it is , Because the Animus allows us to relive Memories supposedly How they happened.
It's an ANIMUS , Not a Tardis time machine - We can't rewrite memories exactly how we'd like to do them . That's never been AC's game structure .

I keep reading comments in various posts like "It's an open world game & so should allow us to do things with more freedom" . No it's a game set in an interactive world - That's not quite the same thing - WE are reliving preset events from the past - WE are not interacting in present real time .
As soon as we have A modern day set World to participate in & we aren't plugged into the ANIMUS - Then yeah - go for it , demand total freedom & non -linear execution of gameplay.

But as it currently stands - AC is not GTA sandbox - It never was & Never tried or claimed to be that type of game.
It's a little late in the series to start with the "It doesn't make sense to be so linear" OR "we should have free reign to do things our way" arguements.
If these game structure elements bother or frustrate gamers - Then don't buy , follow or continue playing the series.
AC is what it is & always was ...........Like it or not.
Secondary full synch objectives are optional & So is a gamers choice to buy & play a series that has this structure of gameplay.


That's my opinion & take on it , It won't change because i accepted these fundamentals in the original AC game & expected the same throughout it's sequels.
If the games premise is changed for future installments - then i'll re-evaluate it's merits to me as a gamer. .

Other peoples agreement with my views IS (just like the full synch objectives) Purely optional - But not required.

twenty_glyphs
12-04-2012, 04:55 PM
It's an already LINEAR game !! ................Yes it is , Because the Animus allows us to relive Memories supposedly How they happened.
It's an ANIMUS , Not a Tardis time machine - We can't rewrite memories exactly how we'd like to do them . That's never been AC's game structure .

I keep reading comments in various posts like "It's an open world game & so should allow us to do things with more freedom" . No it's a game set in an interactive world - That's not quite the same thing - WE are reliving preset events from the past - WE are not interacting in present real time .
As soon as we have A modern day set World to participate in & we aren't plugged into the ANIMUS - Then yeah - go for it , demand total freedom & non -linear execution of gameplay.

But as it currently stands - AC is not GTA sandbox - It never was & Never tried or claimed to be that type of game.
It's a little late in the series to start with the "It doesn't make sense to be so linear" OR "we should have free reign to do things our way" arguements.
If these game structure elements bother or frustrate gamers - Then don't buy , follow or continue playing the series.
AC is what it is & always was ...........Like it or not.
Secondary full synch objectives are optional & So is a gamers choice to buy & play a series that has this structure of gameplay.


That's my opinion & take on it , It won't change because i accepted these fundamentals in the original AC game & expected the same throughout it's sequels.
If the games premise is changed for future installments - then i'll re-evaluate it's merits to me as a gamer. .

Other peoples agreement with my views IS (just like the full synch objectives) Purely optional - But not required.

So my only option if I don't like a feature of this franchise is to just not buy? So If I like everything else about it but a certain aspect, I should just not buy future games and hope that the drop in sales tells Ubisoft exactly why I'm dissatisfied? Don't you think maybe it's smarter for people to voice their opinions in a place that kind of exists as a place to voice opinions? Maybe by telling Ubisoft exactly what we don't like and giving suggestions for how to improve it we might actually get what we want instead of losing out on all enjoyment from the franchise?

Yes, the concept of the Animus is that you're reliving memories of your ancestor as they happened. But the concept of the games as presented from day one was clearly that you weren't reliving those memories in the exact way they happened. Otherwise you're just watching a movie. The concept was that you were setup within the confines of a memory and could tackle it with some degree of flexibility. Once you got to an important moment, a cutscene would play and show how a certain memory actually played out with dialogue that players wouldn't have the ability to control anyway. Player control and flexibility was always part of the setup, despite the concept of the Animus. The mere fact that the full sync system exists is proof that you're not always experiencing the memory exactly as it happened.

And Assassin's Creed was always touted as a sandbox game with elements of freedom from the beginning. More importantly, it used to be that kind of game. Here's just one quick search result that came up in Google about the first game from Jade Raymond:


Our creative director, Patrice Desilets, talks about this game not as a sandbox game, but as a "flower box" game. [laughs] Which, to him, means it's got the sandbox elements of freedom and the ability to do your objectives how you want and in the order you want, but the strong story element that keeps everything tighter than usual. It's not as disparate as Grand Theft Auto where the story elements only come together a bit. The story here is super important -- every side mission that you have and every investigation brings you a little bit closer to the deep story and that's the thing that pulls you along and keeps you headed in the right direction.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/02/joystiq-interviews-jade-raymond-of-assassins-creed/

The first game did have the "elements of freedom and the ability to do your objectives how you want and in the order you want". That is almost completely gone from this series now. People complained about the repetitive nature of the setup in AC1, but I'm pretty sure no one's complaint was that they could do the investigations in any order they wanted and that the game wasn't linear enough. AC1 clearly intended to let you play missions how you wanted to as long as you accomplished the mission's goal. Otherwise, what was the point of maps of archers and escape paths and other side info? Those elements were merely guides to one fun way to play an assassination mission. The game never shoved them onto the screen to annoy you the entire time. Planning my route and preparing in advance by removing guards and archers is a great example of a fun, optional side objective. AC1 didn't let you know it existed well enough, but I'll take that over the way AC3 shoves arbitrary optional objectives in my face at every opportunity. The time limit objectives cause the list of all optional objectives to display on your screen for an entire mission at times, which is absolutely ridiculous. Even the timed missions in Brotherhood and Revelations only interrupted you with a sound effect when time was running out.

I have played a lot of games, and never have I seen a game pester me to try to tell me exactly how to play at every step of the way like AC3. Even the Lego games, which are completely linear and meant for kids and families, don't pester me and try to hold my hand the way AC3 does. The full sync system is optional, but it's shoved in your face at every moment of the game. You simply can't ignore it. The objectives are arbitrary and frustrating, not challenging and fun. It's obvious it exists as a way to add easy filler to the game. It adds nothing of substance or value to the experience and only serves as a nuisance. That kind of feature should be cut or reworked into a completely new one.

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 05:19 PM
What is with AC fans and justifying poor game design choices with story elements? You mean to tell me that it's completely logical that every blacksmith, art shop, tailor and bank in Rome was closed by the Templars/Borgia? In Ceseare's 'jewel in the crown' city? Every single bank? Really? mmmmk...

It's something I've noticed a bit of on these boards. For example, one person suggested that the hypersensitivity of the rooftop guards in AC2 compared to AC1 was completely justified by the fact that the Assassin Order had become more well known since 1191. Irrelevant of whether anyone believes the rooftop guards in AC2 were unnecessarily sensitive or not, using said excuse as justification is wrong on multiple levels. Not only does the story element not make sense, but such a trivial and completely subjective plot element should never beget gameplay.

Let me ask you this, do you realize you're playing a G A M E? I know that's harshly sarcastic, but please. We're playing GAMES.
Part of what makes them fun, challenging & enjoyable is that we suspend our logical minds to play in another world.
Does AC have to be "logical" in every way? I think it's a little far-fetched to think we can leap off an 800 foot building into a haycart and not only aim & land right in the center of it, but survive it.

They set up Liberation scenarios in each game - in ACB it involved Templars who were oppressing the people. So what?
If you can't suspend your sense of real and fake, then maybe sticking to simulation and strategy games might be a better choice.
Just sayin'

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 05:30 PM
>> I'm sorry but the sync. system is not challenging at all, and if anyone says it is then that is sad. The game is completely easy, from start to finish and that is what sucks about the game.<<

Well sorry, but that's not my personal experience with the game AT ALL. I can get thru the game pretty much fine except for a few challenges along the way that I have to redo a few times over in the mission structure...
but adding the sync DOES make it alot harder for me and other gamers.
Your opinion is solely based on your ability so you cannot speak for me & others. & if me being a more moderate gamer is "sad" in your eyes, then so be it.
I'm just sad then. But reality is what it is and I LOVE gaming despite not being at professional gamer levels like you or others.
Kinda like golfers - not everybody is Tiger Woods.

montagemik
12-04-2012, 05:48 PM
So my only option if I don't like a feature of this franchise is to just not buy? So If I like everything else about it but a certain aspect, I should just not buy future games and hope that the drop in sales tells Ubisoft exactly why I'm dissatisfied? Don't you think maybe it's smarter for people to voice their opinions in a place that kind of exists as a place to voice opinions? Maybe by telling Ubisoft exactly what we don't like and giving suggestions for how to improve it we might actually get what we want instead of losing out on all enjoyment from the franchise?

Yes, the concept of the Animus is that you're reliving memories of your ancestor as they happened. But the concept of the games as presented from day one was clearly that you weren't reliving those memories in the exact way they happened. Otherwise you're just watching a movie. The concept was that you were setup within the confines of a memory and could tackle it with some degree of flexibility. Once you got to an important moment, a cutscene would play and show how a certain memory actually played out with dialogue that players wouldn't have the ability to control anyway. Player control and flexibility was always part of the setup, despite the concept of the Animus. The mere fact that the full sync system exists is proof that you're not always experiencing the memory exactly as it happened.

And Assassin's Creed was always touted as a sandbox game with elements of freedom from the beginning. More importantly, it used to be that kind of game. Here's just one quick search result that came up in Google about the first game from Jade Raymond:



The first game did have the "elements of freedom and the ability to do your objectives how you want and in the order you want". That is almost completely gone from this series now. People complained about the repetitive nature of the setup in AC1, but I'm pretty sure no one's complaint was that they could do the investigations in any order they wanted and that the game wasn't linear enough. AC1 clearly intended to let you play missions how you wanted to as long as you accomplished the mission's goal. Otherwise, what was the point of maps of archers and escape paths and other side info? Those elements were merely guides to one fun way to play an assassination mission. The game never shoved them onto the screen to annoy you the entire time. Planning my route and preparing in advance by removing guards and archers is a great example of a fun, optional side objective. AC1 didn't let you know it existed well enough, but I'll take that over the way AC3 shoves arbitrary optional objectives in my face at every opportunity. The time limit objectives cause the list of all optional objectives to display on your screen for an entire mission at times, which is absolutely ridiculous. Even the timed missions in Brotherhood and Revelations only interrupted you with a sound effect when time was running out.

I have played a lot of games, and never have I seen a game pester me to try to tell me exactly how to play at every step of the way like AC3. Even the Lego games, which are completely linear and meant for kids and families, don't pester me and try to hold my hand the way AC3 does. The full sync system is optional, but it's shoved in your face at every moment of the game. You simply can't ignore it. The objectives are arbitrary and frustrating, not challenging and fun. It's obvious it exists as a way to add easy filler to the game. It adds nothing of substance or value to the experience and only serves as a nuisance. That kind of feature should be cut or reworked into a completely new one.

Your 1st sections Point .......= No , you have the option to continue to buy or don't buy - Play or don't Play ..........OR Just Deal with it the best you can .

The right to Express your opinions in order to inform the game developers what you think ...........= No problem - THERE'S A FEEDBACK THREAD JUST FOR THIS EXACT THING.
And look - right there highlighted in RED is that all too common phrase these days . "WE MIGHT GET WHAT WE WANT" .
WANT !!! the real cause of most of your issues with the current game structure as it is.

Your 2nd sections points ...........= Your developer interview begins by stating this ISN'T an open world sandbox - But 'flowerbox' - ie Something similar . Which it is to some degree.

Animus memory rigidity & Degree of flexibility ..........= Not rigid as you're claiming - WE ARE NOT fixed into only one way of accomplishing missions - They're memories , not open missions for our control - But do we have to attack a fort from only 1 certain angle or means of approach ? = NO - Must we KILL the captains 1st then blow up powder reserves 2nd ? = NO . Are we totally tied to only 1 limited , rigid method of accomplishing these & most elements of the game ? ....= NO .

Again - I'm really sorry people are aggrieved by these longstanding elements & features - But "WHAT YOU WANT" is the only real cause of the problems you find within the game.
Little else has changed within the core gameplay other than things Gamers WANTED to begin with .
But give anyone what they WANT & they soon enough WANT something else.
Which leaves you back at square one with the same options open to you i stated for your first points.

Enjoy Your Animus !! Or get out of the chair.

shobhit7777777
12-04-2012, 05:58 PM
It's an already LINEAR game !! ................Yes it is , Because the Animus allows us to relive Memories supposedly How they happened.
It's an ANIMUS , Not a Tardis time machine - We can't rewrite memories exactly how we'd like to do them . That's never been AC's game structure .


Umm..No. The Animus is an approximation of the memories...not an exact simulation. If that were the case, then not only the devs are doing it wrong but the game would be a severely limited version of Call of Duty where instead of running around we would be moving from THIS rooftop shingle to THAT ladder in the exact same way our ancestor did..otherwise it would've been a desynch.

Now that I've stated why I disagree with you on a purely canonical/narrative logic level...I'd like to shatter any illusions that people may have which harbour the same impressions.

Assassin's Creed's core tenet is freedom..not only in terms of the theme but also the gameplay. What do you think the unprecedented levels of mobility that AC offered implied? Go anywhere climb anything was a major USP of the first game and this inherently has major sandbox connotations. The game also encouraged various routes to assassinate your target...while it still was relatively archaic it focused on the act of assassination- the way you want - combat, stealth or a hybrid.

Coming to AC2 - they expanded on ALL aspects of the core gameplay pillars and made player choice even MORE important than ever before. From luring and distracting guards to all out combat...AC2 was beefed up and DESIGNED as a sandbox game. The progression of player mechanics and the evolution of the mission design is clearly indicative of this growth

ACB and ACR again expanded on the options available...with ACR IMHO really ramping it up. To understand the CORE gameplay of the franchise and what it was designed to do...just take a look at some Borgia tower or Templar Den capture gameplay....that, Sir..is the underlying core of the game
Which is - SANDBOX GAMEPLAY

So you may think that AC is fine as a linear and restrictive game...but the designers at Ubisoft clearly disagree with you. As do I.

Not only is AC marketed as a Sandbox game offering **** ton of variety but it also IS one at the core. The sad part is that AC3 does a horrendous job of getting that point across.


Let me ask you this, do you realize you're playing a G A M E? I know that's harshly sarcastic, but please. We're playing GAMES.
Part of what makes them fun, challenging & enjoyable is that we suspend our logical minds to play in another world.
Does AC have to be "logical" in every way? I think it's a little far-fetched to think we can leap off an 800 foot building into a haycart and not only aim & land right in the center of it, but survive it.

They set up Liberation scenarios in each game - in ACB it involved Templars who were oppressing the people. So what?
If you can't suspend your sense of real and fake, then maybe sticking to simulation and strategy games might be a better choice.
Just sayin'

Prodi_Gurl...I think you're nice and all, and I find your enjoyment of the game really endearing...but..what the **** are you on about?

Doogsy isn't talking about realistic logic being implemented...he is talking about the bat**** crazy and inane stuff the game sometimes uses to justify some boggling design choices....AND also goes onto (rightly IMO) fault the mission design and structure.

TrueAssassin77
12-04-2012, 06:02 PM
Umm..No. The Animus is an approximation of the memories...not an exact simulation. If that were the case, then not only the devs are doing it wrong but the game would be a severely limited version of Call of Duty where instead of running around we would be moving from THIS rooftop shingle to THAT ladder in the exact same way our ancestor did..otherwise it would've been a desynch.

Now that I've stated why I disagree with you on a purely canonical/narrative logic level...I'd like to shatter any illusions that people may have which harbour the same impressions.

Assassin's Creed's core tenet is freedom..not only in terms of the theme but also the gameplay. What do you think the unprecedented levels of mobility that AC offered implied? Go anywhere climb anything was a major USP of the first game and this inherently has major sandbox connotations. The game also encouraged various routes to assassinate your target...while it still was relatively archaic it focused on the act of assassination- the way you want - combat, stealth or a hybrid.

Coming to AC2 - they expanded on ALL aspects of the core gameplay pillars and made player choice even MORE important than ever before. From luring and distracting guards to all out combat...AC2 was beefed up and DESIGNED as a sandbox game. The progression of player mechanics and the evolution of the mission design is clearly indicative of this growth

ACB and ACR again expanded on the options available...with ACR IMHO really ramping it up. To understand the CORE gameplay of the franchise and what it was designed to do...just take a look at some Borgia tower or Templar Den capture gameplay....that, Sir..is the underlying core of the game
Which is - SANDBOX GAMEPLAY

So you may think that AC is fine as a linear and restrictive game...but the designers at Ubisoft clearly disagree with you. As do I.

Not only is AC marketed as a Sandbox game offering **** ton of variety but it also IS one at the core. The sad part is that AC3 does a horrendous job of getting that point across.




finally. someone who understands.

shobhit7777777
12-04-2012, 06:11 PM
Animus memory rigidity & Degree of flexibility ..........= Not rigid as you're claiming - WE ARE NOT fixed into only one way of accomplishing missions - They're memories , not open missions for our control - But do we have to attack a fort from only 1 certain angle or means of approach ? = NO - Must we KILL the captains 1st then blow up powder reserves 2nd ? = NO . Are we totally tied to only 1 limited , rigid method of accomplishing these & most elements of the game ? ....= NO .


Hehehehehe....this reminds again of how the design is sooo confused and schizo

On one hand we have one of the most capable Assassin character with unprecedented levels of interaction options and on the other we have piss poor and restrictive level design added to some even worse mission design.

Do you guys ever wonder how the narrative is biting into brilliant gameplay? How a game should remain a game and NOT stray into B-movie territory? No? Only me? fair enough..carry on.

Before I leave for some Farcry 3 (Shocking that Ubisoft is making a Farcry 3 right next to an AC3 - the amount of emergent experiences is just- breathtaking)
I want to pose this question -

What was more fun:

Going for a scripted and highly linear assassination mission like killing Pitcairn (which BTW was the high point of the assassination missions....which is really saying something)

OR

Attacking a Redneck convoy or party in the woods without the scripted contrivances or attacking a fort in the way YOU deem fit.


TrueAssassin

finally. someone who understands.

I doubt I'm the only one....but I don't doubt that I'm the only vocal one.

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 07:35 PM
Prodi_Gurl...I think you're nice and all, and I find your enjoyment of the game really endearing...but..what the **** are you on about?

Doogsy isn't talking about realistic logic being implemented...he is talking about the bat**** crazy and inane stuff the game sometimes uses to justify some boggling design choices....AND also goes onto (rightly IMO) fault the mission design and structure.

I realize your raging tangent is mission design/structure failure. That was made obvious by your personal insult at anyone who actually likes ACIII & others before it.
I'd apologize to you for actually loving the AC titles, but then it wouldn't be genuine. :o I'll say again that [speaking for myself only] I do have some issues w/ AC, I just happen to love & enjoy it at the same time - it doesn't break the game for me and it's still a joy to play. You don't feel that way, fine.

Anyways, I'm on about his invalid criticism of an element in ACB that actually provided balance to the game's monetary system and was a type of city building (Liberation). He was slowly purchasing Real Estate for the people's freedom from Templar control. What's the problem there?? How is that ruining the game design? :confused:
I'm saying he's unable to just enjoy "the bat**** crazy and inane" stuff becuz he prefers to decide that every element in the game apparently MUST make logical sense to him rather than just accepting 'hey, this doesn't really seem feasible that Templars would have done such a thing, but hey, it's the process for opening up the channels to liberation".

Why play Batman if I have to consider the Joker and all the ridiculous crap he did as good game design. It would be alot more sensible or logical that that he just pulled out a gun and blew my brains out while he held me captive [the 3rd time]. Why go thru all the inane puzzles & hoop jumping games that make little sense. As I see it, it's just as stupid but they're games & it's fun to lose yourself in another world.
That's what I'm going on about - that's how I take his post meaning. You may be projecting a little bit.

ProdiGurl
12-04-2012, 07:46 PM
>>What was more fun:

Going for a scripted and highly linear assassination mission like killing Pitcairn (which BTW was the high point of the assassination missions....which is really saying something)

OR

Attacking a Redneck convoy or party in the woods without the scripted contrivances or attacking a fort in the way YOU deem fit. <<

Both. I like the variety of both. In previous feedback threads last year, I repeatedly requested 'free for all's' - allow us to let loose and get busy assassinating.
It appears to me that they choose to allow that more in side missions.
But think about it, those side missions aren't part of the written STORY - and alot of main missions deal with more stealth with heavily guarded areas, that most assassins wouldn't dare just waltz in from the front gate & play Ninja Samurai & take them all out at the same time.
Of course alot of it is going to be restricted as it goes on with the story and adds depth. Like in Seq 9, where you have to take out 3 guards as you have to try to catch the 2 men's conversation as you hide & try to follow them.
Yes that's going to be scripted.... and I see no problem with it.

I don't want every mission to have to be of my own personal design - I'm also trying to follow their story as it plays out & things happen DURING your mission.

montagemik
12-04-2012, 07:56 PM
>>What was more fun:

Going for a scripted and highly linear assassination mission like killing Pitcairn (which BTW was the high point of the assassination missions....which is really saying something)

OR

Attacking a Redneck convoy or party in the woods without the scripted contrivances or attacking a fort in the way YOU deem fit. <<

Both. I like the variety of both. In previous feedback threads last year, I repeatedly requested 'free for all's' - allow us to let loose and get busy assassinating.
It appears to me that they choose to allow that more in side missions.
But think about it, those side missions aren't part of the written STORY - and alot of main missions deal with more stealth with heavily guarded areas, that most assassins wouldn't dare just waltz in from the front gate & play Ninja Samurai & take them all out at the same time.
Of course alot of it is going to be restricted as it goes on with the story and adds depth. Like in Seq 9, where you have to take out 3 guards as you have to try to catch the 2 men's conversation as you hide & try to follow them.
Yes that's going to be scripted.... and I see no problem with it.

I don't want every mission to have to be of my own personal design - I'm also trying to follow their story as it plays out & things happen DURING your mission.

I'm sorry Prodigurl - But your opinions are deemed VOID - They do not contain the required amount of WANT needed for reasonable consideration.
PLEASE WANT MORE IN FUTURE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. ;)

shobhit7777777
12-04-2012, 08:35 PM
I realize your raging tangent is mission design/structure failure. That was made obvious by your personal insult at anyone who actually likes ACIII & others before it.
I'd apologize to you for actually loving the AC titles, but then it wouldn't be genuine. :o I'll say again that [speaking for myself only] I do have some issues w/ AC, I just happen to love & enjoy it at the same time - it doesn't break the game for me and it's still a joy to play. You don't feel that way, fine.


Don't apologize. I have no problems when people enjoy a game I don't like. I do have problems when every critical thread regardless of tone is met with the same response of dismissal, disrespect and just 0 understanding of what the threat starter or the contributors are talking about.
You haven't seen me pollute any thread which is more positive in nature and heaps praise on the game. The only thing I contribute there is my own personal experience where I genuinely enjoyed the game.
However it does bother me when people, fans of the game, come into threads like these and don't even debate the issues. Twenty glyphs, I and several others have outlined several times some major issues with the game in many of such threads....problems even you agree with....and the response is either snarky comments or outright dismissal.

The attitude here is that of a 2 year old plugging his ears just because something bad is being said about his favourite cartoon.

Instead of understanding the core issues and seeing it without a personal bias...we have argumentative gems like "Its optional".

So no, don't apologize...but please do make an effort to at least understand where the complaints are originating from. Everything here is turned into a battle. "It doesn't bother me..so it shouldn't bother anybody..ergo the person complaining is a negative nancy and a tool" - that is the overall tone of all the AC3 supporters.


Why play Batman if I have to consider the Joker and all the ridiculous crap he did as good game design. It would be alot more sensible or logical that that he just pulled out a gun and blew my brains out while he held me captive [the 3rd time]. Why go thru all the inane puzzles & hoop jumping games that make little sense. As I see it, it's just as stupid but they're games & it's fun to lose yourself in another world.
That's what I'm going on about - that's how I take his post meaning. You may be projecting a little bit.

Because it is done better and keeps in line with the characterizations of the two comic book icons AND doesn't impact gameplay at ALL apart form extending the missions and game time..and an interesting plot to follow...your analogy is off

In AC however these are actual gameplay elements which DIRECTLY affect the gameplay. If the Penguin decides to take a bunch of cops hostage then my core gameplay isn't altered..I'll still be able to play as Batman....however, locking down shops or increasing notoriety just for renovating a shop does impact gameplay directly and visibly.

Personally I'm fine with the locked ACB shops..I'm cool with that. But Notoriety being artificially increased because you bought a little shop selling books in some corner of Istanbul? Yeah you can probably justify it with some narrative convenience and thats OK...but the fact remains that the "reward" for renovating a shop In ACR is basically being driven towards the horrible Den Defence gameplay.

Can you see why Doogsy was not too happy with it? Plus he also talks about the severe restrictions that missions lay down upon us and the very corridor like feeling that this begets. Don't you see that for some of us this is incredibly irksome because such gameplay in a game which has potentially so many options bars us from experimenting....something which ACB and ACR really allowed to the fullest in the series...and why AC3 felt like a disappointment.


>>What was more fun:

Going for a scripted and highly linear assassination mission like killing Pitcairn (which BTW was the high point of the assassination missions....which is really saying something)

OR

Attacking a Redneck convoy or party in the woods without the scripted contrivances or attacking a fort in the way YOU deem fit. <<

Both. I like the variety of both. In previous feedback threads last year, I repeatedly requested 'free for all's' - allow us to let loose and get busy assassinating.
It appears to me that they choose to allow that more in side missions.
But think about it, those side missions aren't part of the written STORY - and alot of main missions deal with more stealth with heavily guarded areas, that most assassins wouldn't dare just waltz in from the front gate & play Ninja Samurai & take them all out at the same time.
Of course alot of it is going to be restricted as it goes on with the story and adds depth. Like in Seq 9, where you have to take out 3 guards as you have to try to catch the 2 men's conversation as you hide & try to follow them.
Yes that's going to be scripted.... and I see no problem with it.

I don't want every mission to have to be of my own personal design - I'm also trying to follow their story as it plays out & things happen DURING your mission.

Its not about a "personal design"

Its about adhering to the most basic principles of the game in the mission. Yeah narrative is important but when do we draw the line? I strongly believe in gameplay over narrative..any and everytime.

For example what about missions like the one where you give a ride to that guy on a horse....wouldn't that have been better as a cutscene or a shorter segment?
If you had to choose between a complete sandbox over the above wouldn't you?

A lot of the narrative exposition could've been done via beautiful cutscenes and a lot of fluffy missions could've been replaced with some fantastic and interesting scenarios where YOU as the player can fully play the way you want utilizing Connor's wide range of abilities.

I urge you to play some old school games like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Deus Ex, Hitman and some new school ones like Dishonored, Thief, Crysis etc. to get a feel of what AC can be and the experiences it can offer just by improving AI and the mission design.

doogsy91
12-05-2012, 10:41 AM
Anyways, I'm on about his invalid criticism of an element in ACB that actually provided balance to the game's monetary system and was a type of city building (Liberation). He was slowly purchasing Real Estate for the people's freedom from Templar control. What's the problem there?? How is that ruining the game design? :confused:
I'm saying he's unable to just enjoy "the bat**** crazy and inane" stuff becuz he prefers to decide that every element in the game apparently MUST make logical sense to him rather than just accepting 'hey, this doesn't really seem feasible that Templars would have done such a thing, but hey, it's the process for opening up the channels to liberation".
Please read properly before you write. I was not criticising the developers' logic for implementing the need to purchase shops in Brotherhood, I was criticising your logic of justifying the system with a story element. Arguing that the systems improves the risk/reward aspect of the economic system is perfectly fine but suggesting that it should be like that because the Templars were in control of the city is not. Regardless of whether the system should or should not have been there, I am of the opinion that such trivial story elements should never inform gameplay.

DavisP92
12-05-2012, 02:38 PM
>> I'm sorry but the sync. system is not challenging at all, and if anyone says it is then that is sad. The game is completely easy, from start to finish and that is what sucks about the game.<<

Well sorry, but that's not my personal experience with the game AT ALL. I can get thru the game pretty much fine except for a few challenges along the way that I have to redo a few times over in the mission structure...
but adding the sync DOES make it alot harder for me and other gamers.
Your opinion is solely based on your ability so you cannot speak for me & others. & if me being a more moderate gamer is "sad" in your eyes, then so be it.
I'm just sad then. But reality is what it is and I LOVE gaming despite not being at professional gamer levels like you or others.
Kinda like golfers - not everybody is Tiger Woods.

I'm guessing you didn't notice the part in my comment that stated there are a few challenges that may have people re-do it but it's not because it is a just challenge or a good one. I gave examples of destroying the 3 ships by the powder kegs even though it is faster and more enjoyable that you would just destroy them by going all out on them. Also there is a mission where you had to ram your ship into others, i thought that was stupid. I beat the mission in a minute or two just by shooting them and then i saw that I failed the requirements because I didn't notice i had to ram them.

From what I've seen, if this game is challenging for you then that means you didn't play many challenging games when you were younger. Even so, this game should be challenging at the beginning and when you continue to play it you get the hang of it and become more skilled. Not start off easy, and finish off even easier.

You shouldn't assume someone is a professional gamer just because they think a game is super easy, I don't really play games anymore, and it's not even close to a priority. I'm just good at games (according to everyone that has seen me play before). But still, even if you aren't as skilled as others, like you said, I believe that if Ubisoft gave you a challenging game that required you to adapt to it. You would, thus becoming more skilled. Play dark souls for a few days, play on the hardest difficulty on every game you play, then come back to AC and it'll be like a walk in a park.

ps. You should quote like everyone else, If possible, that way it would be easier for myself and others to know that you are addressing us

ProdiGurl
12-05-2012, 02:56 PM
I'm guessing you didn't notice the part in my comment that stated there are a few challenges that may have people re-do it but it's not because it is a just challenge or a good one. I gave examples of destroying the 3 ships by the powder kegs even though it is faster and more enjoyable that you would just destroy them by going all out on them. Also there is a mission where you had to ram your ship into others, i thought that was stupid. I beat the mission in a minute or two just by shooting them and then i saw that I failed the requirements because I didn't notice i had to ram them.

From what I've seen, if this game is challenging for you then that means you didn't play many challenging games when you were younger. Even so, this game should be challenging at the beginning and when you continue to play it you get the hang of it and become more skilled. Not start off easy, and finish off even easier.

You shouldn't assume someone is a professional gamer just because they think a game is super easy, I don't really play games anymore, and it's not even close to a priority. I'm just good at games (according to everyone that has seen me play before). But still, even if you aren't as skilled as others, like you said, I believe that if Ubisoft gave you a challenging game that required you to adapt to it. You would, thus becoming more skilled. Play dark souls for a few days, play on the hardest difficulty on every game you play, then come back to AC and it'll be like a walk in a park.

ps. You should quote like everyone else, If possible, that way it would be easier for myself and others to know that you are addressing us

Well I do quote alot it's mostly that I'm having massive connecion problems thru my phone company that forces me to 'wing it' too often - I highlight to multi-quote, lose it and just have to just pull them out separately so I don't double & triple post. It's beyond annoying anymore & I have to call the phone company yet again for the same issues.
Sorry.

I TRY to synch every mission, and since it's hard for me to achieve that and I can't do it with some that's why I said what I said.
Some people do not have as quick a reflex or coordination - it's a physical thing, not just the game mechanics or design.
In RDR, I could not for the life of me complete 1 5 Finger challenge w/ the knife. I'm sure that might be simple for you??
That's not the game's doing, it's completely me.
Some of us have different experiences w/ games I guess.

montagemik
12-05-2012, 04:33 PM
I DID tell you Prodigurl "YOU DO NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF WANT" - This is your 2nd warning . :o

TrueAssassin77
12-05-2012, 04:45 PM
im happy as long as we get more freedom.

DavisP92
12-05-2012, 07:32 PM
Well I do quote alot it's mostly that I'm having massive connecion problems thru my phone company that forces me to 'wing it' too often - I highlight to multi-quote, lose it and just have to just pull them out separately so I don't double & triple post. It's beyond annoying anymore & I have to call the phone company yet again for the same issues.
Sorry.

I TRY to synch every mission, and since it's hard for me to achieve that and I can't do it with some that's why I said what I said.
Some people do not have as quick a reflex or coordination - it's a physical thing, not just the game mechanics or design.
In RDR, I could not for the life of me complete 1 5 Finger challenge w/ the knife. I'm sure that might be simple for you??
That's not the game's doing, it's completely me.
Some of us have different experiences w/ games I guess.

Ah, well that's why i said if possible :), i know that technology can cause problems so you're good. you did it that time and i was quickly able to tell you were addressing me.

Is that the knife game, i'm not quite sure i even tried it. I played it once but idk, if there was an achievement for it then i probably went for it and got it. But those mini-games aren't really the thing i was talking about. I mean the guards should be able to kill us in a few hits, 3-4 hits should do it. They should be smarter, if we walk around with a sword or dagger exposed then they should notice us or follow us. Simple things like this will make the game more challenging rather than the sync. system, which i still wouldn't want even if they added the difficulty aspect to the game. I don't want the game saying hey do it this way, I hated it when I saw they added that in ACB. AC1 and AC2 were about your choice, and immersion (the way you play is the way the assassin did it), not oh well you did it where no one saw you and you even disposed of the body but Connor/Ezio/New Assassin didn't do it that way, instead he just shot him or hanged him.

I want the complete freedom of choice it gave before with no restrictions or limitations, i want to play the game my way, like i used to be able to, while still reaping all the rewards

Raw42
12-09-2012, 03:55 PM
I made a thread about this somewhere else, I'll just copy it here:


Since AC:B, all missions in the games have had secondary objectives which gives you "100% sync" if you complete them. Sure, this system serves a purpose of making the game more replayable, but at the same time the system is flawed in many ways and need some changes. Here are the biggest flaws in my opinion:


The objectives often take away from the game experience rather than adding to it and it discourage creativity. For example (AC:III spoiler) [1] . Sure, you could always to it your way anyways, but then the game kind of slam in your face and say "YOU DID IT WRONG!" when the mission is over.
The objectives are often random and doesn't make any sense. For example: "kill the wolves without using ranged weapons", "Sink the ship by shooting the gun powder" or "don't touch water". Those kind of objectives just feel pointless and annoying and doesn't really contribute to a better experience.
The secondary objectives often hint at what is going to come, and therefor make it expected. For example, if the secondary objective says "kill your target from horseback" then you can obviously expect horses to be around.


These three things could easily be fixed by two really simple fixes: Reveal the objectives after the mission is done and think through the objectives some more. Revealing the objectives after the mission may sound bad, but think about it: it would obviously increase the replay value because you would most likely not achieve the objectives on the first try unless you did so by accident, it wouldn't be spoiling anything or make the player expect anything, and it wouldn't discourage creativity for that first time.

The games have also lately been dumbed down looking at how little stealth is encouraged in the later titles. Looking at AC:I, you were almost certainly screwed if you didn't stealth while in AC:III brutal and open combat is encouraged while stealth is almost discouraged. I'm not saying that you can't stealth in AC:III, I'm just saying that it's almost not even rewarding to do so. On top of that, the games seem to care less and less about the actual creed of the assassins. In AC:I, the tenets of the creed is heavily enforced on the player, they become aware of the ways of the assassins and gets an understanding what the assassins are all about. In AC:III, the tenets are not even referenced to. I understand this is partially because the brotherhood has evolved, and while that is interesting, one of the reasons why I fell in love with the series is because the assassins really had an ideal and creed. They don't kill for no reason, they have a philosophy.

So in order to encourage creativity, stealth and the creed a little more I propose this system:

The player is first introduced to the idea of the assassins creed and the three tenets (stay your flesh from the blade of an innocent, hide in plane sight and never compromise the brotherhood). These tenets will be the guidance for the player as an assassin and to guide him or her towards a successful assassination. For all missions, the game keeps a record of how well you perform on these three tasks and will give you your result at the end of the mission, just like the sync system does. Unlike the sync system, you will not be given any information on how to best kill your target or how to get a better result, it's expected of you *** an assassin to know these tenets (the game will explain how you will achieve a better result, all missions play by those rules). The game will keep track of all you do instead of giving you secondary objectives, and therefor you must be creative to get a better result.

This is how the game would see how well you follow the tenets:


"Stay Your Blade from the Flesh of an Innocent" This tenet discourage the killing of those who doesn't have to die. From what I understand, it's not just civilians, it's everyone aside from the target. In other words, the assassin should try to only kill the target. In other words, the player will score a higher result if they sneak past the guards rather than killing everyone. Not killing civilians is obviously a requirement.
"Hide in Plain Sight" (from the wikia:)Be unseen. The Assassins' aim was to get close to their target stealthily, and escape just as quickly. In more ancient times, Assassins aimed to perform ostentatious, awe-inspiring assassinations, usually in public. The greatest illusion from such an assassination was that the Assassin seemingly materialized from nowhere, killed a corrupt public figure, and vanished into the depths of the crowd or environment.


This part is easy to translate into this system: don't get caught. The less the guards see you, the better result you will reach. The quicker you escape after killing a target, the better result you will reach. Hiding in a crowd will be better than just killing your followers. Killing your target in more creative ways or in public will lead to a better result.


"Never Compromise the Brotherhood" The actions of one must never bring harm to all. If an Assassin failed in his or her duty, and was captured or chased, he or she must never commit any action or say anything that could be tied back to the Brotherhood, or bring harm to any member of it.


By just following this description, it may be difficult to translate into the system, but considering how (AC:I spoiler) [2] , I believe this could be translated into "kill all those (guards) who have noticed you, do not let them tell their officers about you, because that will be a risk for the brotherhood. In other words, if a guard discovers you, kill him, and do not let him alarm others.

(Ubisoft could easily add other factors, but these where just examples)

Now, this system may seem pretty straight forward: kill the target stealthily = profit, but it isn't as straight as that. You will probably often have to face situations where you can risk getting caught but will achieve e.g. an air assassination, or you can go the path with less guards but a less "good" possibility for an assassination. Perhaps your weakness is to sneak past the guards and therefor kill them, but can make up for it by killing them stealthily and making a great assassination of your target. Another player may be the exact opposite. Perhaps you find a path that no other player have thought of, and will therefor get a greater result.
TL;DR: Make the full sync objectives hidden until you complete a mission, make a system that rewards the player for following the three tenets.

Thoughts?


NOTE: This was originally a thread on Reddit. I decided to post it here to reach Ubisoft.
Thread is found here: http://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/14hvwd/following_the_creed_and_how_the_full_sync_system/

ProGamerX56
12-10-2012, 05:28 PM
I think full synch is awesome! It gives you a reason to replay the missions. Think back to Assassin's Creed II, you couldn't replay missions and it got boring. As for Rithirius' comment on this post, it was just a programming error.

I'm on PSN! I play ACB, COD4, CODWAW and Uncharted Drake's Deception

UrDeviant1
12-10-2012, 05:43 PM
If they made the game more challenging In other aspects then I'd be all for getting rid of full sync. But as It stands, they can be somewhat challenging and enjoyable but need to be more rewarding and less (sometimes) tedious and frustrating. One thing I'v never liked In games Is being rewarded with something after i'v finished the game, especially since I tend to go for 100% on my second playthrough.

Give the the optional objectives some context, make them more enjoyable/rewarding, or get rid of them.

Rugterwyper32
12-10-2012, 06:14 PM
I actually enjoy the full sync element, since it gives you the freedom to do things other ways if you ignore it but you'll play as the ancestor supposedly did things when doing that. I just believe that some things need to be changed with it, like making requirements that make sense and aren't frustrating (some of these optional objectives just feel out of place), making them more rewarding and not having them displayed all the time and tell you "HAHA YOU FAILED" if you choose not to do them. Probably make them like the challenges in Hitman Absolution in that sense?