PDA

View Full Version : [Spoilers] Fun but overhyped.... UBI can still salvage this game!



devildog789
11-12-2012, 07:16 AM
First off let me say that I enjoyed this game and the story. I'm surprised at how well they made the setting work, and the new engine is spectacular. However, this game was WAY overhyped at E3 and the slew of gaming expos. ACIII was largely unpolished upon release in my opinion, as well.

As far as being overhyped, all the things promised to us (random encounters, naval free roam, ect.) by ubisoft really made this game stand out from all the other games, as well as being one of the most anticipated games in the last 5 years. To suddenly pull them from the game is a crushing blow that detracts from the replayability which is crucial for a successful game. Now I think everyone will mostly agree with me when I say this, but Red Dead Redemption is probably the BEST open world action/adventure games to ever come out. What made it so successful, was the numerous side quests, random encounters, awesome exploring, numerous outfits, and a world that seemed "alive". When I heard of everything Ubisoft was putting into ACIII, I immediately thought of RDR and had the thinking that I could play this game for months without getting bored (I still put in RDR and can play it for weeks without becoming bored). The point is that there were so many side things to do, that they could probably have taken out the awesome story, and just leave in the side stuff and it'd still make an amazing game. ACIII COULD HAVE been that, if they'd not have yanked all the stuff out before release. The good thing, is there is still a lot of DLC they're adding, and I'm seriously hoping for either unlimited liberation type missions, or all together new, random encounters. That NEEDS to be added, along with naval free roam. Though, if it would just be getting into fights with other ships, that would get boring just as quick as land combat gets. But still, it'll only increase replayability.

The second issue I have, is this game was released largely unpolished. I understand and expect a few First Day Bugs, but these were HUGE bugs that should have been caught in the Alpha/Beta phase. Outfit colors glitching in cutscenes, a lot of clipping, visual glitches in the level designs at certain parts, ect. Hopefully Ubisoft is quick at patch #2, since most of it is aesthetic, it doesn't bother me that much, but still irks me a little bit. Not to mention for me, completely renders the different outfit colors useless to buy. The second thing is frame rate. Now I've been a little lucky to not experience the serious FPS lag like some are having, but I do notice it during the Winter time mostly. Unfortunately, I do realize that is out of their hands to fix.

Basically, this game will be another game that goes on my shelf, unless these two things can get addressed quickly. None of it requires serious script editing or engine tweaking, so I'd imagine it'd be relatively easy for them to throw some of it in a patch or DLC. I expected more out of it when I preordered it, so it did disappoint me a tad bit, but nonetheless, it was a great game.

projectpat06
11-12-2012, 08:26 AM
Pretty much exactly how I feel. I love this game and it's by far the best of the Assassin's Creeds but I was hoping for it be a little more ground breaking. The cities are almost perfect with tons of stuff to do, but after you do all the liberation missions, you don't have any side missions left to use all you recruits' abilities. You also can't upgrade your arsenal completely until around sequence 9 so by the time you have everything you need to be BA, there isn't much left to do. Also, the frontier is stunning and one of the best virtual playgrounds ever created but after a while it begins to feel empty which eventually turns to boredom. Hunting animals and killing small patrols of 6 to 8 soldiers doesn't give you much diversity in terms of gameplay. Bring some random battles in the wheat fields and allow the forts to come under attack after you liberate them. Allow us to ally with one side or the other to accomplish our own goals some how. Endless possibilities

pirate1802
11-12-2012, 08:30 AM
I agree mostly. Those things you mention would have given this game true replayability.

doogsy91
11-12-2012, 10:24 AM
RDR is definitely still the king of the open-world. As well as it has served the series in the past, I think the devs really need to move beyond the current system of viewpoints, NPCs that represent objectives standing in the same spot day and night, rain hail or shine waiting for you and sh!t-tons of collectibles that go on your map as soon as you buy maps from a shop. NPCs representing objectives (such as courier missions) should walk around the cities like every other NPC and maybe even go home at night and there should be fewer collectibles and they should be harder to find. The cities/frontier(s) should be fully visible on your map from the start and if they're going to implement viewpoints, they should be unmarked, meaning you have to discover them yourself, and synching with them will reveal the location of clues that lead to treasure. Just as you examine clues for hunting, you should have to examine clues for treasure hunting. I reckon they should've got rid of the stupid feathers long ago.

Ever since Brotherhood, the maps in these games have become absolutely saturated in icons. Not only does this make the maps harder to read but they're slow to load and in a game as reliant on constantly referring to the map (sometimes every 20 seconds or so) as this, it becomes really annoying. The devs should be trying to reduce the relience on the map and random events would definitely help with this.

Also, just as hunting or pickpocketing attracts the respective societies' ranking systems, so too should your actions affect what random events happen to you. For example, if you're a proficient pickpocket, thieves will approach you asking for your participation in thefts etc for which you'll be rewarded.

Ever since Brotherhood, these games have been directed towards the seriously OCD completionist. As mentioned, even once you finishing all the missions in RDR, there is still plenty to do in gameworld, but not so with AC. AC feels much more calculated and binary code if you know what I mean. Either you haven't completed an objective, and it will remain constantly in the exact same point on your map indefinitely, or you have and you get to tick it off and get a nice 0.1% of synch added to your synch bar. Not so with RDR, which just keep organically generating events to keep the world feeling alive. So, all in all, RDR just feels so much more organic.

Legendz54
11-12-2012, 10:32 AM
RDR is great but some gameplay aspects in AC3 surpass it such as interactions with the rocks mountains and trees, Animals are inferior because of the QTE but still an awesome addition.

ProdiGurl
11-12-2012, 11:19 AM
RDR is definitely still the king of the open-world. As well as it has served the series in the past, I think the devs really need to move beyond the current system of viewpoints, NPCs that represent objectives standing in the same spot day and night, rain hail or shine waiting for you and sh!t-tons of collectibles that go on your map as soon as you buy maps from a shop. NPCs representing objectives (such as courier missions) should walk around the cities like every other NPC and maybe even go home at night and there should be fewer collectibles and they should be harder to find. The cities/frontier(s) should be fully visible on your map from the start and if they're going to implement viewpoints, they should be unmarked, meaning you have to discover them yourself, and synching with them will reveal the location of clues that lead to treasure. Just as you examine clues for hunting, you should have to examine clues for treasure hunting. I reckon they should've got rid of the stupid feathers long ago.

Ever since Brotherhood, the maps in these games have become absolutely saturated in icons. Not only does this make the maps harder to read but they're slow to load and in a game as reliant on constantly referring to the map (sometimes every 20 seconds or so) as this, it becomes really annoying. The devs should be trying to reduce the relience on the map and random events would definitely help with this.

Also, just as hunting or pickpocketing attracts the respective societies' ranking systems, so too should your actions affect what random events happen to you. For example, if you're a proficient pickpocket, thieves will approach you asking for your participation in thefts etc for which you'll be rewarded.


The one thing I can't agree with is having to find Viewpoints on our own. What a tedious chore that would end up being to clear your map. Just something that consumes time for the sake of taking longer.

Anything in an AC game that would bring more RPG into it (relating to our character) the better. Causes & effects - negative & positive.
Just as long as we aren't penalized for every little thing - that gets old too. Dishonored is a good example of how not to penalize us for using our skills & weapons to kill enemies.

doogsy91
11-12-2012, 12:32 PM
The one thing I can't agree with is having to find Viewpoints on our own. What a tedious chore that would end up being to clear your map. Just something that consumes time for the sake of taking longer.

Anything in an AC game that would bring more RPG into it (relating to our character) the better. Causes & effects - negative & positive.
Just as long as we aren't penalized for every little thing - that gets old too. Dishonored is a good example of how not to penalize us for using our skills & weapons to kill enemies.
What I meant was that your map would not require clearing, you know, like in pretty much every other game ever. Viewpoints would be used only for finding clues for treasure hunting (which would replace chests, feathers, almanacs etc). So essentially, you find a viewpoint (which should be pretty simple (just look for the eagles)) and then clues appear on your map which will in turn lead to more clues regarding the whereabouts of hidden treasure.

ProdiGurl
11-12-2012, 02:22 PM
What I meant was that your map would not require clearing, you know, like in pretty much every other game ever. Viewpoints would be used only for finding clues for treasure hunting (which would replace chests, feathers, almanacs etc). So essentially, you find a viewpoint (which should be pretty simple (just look for the eagles)) and then clues appear on your map which will in turn lead to more clues regarding the whereabouts of hidden treasure.

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying - ya that makes alot more sense. I really do like the viewpoint concept but some changes like that might be good.

M413FIK-E
11-12-2012, 03:54 PM
I completely agree with this thread. We need random encounters, unlimited assassination contracts similar to RDR bountys, and forts getting attacked randomly is a brilliant idea. I was expecting those features to be in the game and now that I finished the game and did all of the side quests I have nothing to do which disappoints me greatly. Don't get me wrong I love this game but this should have been added into the game as it adds re-playability and causes more people to keep the game and not sell it or trade it in. UBI SOFT if you are reading this please try to patch this in or make some kind of DLC, I would actually buy it. I am also having wishful thinking that UBI probably saved all of that content for the King Washington DLC, and if they did I will buy the season pass right NOW!!!

hyatari
11-12-2012, 03:57 PM
RDR is great but some gameplay aspects in AC3 surpass it such as interactions with the rocks mountains and trees.

I lol'd.

hyatari
11-12-2012, 03:58 PM
And listen, folks; this game was a cash in. Re-playability was wayyyyy down their list of priorities.

LinkAndLoad
11-12-2012, 04:43 PM
I feel the same way O.P.
Although maybe I expected to much out of this.

devildog789
11-12-2012, 06:08 PM
I think we all were disappointed in some way with this game. I don't think any of us "expected too much". That's why I say this game was WAY overhyped. I mean even the devs compared and mentioned RDR during E3 and interviews and what not. The one thing I like in Open World game and something RDR got right, was tasks and quests that didn't make you feel like a BA gunslinger. Breaking horses, a better hunting experience, being able to interact with every NPC, the list goes on. The point is Ubi could have put tasks in this game that had nothing to do with being an assassin. Now I know the game is called Assassin's Creed, but still. It only helps immersivness.

Oh and I know this game isn't RDR, but when this game was hyped with all these features, random events, immersive world, living breathing world, ect, I started thinking about RDR. I always thought this game would win GOTY easy, but now I have second thoughts about that.

playassassins1
11-12-2012, 06:18 PM
And listen, folks; this game was a cash in. Re-playability was wayyyyy down their list of priorities.


Why are you even here -_-. The only thing you do is complain.:nonchalance:

pirate1802
11-12-2012, 06:26 PM
Why are you even here -_-. The only thing you do is complain.:nonchalance:

And no one ever replies to him xD

freddie_1897
11-12-2012, 06:31 PM
wouldn't it have been awesome if at the end, without giving away any spoilers, you were given the choice to do one or the other (if you've played the end you'll know what i mean) and it counted what percentage of people who played the end chose option a or option b. and the one with the higher percentage at the end of say, 3 months, was the one they used to continue the AC games with?

pirate1802
11-12-2012, 06:33 PM
But it would have pretty much frakked up the writer's plans. I guess they have the story planned ahead, they'll have to throw all that in the bin.

LinkAndLoad
11-12-2012, 06:45 PM
wouldn't it have been awesome if at the end, without giving away any spoilers, you were given the choice to do one or the other (if you've played the end you'll know what i mean) and it counted what percentage of people who played the end chose option a or option b. and the one with the higher percentage at the end of say, 3 months, was the one they used to continue the AC games with?

SPOILER ALERT










Yeah, I have said that somewhere already before. I mean if Ubi aint going to tell us if Earth is saved. Let us make the choice between Juno and Minerva.

devildog789
11-12-2012, 06:53 PM
wouldn't it have been awesome if at the end, without giving away any spoilers, you were given the choice to do one or the other (if you've played the end you'll know what i mean) and it counted what percentage of people who played the end chose option a or option b. and the one with the higher percentage at the end of say, 3 months, was the one they used to continue the AC games with?

But I don't see how that would have worked. I mean one would have saved the world, the other would have done nothing, and the world would be destroyed in like 60 seconds.

CalgaryJay
11-12-2012, 06:56 PM
RDR is great but some gameplay aspects in AC3 surpass it such as interactions with the rocks mountains and trees, Animals are inferior because of the QTE but still an awesome addition.

Which is too bad, because they look and act much better & more natural in AC3 than they ever did in RDR. But yes the QTE's for predators holds it back from surpassing RDR in that regard.

In RDR, when hunting in Tall Trees, I was always on edge, listening to every sound, paranoid I'd get sideswiped by a cougar or bear. I never have that feeling in AC3 when I'm in predator country because of the way too easy QTE's, which is a shame.

Don't get me wrong, I love hunting in this game and have spent way too much time stalking/murdering animals from the trees. But I can't help to think how much better it'd be without those dang QTE's.

CalgaryJay
11-12-2012, 06:57 PM
RDR is great but some gameplay aspects in AC3 surpass it such as interactions with the rocks mountains and trees, Animals are inferior because of the QTE but still an awesome addition.

Which is too bad, because they look and act much better & more natural in AC3 than they ever did in RDR. But yes the QTE's for predators holds it back from surpassing RDR in that regard.

In RDR, when hunting in Tall Trees, I was always on edge, listening to every sound, paranoid I'd get sideswiped by a cougar or bear. I never have that feeling in AC3 when I'm in predator country because of the way too easy QTE's, which is a shame.

Don't get me wrong, I love hunting in this game and have spent way too much time stalking/murdering animals from the trees & shrubs. But I can't help to think how much better it'd be without those dang QTE's.

devildog789
11-12-2012, 07:04 PM
Which is too bad, because they look and act much better & more natural in AC3 than they ever did in RDR. But yes the QTE's for predators holds it back from surpassing RDR in that regard.

In RDR, when hunting in Tall Trees, I was always on edge, listening to every sound, paranoid I'd get sideswiped by a cougar or bear. I never have that feeling in AC3 when I'm in predator country because of the way too easy QTE's, which is a shame.

Don't get me wrong, I love hunting in this game and have spent way too much time stalking/murdering animals from the trees & shrubs. But I can't help to think how much better it'd be without those dang QTE's.

Exactly. I was always paranoid in Tall Trees. Every time you went up there, you almost certainly would get blindsided by a bear. That same feeling doesn't happen in this game. I know for a fact that ACIII devs compared the hunting in RDR yo what they were trying to do.

machetefight
11-12-2012, 07:07 PM
Definitely overhyped (and overpriced). I don't get how other fans can't see how all these bugs in AC3 overshadows the "awesomeness" of Connor and the new gameplay, etc. seriously what other game in the history of ga ing releases a patch to fix 44 bugs? And there's still a tonne more. Ubi were ambitious with the final of this "trilogy" however failed with the quality control department. It's like they almost didn't even test it.

One step forward, two leaps back.

devildog789
11-12-2012, 07:46 PM
Definitely overhyped (and overpriced). I don't get how other fans can't see how all these bugs in AC3 overshadows the "awesomeness" of Connor and the new gameplay, etc. seriously what other game in the history of ga ing releases a patch to fix 44 bugs? And there's still a tonne more. Ubi were ambitious with the final of this "trilogy" however failed with the quality control department. It's like they almost didn't even test it.

One step forward, two leaps back.

I feel like this was nothing more than one of the annual sequels they've been putting out. ACIII doesn't deserve to be put up with the likes of AC & ACII. It was fun, but nothing more than like a Brotherhood or Revelations.

freddie_1897
11-12-2012, 07:49 PM
I feel like this was nothing more than one of the annual sequels they've been putting out. ACIII doesn't deserve to be put up with the likes of AC & ACII. It was fun, but nothing more than like a Brotherhood or Revelations.
it was certainly more than a brotherhood or revelations. it's added a ton of new features. it may not be as good as AC2 but its certainly not like the last two games

scotland124
11-12-2012, 09:03 PM
First off let me say that I enjoyed this game and the story. I'm surprised at how well they made the setting work, and the new engine is spectacular. However, this game was WAY overhyped at E3 and the slew of gaming expos. ACIII was largely unpolished upon release in my opinion, as well.

As far as being overhyped, all the things promised to us (random encounters, naval free roam, ect.) by ubisoft really made this game stand out from all the other games, as well as being one of the most anticipated games in the last 5 years. To suddenly pull them from the game is a crushing blow that detracts from the replayability which is crucial for a successful game. Now I think everyone will mostly agree with me when I say this, but Red Dead Redemption is probably the BEST open world action/adventure games to ever come out. What made it so successful, was the numerous side quests, random encounters, awesome exploring, numerous outfits, and a world that seemed "alive". When I heard of everything Ubisoft was putting into ACIII, I immediately thought of RDR and had the thinking that I could play this game for months without getting bored (I still put in RDR and can play it for weeks without becoming bored). The point is that there were so many side things to do, that they could probably have taken out the awesome story, and just leave in the side stuff and it'd still make an amazing game. ACIII COULD HAVE been that, if they'd not have yanked all the stuff out before release. The good thing, is there is still a lot of DLC they're adding, and I'm seriously hoping for either unlimited liberation type missions, or all together new, random encounters. That NEEDS to be added, along with naval free roam. Though, if it would just be getting into fights with other ships, that would get boring just as quick as land combat gets. But still, it'll only increase replayability.

The second issue I have, is this game was released largely unpolished. I understand and expect a few First Day Bugs, but these were HUGE bugs that should have been caught in the Alpha/Beta phase. Outfit colors glitching in cutscenes, a lot of clipping, visual glitches in the level designs at certain parts, ect. Hopefully Ubisoft is quick at patch #2, since most of it is aesthetic, it doesn't bother me that much, but still irks me a little bit. Not to mention for me, completely renders the different outfit colors useless to buy. The second thing is frame rate. Now I've been a little lucky to not experience the serious FPS lag like some are having, but I do notice it during the Winter time mostly. Unfortunately, I do realize that is out of their hands to fix.

Basically, this game will be another game that goes on my shelf, unless these two things can get addressed quickly. None of it requires serious script editing or engine tweaking, so I'd imagine it'd be relatively easy for them to throw some of it in a patch or DLC. I expected more out of it when I preordered it, so it did disappoint me a tad bit, but nonetheless, it was a great game.

Honestly, all I can say is it's because of Rockstar. Rockstar are the pinnacle of quality when it comes to the game industry, they literally will work on a game for a whole bunch of years squeezing every bit out of current hardware and they finance there games with a LOT of money they don't work on five games at once and so have a bigger budget to blow on one game. In fact Rockstar probably spend more on any one of their games than some first party exclusives from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo combined.

But in the end it is worth it as their games are insanely good, I honestly can't say I have ever been disappointed by any of Rockstar's games. But the MAIN thing about Rockstar is that they care about every detail of their project I have just been reading up on some new GTA V details and it sounds amazing. I'm not trying to disrespect Ubisoft but they have so many projects going on at the same time and they don't give enough attention to one specific project that they end up getting gimped and stuff gets removed I experienced the same thing with Far cry 2 and Splinter Cell Conviction. However Ubisoft is capable of producing amazing games and I do thoroughly enjoy Assassin's Creed 3 but it just didn't live up to the hype that I had....

Weird considering Assassin's Creed 2 was amazing maybe because they made sooo many improvements on the first and that it didn't have any Major performance/bugs.... However I don't know what Ubisoft has in store for Assassin's Creed 3 and they could definitely salvage it and make it the game we all wanted, I can only hope. Currently I am waiting for the patch to solve my issues so I can at least enjoy it as it is supposed to be enjoyed, without any bugs or performance issues.

MohMurad
11-12-2012, 09:11 PM
What I meant was that your map would not require clearing, you know, like in pretty much every other game ever. Viewpoints would be used only for finding clues for treasure hunting (which would replace chests, feathers, almanacs etc). So essentially, you find a viewpoint (which should be pretty simple (just look for the eagles)) and then clues appear on your map which will in turn lead to more clues regarding the whereabouts of hidden treasure.

Viewpoints would also be used to make the map more clear, because it will display more on the map.

Ubi-MoshiMoshi
11-12-2012, 09:17 PM
Please guys, do not drop story spoilers into threads in the main forums. These need to be tagged as spoilers and posted in Hints and Tips.

I will tag and move this one.

luckyto
11-12-2012, 09:23 PM
OP,

I love this game. But THAT was a really really good post. I must agree with you on this. I find myself once again wishing for 6 months more development, or really, that there was no ACR and those Devs had been pulled and put on AC3 sooner.

Ever since the year release schedule, it's either meant smaller maps and shorter story or in this case, big maps and big story but unfinished. Either way, it is incomplete - either in "vision" or in "execution."

I applaud AC3's vision. It was everything I wanted in an AC game. It has moments of brilliance. And it is a **** good game and story. But it desperately needs polishing and fine-tuning.

Legendz54
11-12-2012, 10:11 PM
I lol'd.

Im not surprised.....

devildog789
11-12-2012, 10:12 PM
OP,

I love this game. But THAT was a really really good post. I must agree with you on this. I find myself once again wishing for 6 months more development, or really, that there was no ACR and those Devs had been pulled and put on AC3 sooner.

Ever since the year release schedule, it's either meant smaller maps and shorter story or in this case, big maps and big story but unfinished. Either way, it is incomplete - either in "vision" or in "execution."

I applaud AC3's vision. It was everything I wanted in an AC game. It has moments of brilliance. And it is a **** good game and story. But it desperately needs polishing and fine-tuning.

Thank you. I know I wasn't the only one who was at least slightly disappointed in this game. I just want a good reason as to why Ubi decided to pull a lot of the features they told us were to be in the game. I can't think of one, unless they'd never even tried to do it, and ended up biting off more than they could chew, which is what I feel happened. I only hope they decided to add something that was promised to us, in DLC. ACIII is unpolished and just a "one and done" game for me.

projectpat06
11-12-2012, 10:33 PM
OP,

I love this game. But THAT was a really really good post. I must agree with you on this. I find myself once again wishing for 6 months more development, or really, that there was no ACR and those Devs had been pulled and put on AC3 sooner.

Ever since the year release schedule, it's either meant smaller maps and shorter story or in this case, big maps and big story but unfinished. Either way, it is incomplete - either in "vision" or in "execution."

I applaud AC3's vision. It was everything I wanted in an AC game. It has moments of brilliance. And it is a **** good game and story. But it desperately needs polishing and fine-tuning.


The story really wasn't that long. In fact I found it rather short compared to AC2 when you take out all the side content and homestead missions.

devildog789
11-13-2012, 05:19 AM
The story really wasn't that long. In fact I found it rather short compared to AC2 when you take out all the side content and homestead missions.

Yeah considering the Haytham missions. Enjoyable and entertaining, but after beating the game, pointless.