PDA

View Full Version : Those Buildings - missing the old day's.



LinkAndLoad
11-12-2012, 10:38 PM
Don't u miss buildings or objects actually worth and fun to climb?
That was a big part for me and one of the key elements in the Assassin Creed series.
Discovering new routes to get somewhere and getting to nice view spots overlooking the beautiful scenery.

When AC:3 was announced I was hoping they would find a way to make free running and climbing still fun.
I am honest to say that I didn't liked the time frame and setting they chose when they announced it. Maybe it is because I am European and have nothing with American history. That is just personal I myself find the history quite boring.
Although I off course was eager to find out all the new 'cool' things we would get (running in tree tops, new way's to kill etc.).

They didn't delivered imo. Lots of low buildings what is logical looking at the the time and place. But next to that there are to many wide open streets, so even just free running over rooftops to get from A to B is made impossible, what wasn't only fun but also quick.
It is weird though they make city's bigger but remove that element from the game. What wasn't necessary to be removed. resulting that many of my movement was trough the streets on foot or on a horse.
This was also already the case in revelations (wide open streets).

The frontier misses variety in climbing tree's, the view points are all the same same, though, running on branches is fun it does't give that same feeling. It is a nice bonus yes. But it lacks in terms of a 'climbing' experience and it doesn't award the player with a nice view or feel of accomplishment. It doesn't push the players creativity either.

DSTRVCTION
11-12-2012, 10:41 PM
I fully agree on this. I do miss it too, climbing those artistic, historic beautiful buildings. They meant something to the AC series in my eyes as well. But there's nothing to do about it ..

TheHumanTowel
11-12-2012, 10:46 PM
The old days........a whole one game ago. And no I don't miss it that much. I enjoyed that part of past AC games but I appreciated the setting of AC3 beyond the lack of major historical landmarks. And the cities still looks beautiful anyway. Boston and New York under snow. Magical.

apresmode
11-12-2012, 11:55 PM
I really kind of dislike that all the viewpoints are pretty much the same. Same church. Same big tree. It's not really up to AC standards in my opinion.

ACfan443
11-12-2012, 11:59 PM
I actually agree. The cities are beautiful, but they lack dense buildings and huge landmarks. I've barely scaled buildings in AC3, rooftops aren't worth running on anymore since you can't really go that far before reaching a massive gap, streets are too wide. I'd say 95% of my navigation in the cities has been on the ground, whereas before I spent a lot of on the rooftops. I understand they're trying to be historically accurate, but they could have added a few more buildings and made it slightly denser for gameplay's sake. Just my opinion.

WarriorAegis
11-13-2012, 12:31 AM
I kinda agree. I missed climbing up unique buildings. Also killing "archers" would alert guards on the ground. :/ Though, rooftop battles are fun.

twenty_glyphs
11-13-2012, 02:03 AM
I agree. I was worried at first, then thought it would work, but the execution shows it just doesn't. I'm all for historical accuracy, but fun is much more important. The architecture in America at the time was just so boring and plain, so it's nowhere near as fun to climb as even AC1, where it felt more exotic. Also, every viewpoint building was super easy to climb and you didn't have to find any route to the top like the past games. I think each big viewpoint should have about 2 paths to the top that you have to explore just a little. Also, climbing is too fast in AC3. I liked it as a fast climbing speed, but I miss the option to climb slower while not holding down the high profile button, especially during stealth missions.

I also think they made the cities way too big. That takes all the landmarks and spreads them out even more and puts even more generic buildings in between them just like real life. I think AC2's scale was great, and that they should have made the Boston and New York maps smaller. Bigger isn't always better, and the maps feel too big. If they were scaled down a little bit, the cities wouldn't feel so overwhelming and the landmarks could stand out a little more as well. It would also decrease the crazy amount of running around I feel like this game requires.

I was also disappointed in the free-running paths in general. There didn't seem to be as many crates, barrels, poles and signs to run along the sides of buildings like in the past. Free-running like that was always a faster, funner way to climb buildings. Venice still remains my favorite city of the franchise to play in because of its atmosphere, mood, and uniqueness, but also because the free-running paths were so great. For the American cities, I think they should have made the streets a little narrower here and there, or do better at placing objects that let us cross the street without touching the ground. I was disappointed that trees weren't placed better in the cities to help get between buildings. Many of them seemed to be on their own, so there was no point in climbing them. Also, extremely sloped rooftops weren't that fun. They just made free-running more of a chore in addition to the new controls.

And the viewpoint trees in the Frontier were pretty cool once you figured them out, but I can't believe they were all identical. They should have had different paths up each one. And always, always, always place a landing spot so we can do a leap of faith from a viewpoint!

kriegerdesgottes
11-13-2012, 02:07 AM
I do like seeing recreated models of the cities my ancestors saw but at the same time I do hope the next game makes it to the French Revolution..

LinkAndLoad
11-13-2012, 04:18 PM
I agree. I was worried at first, then thought it would work, but the execution shows it just doesn't. I'm all for historical accuracy, but fun is much more important. The architecture in America at the time was just so boring and plain, so it's nowhere near as fun to climb as even AC1, where it felt more exotic. Also, every viewpoint building was super easy to climb and you didn't have to find any route to the top like the past games. I think each big viewpoint should have about 2 paths to the top that you have to explore just a little. Also, climbing is too fast in AC3. I liked it as a fast climbing speed, but I miss the option to climb slower while not holding down the high profile button, especially during stealth missions.

I also think they made the cities way too big. That takes all the landmarks and spreads them out even more and puts even more generic buildings in between them just like real life. I think AC2's scale was great, and that they should have made the Boston and New York maps smaller. Bigger isn't always better, and the maps feel too big. If they were scaled down a little bit, the cities wouldn't feel so overwhelming and the landmarks could stand out a little more as well. It would also decrease the crazy amount of running around I feel like this game requires.

I was also disappointed in the free-running paths in general. There didn't seem to be as many crates, barrels, poles and signs to run along the sides of buildings like in the past. Free-running like that was always a faster, funner way to climb buildings. Venice still remains my favorite city of the franchise to play in because of its atmosphere, mood, and uniqueness, but also because the free-running paths were so great. For the American cities, I think they should have made the streets a little narrower here and there, or do better at placing objects that let us cross the street without touching the ground. I was disappointed that trees weren't placed better in the cities to help get between buildings. Many of them seemed to be on their own, so there was no point in climbing them. Also, extremely sloped rooftops weren't that fun. They just made free-running more of a chore in addition to the new controls.

And the viewpoint trees in the Frontier were pretty cool once you figured them out, but I can't believe they were all identical. They should have had different paths up each one. And always, always, always place a landing spot so we can do a leap of faith from a viewpoint!

Could not agree more.
Well I can. I remember after playing AC:I and II, I would look at all the (old) buildings and churches and thought; I could climb that. Imagining a whole route and all.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-13-2012, 04:27 PM
You have tons of stuff worth climbing in the Frontier.

LightRey
11-13-2012, 04:34 PM
I do have to agree that this is something that's missing in ACIII (though I disagree that ACR had nothing worth climbing), but though I miss it somewhat, I do not mind it much. I do not see this as some kind of developing trend in the AC games and "treerunning" in the frontier is a lot of fun. Each game has new elements and (most often) loses some old ones. Some elements are too fundamental for the series to be eliminated from any installment, but I do not think this is one of those elements.

ProdiGurl
11-13-2012, 05:28 PM
:confused: Nope I really don't miss it - it's not as if AC is done with the concept or something. This is the setting we're in for this game - I'm enjoying the difference & change of scenery now. Next game we'll be onto something else. I have too much to keep me busy & having fun to miss the ancient columns & coliseums or old ruins ~ we'll get plenty more in future games. If I miss it enough, I'll pop in AC2 or ACB.

I thought everyone was ready for some change but I guess we'd rather keep everything the same from the past games???

Aphex_Tim
11-13-2012, 05:35 PM
:confused: Nope I really don't miss it - it's not as if AC is done with the concept or something. This is the setting we're in for this game - I'm enjoying the difference & change of scenery now. Next game we'll be onto something else. I have too much to keep me busy & having fun to miss the ancient columns & coliseums or old ruins ~ we'll get plenty more in future games. If I miss it enough, I'll pop in AC2 or ACB.

I thought everyone was ready for some change but I guess we'd rather keep everything the same from the past games???

That's pretty much how gaming communities work. We want new stuff and when we get it it gets dismissed and people start talking about 'the good old days'.
Now, i'd better run before getting my *ss handed to me by angry forum members.

TrueAssassin77
11-13-2012, 05:35 PM
:confused: Nope I really don't miss it - it's not as if AC is done with the concept or something. This is the setting we're in for this game - I'm enjoying the difference & change of scenery now. Next game we'll be onto something else. I have too much to keep me busy & having fun to miss the ancient columns & colisteums or old ruins ~ we'll get plenty more int future games. If I miss it enough, I'll pop in AC2 or ACB.

I thought everyone was ready for some change but I guess we'd rather keep everything the same from the past games???

This

pirate1802
11-13-2012, 05:39 PM
That's pretty much how gaming communities work. We want new stuff and when we get it it gets dismissed and people start talking about 'the good old days'..

I agree 100%, and I've seen this for more than one game now.

LinkAndLoad
11-13-2012, 06:18 PM
That's pretty much how gaming communities work. We want new stuff and when we get it it gets dismissed and people start talking about 'the good old days'.
Now, i'd better run before getting my *ss handed to me by angry forum members.

Who is we? And why didn't I get an vote in that...
I don't really think you should speak for the whole community.

And it is not that the whole game mechanics would't work with some interesting things to climb.
Lol, you're: "we" want new stuff so things needs to go argument, is rather invalid if u ask me.

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 06:26 PM
No, I do not miss the "Old days" Because I stopped expecting "AC II"

The Problem here is that people expected another AC II. Constantly comparing the buildings, the environment, the Characters, the Weapons ..etc. AC III never claimed to be AC II.

To be honest, I`m kinda glad I`m not currently a Ubisoft Dev. I wouldnt want US to be fans of my Game.

I appreciate History. I appreciate walking through 18th Century Boston and New York. The Buildings are not "Pretty" but there is a 95% chance this was ALL real and I appreciate that..

Pretty Buildings are not a "Step forward" and Ugly Buildings are not a "Step Backward" Steps depend on Authenticity. If that is there, then its a step Forward.. My favorite setting is the Middle east setting. My favorite Buildings are those of the Renaissance, but does that me think this setting is ugly ? No.. Just the sheer amount of work put into this blows my mind..

This does not make me better than any of those that agree with the OP. I just stated how I feel about this subject. (Then again, I`m better than all of you)

LinkAndLoad
11-13-2012, 06:34 PM
No, I do not miss the "Old days" Because I stopped expecting "AC II"

The Problem here is that people expected another AC II. Constantly comparing the buildings, the environment, the Characters, the Weapons ..etc. AC III never claimed to be AC II.

To be honest, I`m kinda glad I`m not currently a Ubisoft Dev. I wouldnt want US to be fans of my Game.

I appreciate History. I appreciate walking through 18th Century Boston and New York. The Buildings are not "Pretty" but there is a 95% chance this was ALL real and I appreciate that..

Pretty Buildings are not a "Step forward" and Ugly Buildings are not a "Step Backward" Steps depend on Authenticity. If that is there, then its a step Forward.. My favorite setting is the Middle east setting. My favorite Buildings are those of the Renaissance, but does that me think this setting is ugly ? No.. Just the sheer amount of work put into this blows my mind..

Lol they could easily made a few 100 - 200 year old tree's who are different one from each other to give us some "fun" things to climb with a nice viewpoint, a mountain ridge, an abandoned small fort with watch towers etc. If u desperately want to stay in the setting and time frame AC3 is in.
I'm not asking to clone Buildings from previous installments. I state what I miss in this installment and liked in previous ones.

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 06:35 PM
I'm not asking to clone Buildings from previous installments.

You did in the OP

LinkAndLoad
11-13-2012, 06:39 PM
You did in the OP

Try and quote me on that. Good luck, you wont find it.

BBALive
11-13-2012, 06:40 PM
The Frontier is the true free-running playground in AC3. Stalking convoys or groups of bluecoats/redcoats through the trees before pouncing on them never gets old.

I didn't mind the cities, but I do agree, they aren't as good in terms of free-running. I do think they're better in some ways, but that mostly has to do with crowd behaviour and things of that nature. They feel more alive, in a way.

kriegerdesgottes
11-13-2012, 06:40 PM
No, I do not miss the "Old days" Because I stopped expecting "AC II"

The Problem here is that people expected another AC II. Constantly comparing the buildings, the environment, the Characters, the Weapons ..etc. AC III never claimed to be AC II.

To be honest, I`m kinda glad I`m not currently a Ubisoft Dev. I wouldnt want US to be fans of my Game.

I appreciate History. I appreciate walking through 18th Century Boston and New York. The Buildings are not "Pretty" but there is a 95% chance this was ALL real and I appreciate that..

Pretty Buildings are not a "Step forward" and Ugly Buildings are not a "Step Backward" Steps depend on Authenticity. If that is there, then its a step Forward.. My favorite setting is the Middle east setting. My favorite Buildings are those of the Renaissance, but does that me think this setting is ugly ? No.. Just the sheer amount of work put into this blows my mind..

This does not make me better than any of those that agree with the OP. I just stated how I feel about this subject. (Then again, I`m better than all of you)

I have to agree. Authenticity is more important to me than aesthetics. And M of course your opinion is correct...as long as it's the same as mine :P

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 06:44 PM
That was a big part for me in the AC series. .

Buildings worth climbing (i.e Venice, Florence and Tuscan Towers)


How ever since Revelations city's are boring as ....
Boston and New York, what a laugh.

Constantinople, Boston and New York are "Boring" (i.e Rome, Venice, Florence, Forli and Tuscany are much better)


Still I cant grasp what Ubi was thinking to set this game in the "New World
I wont say anything further..


I have to agree. Authenticity is more important to me than aesthetics. And M of course your opinion is correct...as long as it's the same as mine :P

Whether or not I agree with you*

Fixed:p

LinkAndLoad
11-13-2012, 06:48 PM
I have to agree. Authenticity is more important to me than aesthetics. And M of course your opinion is correct...as long as it's the same as mine :P

That argument is invalid if they chose a different region and time zone. That was my complaint to some extend in the OP that this format make me miss those climbing's.
Also later on in the thread, since peeps can't somehow grasp AC3 being played somewhere else I gave alternatives.
All things i've heard here are no excuses on some nice high end climbing experiences.

LinkAndLoad
11-13-2012, 06:49 PM
I wont say anything further..


And where do I ask to clone a previous installment? Well?

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 06:51 PM
That argument is invalid if they chose a different region and time zone. That was my complaint to some extend in the OP that this format make me miss those climbing's.
Also later on in the thread, since peeps can't somehow grasp AC3 being played somewhere else I gave alternatives.
All things i've heard here are no excuses on some nice high end climbing experiences.

Are you putting anything as Invalid ? Guess what ? The say is not to you.. That is valid

LinkAndLoad
11-13-2012, 06:52 PM
You really need to learn to read things in context.

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 06:53 PM
You really need to learn to read things in context.

And you really need to work on your Grammar, because I HARDLY understand ANYTHING from some of your posts..


And where do I ask to clone a previous installment? Well?
Post is there.

Not my fault you cannot understand what I wrote.. You`re clearly asking for another game with "AC II and ACB caliber" Buildings. hence why everyone is replying to you in the manner they are

LinkAndLoad
11-13-2012, 06:56 PM
And you really need to work on your Grammar, because I HARDLY understand ANYTHING from some of your posts..


Post is there.

Not my fault you cannot understand what I wrote.. You`re clearly asking for another game with "AC II and ACB caliber" Buildings. hence why everyone is replying to you in the manner they are

I cant see anywhere where I want to clone a previous title.


Warning! ***** thread ahead.

Don't u miss buildings actually worth climbing?
That was a big part for me in the AC series. How ever since Revelations city's are boring as ....
Boston and New York, what a laugh. Still I cant grasp what Ubi was thinking to set this game in the "New World".

kriegerdesgottes
11-13-2012, 06:59 PM
You really need to learn to read things in context.

In context? You just told me my opinion is an invalid argument. I agree that I miss buildings like the ones in Europe and middle east but if Ubisoft goes to the colonies, I do not want them making stuff up for the sake of beauty. The main reason I love the franchise is for the historical accuracy. If those things are not there, then the game loses its main appeal. That is my opinion and the opinion of many others. There is no argument to be made.

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 06:59 PM
I cant see anywhere where I want to clone a previous title.

You do not ask for it explicitly, but your entire post implies it, again, hence why everyone is replying to you in the manner they are. If cloning buildings is not what you truly meant then I apologize and ask of you to put more thought into the OP and provide details so that we fully understand what you want to say..

pirate1802
11-13-2012, 07:01 PM
Whaa.. Constantinople was boring? I thought it was fascinating. My favourite city second only to Venice. Different opinions, I guess.. :|

ACfan443
11-13-2012, 07:04 PM
One of the pillars of AC is navigation, and a sort of 'sub pillar' is building navigation. Tree running in the frontier is great and very fun. But in the city it should be focused on buildings. We're not asking for a copy of AC2's buildings, I loved the buildings in AC1 and ACR, the buildings have been different in AC games, but what strikes them as 'assassin's creed' buildings is how close and dense they were, which made free running on them worth while. In my opinion, the cities in the revolutionary era were just too young. They could have made them denser and that wouldn't have been a problem for me with regards to deviating from historical accuracy, since (for me) gameplay comes first.

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 07:07 PM
One of the pillars of AC is navigation, and a sort of 'sub pillar' is building navigation. Tree running in the frontier is great and very fun. But in the city it should be focused on buildings. We're not asking for a copy of AC2's buildings, I loved the buildings in AC1 and ACR, the buildings have been different in AC games, but what strikes them as 'assassin's creed' buildings is how close and dense they were, which made free running on them worth while. In my opinion, the buildings in the revolutionary era were just too young. They could have made them denser and that wouldn't have been a problem for me with regards to deviating from historical accuracy, since (for me) gameplay comes first.

You realize that, already, the cities are Historically Inaccurate, right ? The city was smaller and less dense than what we have now...

But, like I said, I only gave my opinion of the subject. I enjoyed free running in the Cities of Boston and New York just as much as I had in any other game..I truly cannot relate to anybody`s complaint of "less innovative City Free running"

LinkAndLoad
11-13-2012, 07:27 PM
Edited the openings post. I am sorry if I was getting the wrong point across.

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 07:34 PM
Edited the openings post. I am sorry if I was getting the wrong point across.

No harm done. and I apologize for focusing on the wrong point..

twenty_glyphs
11-13-2012, 07:35 PM
No, I do not miss the "Old days" Because I stopped expecting "AC II"

The Problem here is that people expected another AC II. Constantly comparing the buildings, the environment, the Characters, the Weapons ..etc. AC III never claimed to be AC II.

To be honest, I`m kinda glad I`m not currently a Ubisoft Dev. I wouldnt want US to be fans of my Game.

I appreciate History. I appreciate walking through 18th Century Boston and New York. The Buildings are not "Pretty" but there is a 95% chance this was ALL real and I appreciate that..

Pretty Buildings are not a "Step forward" and Ugly Buildings are not a "Step Backward" Steps depend on Authenticity. If that is there, then its a step Forward.. My favorite setting is the Middle east setting. My favorite Buildings are those of the Renaissance, but does that me think this setting is ugly ? No.. Just the sheer amount of work put into this blows my mind..

This does not make me better than any of those that agree with the OP. I just stated how I feel about this subject. (Then again, I`m better than all of you)

I am not disappointed that AC3 is not AC2. I didn't want another AC2. I was tired of the same formula after Revelations. I wanted new and fresh, but if the new and fresh we get isn't better than the old, I'm going to be disappointed. I liked AC1 a lot, and thought it was really unique and fresh at the time. AC2 came along and did a lot of things different, but I never complained that it wasn't like AC1. Why? Because it was better in most ways and was more fun and interesting. I keep comparing AC3 to AC2 because AC2 was the high point of the series and almost everything they changed from AC2 was a step back, in my opinion, especially in the fun department. If you're going to change something, the new version should be at least as good as the old or else what's the point?

My problem isn't that the buildings aren't pretty in AC3. It's more that they're not interesting, which could have still been accomplished in this setting. Designing actual climbing routes on buildings instead of having every single building viewpoint climb just necessitating you to continue to point up on the thumbstick. San Gimignano in AC2 was filled with towers that were basically identical, but they each had unique climbing routes you had to find, making them varied and more interesting. More interesting tree design or placements in the city would have been nice, or more interesting forts and other little buildings in the Frontier. And everywhere they needed better free-running paths that had an actual flow to them. AC1's setting was not pretty, but I found it a lot more interesting to explore because it was just plain better designed than AC3's environments.

The tree navigation in the Frontier can be fun and is a great concept, but it's just often too hard to get up in the trees when I want to. I will see a convoy or a camp I want to attack, but often I won't be able to find a way up into the trees fast enough to attack from them like I want to. There just aren't enough paths to quickly ascend into the branches. And many camps don't even have trees near them, so you can't use them to sneak in. Often in winter I will find myself slowed down in deep snow and think about how the developers said they wanted this to encourage me to use the trees. Unfortunately, the trees will often be far away, making me slog slowly through more snow to get to them. I want the tree concept to stay, but they need to get better at designing the paths for using them. Maybe they just need a much smaller forest area and better placement of them around buildings and objectives to make them more fun.

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 07:40 PM
I am not disappointed that AC3 is not AC2. I didn't want another AC2. I was tired of the same formula after Revelations. I wanted new and fresh, but if the new and fresh we get isn't better than the old, I'm going to be disappointed. I liked AC1 a lot, and thought it was really unique and fresh at the time. AC2 came along and did a lot of things different, but I never complained that it wasn't like AC1. Why? Because it was better in most ways and was more fun and interesting. I keep comparing AC3 to AC2 because AC2 was the high point of the series and almost everything they changed from AC2 was a step back, in my opinion, especially in the fun department. If you're going to change something, the new version should be at least as good as the old or else what's the point?

My problem isn't that the buildings aren't pretty in AC3. It's more that they're not interesting, which could have still been accomplished in this setting. Designing actual climbing routes on buildings instead of having every single building viewpoint climb just necessitating you to continue to point up on the thumbstick. San Gimignano in AC2 was filled with towers that were basically identical, but they each had unique climbing routes you had to find, making them varied and more interesting. More interesting tree design or placements in the city would have been nice, or more interesting forts and other little buildings in the Frontier. And everywhere they needed better free-running paths that had an actual flow to them. AC1's setting was not pretty, but I found it a lot more interesting to explore because it was just plain better designed than AC3's environments.

The tree navigation in the Frontier can be fun and is a great concept, but it's just often too hard to get up in the trees when I want to. I will see a convoy or a camp I want to attack, but often I won't be able to find a way up into the trees fast enough to attack from them like I want to. There just aren't enough paths to quickly ascend into the branches. And many camps don't even have trees near them, so you can't use them to sneak in. Often in winter I will find myself slowed down in deep snow and think about how the developers said they wanted this to encourage me to use the trees. Unfortunately, the trees will often be far away, making me slog slowly through more snow to get to them. I want the tree concept to stay, but they need to get better at designing the paths for using them. Maybe they just need a much smaller forest area and better placement of them around buildings and objectives to make them more fun.

I was not talking specifically about you, but there are indeed people here that wanted another AC II. I found AC III a step forward from AC II in EVERY department. Combat, Navigation, Graphics, Animation, Content and Story..

So Its just a matter of Opinion, Like I said...Again, I cannot relate to any "Less Innovative free running" because I had fun navigating the wilderness AND cities and found no quirks. Maybe i`m stupid and I`m just imagining things, but that was my experience..

DavisP92
11-13-2012, 07:44 PM
Don't u miss buildings or objects actually worth and fun to climb?
That was a big part for me and one of the key elements in the Assassin Creed series.
Discovering new routes to get somewhere and getting to nice view spots overlooking the beautiful scenery.

When AC:3 was announced I was hoping they would find a way to make free running and climbing still fun.
I am honest to say that I didn't liked the time frame and setting they chose when they announced it. Maybe it is because I am European and have nothing with American history. That is just personal I myself find the history quite boring.
Although I off course was eager to find out all the new 'cool' things we would get (running in tree tops, new way's to kill etc.).

They didn't delivered imo. Lots of low buildings what is logical looking at the the time and place. But next to that there are to many wide open streets, so even just free running over rooftops to get from A to B is made impossible, what wasn't only fun but also quick.
It is weird though they make city's bigger but remove that element from the game. What wasn't necessary to be removed. resulting that many of my movement was trough the streets on foot or on a horse.
This was also already the case in revelations (wide open streets).

The frontier misses variety in climbing tree's, the view points are all the same same, though, running on branches is fun it does't give that same feeling. It is a nice bonus yes. But it lacks in terms of a 'climbing' experience and it doesn't award the player with a nice view or feel of accomplishment. It doesn't push the players creativity either.

no. The game has a different feel which is what they originally wanted to do with the AC series. If we always climbed large buildings that had the same feeling then it would become boring. I've never felt accomplished doing the view points, they weren't hard or challenging to climb. You just go up and that's it, the occasional move around the building to get higher. What they are doing is fine, if the next game is in a different location (not Connor) then the view points should be different more often. Each tree viewpoint was the same, maybe next time have a cliff/mountain as a view point.

I wonder what's going to happen to the tree-free-running if the next one doesn't have Connor and is in a different setting. They can't just remove the tree climbing seeing how it was more enjoyable than climbing buildings (at least the running through the trees was).


I was not talking specifically about you, but there are indeed people here that wanted another AC II. I found AC III a step forward from AC II in EVERY department. Combat, Navigation, Graphics, Animation, Content and Story..

So Its just a matter of Opinion, Like I said...Again, I cannot relate to any "Less Innovative free running" because I had fun navigating the wilderness AND cities and found no quirks. Maybe i`m stupid and I`m just imagining things, but that was my experience..

AC3 was a step forward from AC2, but not in every department :(. The system is a step back to me. The only way to make the series become the king of games to me is in my huge comment on page 71 for the SP feedback thread

Razrback16
11-13-2012, 07:49 PM
The cities are pretty, but climbing and free running is not as much fun as it was in AC2. Those british encampments on the roofs make it tough not to trigger a war when moving around on rooftops.

Assassin_M
11-13-2012, 07:49 PM
AC3 was a step forward from AC2, but not in every department :(. The system is a step back to me. The only way to make the series become the king of games to me is in my huge comment on page 71 for the SP feedback thread
I`ll check it out..

ProdiGurl
11-13-2012, 07:55 PM
Lol they could easily made a few 100 - 200 year old tree's who are different one from each other to give us some "fun" things to climb with a nice viewpoint, a mountain ridge, an abandoned small fort with watch towers etc. If u desperately want to stay in the setting and time frame AC3 is in.
I'm not asking to clone Buildings from previous installments. I state what I miss in this installment and liked in previous ones.

But then guess what would happen, we'd have loads of threads about how unrealistic the buildings/forts were & how they broke tradition w/ historic content & just created fake things for climbing.. or whatever else. After being around for ACR & now AC3, I think I know how it's going to roll around here for every future AC game. I only hope the Devs ignore the majority of it & keep popping out great games despite all the haters & nit pickers (& no I'm not calling you one). :)

I'm a total fan of ancient stuff & the setting of ACB was a favorite for graphics - but this is a great escape into other times of history and culture and I'm really enjoying it - how they must have lived including Indians.
So I really don't miss the older stuff this time around. & for me being such a huge fan of Ezio & Italy, I never thought it would be possible for them to make me ok with AC afterward.
:)
I'm nothing but impressed so far.

twenty_glyphs
11-13-2012, 09:01 PM
The cities are pretty, but climbing and free running is not as much fun as it was in AC2. Those british encampments on the roofs make it tough not to trigger a war when moving around on rooftops.

Very good point. It's also less fun to run on the roofs just because of the placement of more frequent guards and always having more than one together on rooftops. Venice's rooftop guards in AC2 were annoying and sapped some of the fun out of roof-running, and a point I saw raised often on the forums. But they really made the rooftop guards a major pain in AC3. I really don't think they've taken fan feedback to heart at all -- especially not with the little things, which end up mattering a lot.

Soulid_Snake
11-14-2012, 12:37 AM
@LinkandLoad: You're a mind reader, the climbing in AC3 buggy, and I don't like the setting. I miss AC2, the setting was beautiful, loved the local accents, the tall sunkissed buildings and Caterina Sforza.