PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on AC storyline [SPOILERS]



alexsuto
11-14-2012, 02:09 AM
Hey all, I've never posted on these forums before and I just wanted to give my thoughts on the entire game and the way the series is heading.
As I'm sure you don't all want to read an essay I'll only list the parts of the game I didn't like, but remember that I absolutely LOVED every other part of the game, don't get me wrong.

-Firstly, this game just feels rushed. I understand that Ubi had(?) to meet the 2012 deadline but, honestly? For a game that was a apparently 4 years in development (and I understand that a lot of that time must have been spent on creating the engine from scratch) this game feels very inferior to AC2.
Main problems- lack of explanation for some side missions (assassination targets, courier missions, etc) for example the removal of the little "synopsis" of why you were assassinating a target or an explanation of what you were delivering seems like a really strange choice.

- Continuing from the "gameplay mechanics that have disappeared" idea, the viewpoints. They might not clear the full map now for "realism" but honestly it just ends up being annoying not being able to see everything unless you physically run around EVERYWHERE, especially searching for Liberation missions for example.

- Connor as a protagonist. I know Ubi have said "we'll make more AC games if fans like Connor" but truth be told he just comes out boring and stupid. His voice actor can't seem to switch between "uninterested" and "furious" and Connor's whole driving force (firstly to save his village, then a naive "liberty") is good in concept but boring in execution. The fact that he still sided with the Revolutionaries after it was revealed Washington burnt down his village is ridiculous after 10 or so hours of buildup. Continue making AC games, but give Connor a little more energy.or replace him altogether.

-Desmond. You must have seen this coming. After spending 5 games building up Desmond as humanity's greatest savior, having him escape from Abstergo and live Ezio's life to gain his skills and knowledge, killing him IN A CUTSCENE with no fight whatsoever (and questionable logic to his sacrifice), frankly is a massive mistake. If the writers didn't want to change the "A person with first civilisation DNA must touch this globe thing to release Juno and save the world" (poorly explained how she did it, by the way) why not have William do it in order to save his son? Why have all those interactive conversations rebuilding William and his son's relationship, and physically have Desmond rescue his dad if William wasn't going to repay the favour? And now it looks like future games will be concentrating on Juno causing chaos in the modern day and introducing a new character to be built up as a savoir instead of using the one you spent 5 years on. It's just a baffling decision.

My point is that perhaps without the pressure of the 2012 deadline and the decision to have a new AC game out every year the story could have been so much better. If 3 was an awful game I wouldn't mind as much, but it's the fact that it had so much POTENTIAL that disappoints me the most. If you've read this all the way through I appreciate it very much, and I'd like to know your opinion.

vivaxardas
11-14-2012, 02:23 AM
Check out this thread.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/725786-AC3-s-story-feels-lazy-for-lack-of-a-better-word-%28SPOILERS%29

IlDiv0
11-14-2012, 02:36 AM
The problem with the Desmond plot lies with the foundations of AC3. Revelations establishes that the next game is going to focus on the solar flare problem. Now here's the thing: AC3 doesn't really do this. Instead, we spend the entirety of AC3 struggling to get through a single door into the Grand Temple, which means that the writers had no time to establish an actual solution to the problem, which is why they had to invent a magic one. If you compare to the historical set-pieces in previous games, each one had a purpose. In the case of AC2 and Brotherhood, the purpose was to give Desmond the equipment to enter the Grand Temple (Ezio's altered apple) and to force him to confront the bleeding effect, in Revelations. This is why AC3 is redundant, since we already spent two games acquiring the tools necessary to open the door.

I enjoyed Connor's story, but if Ubisoft was intent on telling it, the overarching purpose should not have been to open magic door #2. Instead, it should have been tied to an actual solution to the Solare Flare, which Desmond could use. I think Desmond should also have been given some actual Assassin's Creed-esque gameplay. We have a free-running mission, a social stealth mission, and a combat mission, but none which blends them altogether in the style which we've been playing with his ancestors.

pirate1802
11-14-2012, 03:51 AM
"A person with first civilisation DNA must touch this globe thing to release Juno and save the world" (poorly explained how she did it, by the way) why not have William do it in order to save his son?

Maybe because William doesn't have high enough concentration of FirstCiv DNA?