PDA

View Full Version : My Thoughts on AC3. The Potential



TrueAssassin77
11-25-2012, 11:22 PM
it is an awesome game. They did so many things right. The combat took a step in the right direction. The free-running is awesome. Connor is a superb hero and is very real. Connor's evolution throughtout the story is truely phenomenal. The frontier is breathtaking but...

i wish they hadn't cut so many good stuff from the game. it seems as if instead of taking out a mechanic and replacing it with something different, they simply took it out. we were suppose to be able to put animal skins on connor... that was suppose to replace armor of the last game... but instead we just don't have either. We have a grand total of 7 dyes... We can't canoe(which was in AC2 i believe) the assassin recruits have been dumbed down in terms of customization... the blunt weapons are now considered slow weapons... tho in previous games they were only slightly slower than the sword(very disappointed in that). only weapons worth using is the sword, tomahawk, and the hidden blades... the knife animations are completely removed, without anything to replace them. The bombs from ACR had more variety and more uses. They apparent lack of music throughout the game. The Assassination and Curior(spelled wrong) have been downgraded extremely. in AC2 the assassination contracts were stellar and abundant. a good set of missions in each city. you might have to tail a guy. or fight an army! intmidate a guy, or bribe him. the curior missions had a time limit. why were theses not present in AC3? they weren't re-thought, they were downgraded. puzzles and such... downgraded extremely. almost non-esistent. where is the secret armor? the best armor in the game, only made available through quest? theat was completely taken out, and replaced with something barely noticeable...

instead of taking stuff out, they should have re-thought them. they did well with alot of things tho. they re-thought alot of things for the better. but the game reminds me of Infamous 2. awesome games but had a few things missing that could have made them godly(for sure GOTY). the difference is... AC3 actually had all of those things but they were intentionally cut-out of the game. rifle on back, canoeing, skins, etc. whole missions were cut from the game, maybe even whole sequences. Ac3 had the tools to be a godly game, but they were cut from production... that is what really bothers me. if they had simply never been thought of, id have been fine in a strange sort of way. but knowing the potential the game clutched in its grasps... but was tossed aside bothers me alot.

It makes the game FEEL smaller despite the fact that its actually the biggest game to date. It doesn't help that you go through a significant part of the game as a non-main character. making the game FEEL smaller despite the fact the main story is as long if not longer than previous games. The replayability took a big shot imo. I feel no reason why i should restart the game a third time. because there is literally nothing i can do in a differernt way. My assassin recruits will always be the same people. no matter the limited number of dyes i will always look the same basic way. Using a different main weapon choice isn't as great a reason anymore since, Blunt weapons and heavy weapons are now almost the same thing. the knife and tomahawk ARE the same thing. hunting is kinda restrictive, only a handful of animals to interact with. what can i do differently? the missions are kinda linear. the greatest example of this is were i am forced to ride a horse with some idiot the whole mission... where he tells me exactly what to do....

In previous Ac i could start the game back over and do things differently. it really doesn't help that in order to start over in AC3 i have to grind my way through haythams prolouge. I love haytham as a character... but i didn't buy the game to play as him.

The true issue with this game... is variety in a way. Its almost to linear in alot of ways. just a sense of restriction. This is arguably the best game in the series... but some of the things that were taken out of production... some of the things ignored and downgraded... could have made this game the undisputable best game of the YEAR, the best game in the series by far, the game in which all games are judged upon.

ACfan443
11-25-2012, 11:53 PM
They had so many cool features in the game which they had been talking about for months, but they removed so many of them, why? Honestly, this is my completely non-rhetorical question - why do devs remove features from their games?

FirestarLuva
11-25-2012, 11:58 PM
The game was too big and it was necessary they remove some things. I remember an article sayin g how they nearly blew up the 360 disc because of the amount of content in the game. If they added more and more features, they had to tone down other things, like for ex. the graphics, FPS and the draw distance. I think they decided not to risk it since then people would've complained how the graphics sucked. I'm sure, if they make a new Connor game they'll add those features. Who knows, they might be saving them for the next game, since Alex mentioned they already have plans where to take Connor next if the fan reception is great. :P

TrueAssassin77
11-26-2012, 12:19 AM
they should have got rid of some of haythams prolouge instead of wolf skins...

JCearlyyears
11-26-2012, 12:37 AM
I don't see the big deal about having two discs. Are people that lazy? I don't get it.

TrueAssassin77
11-26-2012, 12:39 AM
yes, they should have made it a 2 disc game! i would have been fine with that,

JCearlyyears
11-26-2012, 12:46 AM
I guess it would have been a 3 disc game? I'm not sure how they would do it. I think that they would separate the multiplayer still. If they do cut content to squeeze it into the disc, what a shame. I miss what I never had. The features that could have made it. Oh, how wonderful the game might have been if it were everything it was meant to be! It already is good, but it doesn't feel like it fulfilled it's massive potential.

TrueAssassin77
11-26-2012, 03:27 AM
i added some stuff

RatonhnhakeFan
11-26-2012, 03:47 AM
Some good criticisism, but I don't agree with Assassin Recruits part. Streamlining what's linear anyway is not a bad thing. Leveling up the Assassin recruits yourself in ACB & ACR was just an unnecessary chore. They ended up having the same stats anyway. This is not Mass Effect where you can build your squadmates very differently, there are no alternate routes when leveling up the Recruits in ACB & ACR. And different clothes and stuff is fluff. I will gladly take pre-designed Recruits with unique looks and personalities than a bunch of the same forgettable clones.

TrueAssassin77
11-26-2012, 03:51 AM
i only add rthat because in previous assassin games, i would restart the game for a unique line up. in one id have an all female assassin gang. another id have them be like power rangers and wear different colors.
the only positives for me regarding the new system, is bodyguard command and dobby

RatonhnhakeFan
11-26-2012, 04:01 AM
i only add rthat because in previous assassin games, i would restart the game for a unique line up. in one id have an all female assassin gang. another id have them be like power rangers and wear different colors.
the only positives for me regarding the new system, is bodyguard command and dobbyI get that, but that doesn't change the game at all. The gender of an assassin recruit or the clothes don't change anything other than appearance, the game still plays the same way.

TrueAssassin77
11-26-2012, 04:05 AM
still limits replayability and avriety no matter how much you look at it.........

luckyto
11-26-2012, 05:59 AM
Recruits are better than ever.

Some of you points, particularly Courier and Assassination contracts, are spot on though.

TrueAssassin77
11-26-2012, 09:44 PM
i was shocked at how the assassination missions were in AC3

JumpInTheFire13
11-26-2012, 10:26 PM
The assassination contracts in AC3 were garbage.

TrueAssassin77
11-26-2012, 10:41 PM
worse than garbage.........

lazy

naran6142
11-26-2012, 10:55 PM
When I first did the assassin contracts i was like "theres gotta be more"

I was expecting a little more from AC3 in terms of side missions

twenty_glyphs
11-26-2012, 11:54 PM
They had so many cool features in the game which they had been talking about for months, but they removed so many of them, why? Honestly, this is my completely non-rhetorical question - why do devs remove features from their games?

Usually features get removed because they're not finished and will only take resources away from finishing the whole game, or there's not enough time to properly test the features. Sometimes the features just don't work properly and there's no time left to get them into a working state, so they just have to be cut completely. These games are so huge and complicated that the only way to finish them and ship is to cut features and focus on finishing the remaining parts. It's still their fault for trying to make AC3 way too big with too many different features. AC3 actually feels like missions were cut, because the sequences are so short and there are moments when it feels like the story is assuming I should know something or care about someone from interacting with them more than I have. Maybe that's why there are so many "6 months later..." segments.

There's a great interview with Patrice Desilets that revealed that about halfway through 2009 on AC2 they had to remove the ability to replay any mission in the game because they didn't think they could test it successfully. You can tell from the interface of the DNA menu that the Full Sync system was likely planned then but cut as well. That's why you can't replay story missions on AC2 but can replay the small side missions. And you can tell they brought back the idea and had time to polish it and make it work for Brotherhood. They also had to cut Sequences 12 and 13, but set aside resources after the game's main production to finish them and sell them as DLC. Obviously there are people who don't believe that, but I do. It's a great interview if you have the time:

http://kotaku.com/5431098/one-mans-year-making-assassins-creed-ii

TrueAssassin77
11-26-2012, 11:57 PM
in AC3.5 they need to put the features taken out of this game into that game. screw a DLC! save it all for connor next great adventure!

TheDanteEX
11-27-2012, 12:13 AM
If they added more and more features, they had to tone down other things, like for ex. the graphics, FPS and the draw distance.

Yikes. I'd really hate to see the FPS take anymore damage. It's not horrible or anything, but it is noticeable.

DavisP92
11-27-2012, 01:36 AM
Some good criticisism, but I don't agree with Assassin Recruits part. Streamlining what's linear anyway is not a bad thing. Leveling up the Assassin recruits yourself in ACB & ACR was just an unnecessary chore. They ended up having the same stats anyway. This is not Mass Effect where you can build your squadmates very differently, there are no alternate routes when leveling up the Recruits in ACB & ACR. And different clothes and stuff is fluff. I will gladly take pre-designed Recruits with unique looks and personalities than a bunch of the same forgettable clones.

Initially the idea behind the customization of the assassin recruits was that you could customize them and say what weapon they used, outfit they wore, and how their parkour skills were. I remember vividly in a video about it in ACB that you could customize all three and that was removed in the final product. Ubisoft has been removing features for the franchise from day one, in AC1 you originally could ride a horse in towns, and break scaffolds. Riding a horse in a town was only released in ACB and the scaffold was only put into ACR. Honestly this game could have been so much better if they kept everything from the original AC1 concept and worked up from there. Not take away what made that version cool and continue to remove features that would make the game better.

Also you had to escape the city after the assassination and if you weren't fast enough the gates would close. And it was probably as hard as dark souls, where one hit and you died


Recruits are better than ever.

Some of you points, particularly Courier and Assassination contracts, are spot on though.

yes the fact that they look different and have different voices and outfits are better i'll give that 2 points. But lack of them wearing a hood is -1 point. They didn't really have any use another -1 point. Putting them back at 0, and lets subtract the fact that they removed all customization from them putting them at -1. But there was another good thing, there was some story behind the characters, back to 0. Well their score is still 0, when they should have been at a 5 out of 5.

luckyto
11-27-2012, 02:11 AM
The backstory and characterization of these Assassins were far better. They were actually characters. To recruit them, you had to do more than simply kill a few guards (which was as lame as the Assassination contracts in AC3). You actually earned their respect over multiple missions, met with them and could even go sit in a bar with them and talk They had unique outfits and personality. And the missions you sent them on had some bearing to the story, the War for Independence, rather than sending them to random countries for whatever --- though it's still no more than a Facebook game.

What they can do is far more advanced than simple "Assassinate." They can make ambush points, work as covert escorts like Courtesans, lure guards away from treasure like thieves and much much more. The mechanics for using Assassins is far better. With a little imagination, it's a lot of fun. Plus, recruits have significant differences in their skill level from Recruit to Assassin in actual combat; whereas ACB/ACRs recruits never actually seemed any better or worse regardless of their status.

And I really please wish people would stop saying, "I didn't have to use them." You never did. Ever. Only a few missions in ACB or ACR required the Assassins. Frankly, if you needed the recruits for any fighting in ACB then you're seriously totally incompetent at gaming. A 7-year old can chain kill a hundred guards in that game, if you could even be lucky enough to find a 100 guards. It's so ridiculously simple - that Ubi has a training where 40+ guards spawn and you can get a flawless with base armor and weapons. I've beaten both games only recruiting what I was required to recruit in one story sequence (one Assassin.) And it was the title called "BROTHERHOOD", you'd think they'd be tied to everything, but they weren't.

It is, and has always been, a fun distraction. Which is about how I feel about skinning them in different color hoods. It's still just no-character NPC with a random name generator in a red outfit instead of white. It lacks any depth at all. Give me character, actual leveling and a variety of useful skills any day.

-------

PS You can throw guards into scaffolding and have it crumble in AC1. But I like the idea of having to escape the city, sounds sweet. :)

TrueAssassin77
11-27-2012, 02:24 AM
i wish they'd at least get an assassin outfit, once they maxed out. assassin outfits unique to their personality would have sileneced ALL complaints with them

DavisP92
11-27-2012, 03:29 AM
The backstory and characterization of these Assassins were far better. They were actually characters. To recruit them, you had to do more than simply kill a few guards (which was as lame as the Assassination contracts in AC3). You actually earned their respect over multiple missions, met with them and could even go sit in a bar with them and talk They had unique outfits and personality. And the missions you sent them on had some bearing to the story, the War for Independence, rather than sending them to random countries for whatever --- though it's still no more than a Facebook game.

What they can do is far more advanced than simple "Assassinate." They can make ambush points, work as covert escorts like Courtesans, lure guards away from treasure like thieves and much much more. The mechanics for using Assassins is far better. With a little imagination, it's a lot of fun. Plus, recruits have significant differences in their skill level from Recruit to Assassin in actual combat; whereas ACB/ACRs recruits never actually seemed any better or worse regardless of their status.

And I really please wish people would stop saying, "I didn't have to use them." You never did. Ever. Only a few missions in ACB or ACR required the Assassins. Frankly, if you needed the recruits for any fighting in ACB then you're seriously totally incompetent at gaming. A 7-year old can chain kill a hundred guards in that game, if you could even be lucky enough to find a 100 guards. It's so ridiculously simple - that Ubi has a training where 40+ guards spawn and you can get a flawless with base armor and weapons. I've beaten both games only recruiting what I was required to recruit in one story sequence (one Assassin.) And it was the title called "BROTHERHOOD", you'd think they'd be tied to everything, but they weren't.

It is, and has always been, a fun distraction. Which is about how I feel about skinning them in different color hoods. It's still just no-character NPC with a random name generator in a red outfit instead of white. It lacks any depth at all. Give me character, actual leveling and a variety of useful skills any day.

-------

PS You can throw guards into scaffolding and have it crumble in AC1. But I like the idea of having to escape the city, sounds sweet. :)

yea i was saying the back story behind the recruits were better then the past games, but they kinda cancel each other out (the negative and the positive). One of the recruits was actually the little boy in the haytham opera part. But the earning their respect part didn't really feel that great, i did my missions and then they said they'd help me. It wasn't like i saw them they didn't trust me and attacked me, then i had to work with them, then prove myself to them. It was due 5 missions that were easy and they liked me. For the sending them around part it wasn't really anything different from the past games, so no big woop there.

I never argued that they can't do a lot more than the past recruits, i argued that what they did was pointless. Just like the past recruits, i didn't need them at all and never used them unless it was required by the mission. They are useless as they are because we can do EVERYTHING ourselves. The recruits were all the same in skill once they reached level 10. In fact they were the same if they were all the same level from start to finish. Nothing special, if one was more skilled with a bow and while another more in stealth and a third in open combat then okay. But that's not how it is, you can't pick an assassin that is skilled in stealth and have him or her kill your target without starting a open conflict.

You mentioned people should stop saying that they didn't have to use them, well it is true you never did. But rather than having them tagged on to the game, if they were more engrossed into the story, if you build actual connections with them that you could notice while playing the game, from both gameplay and story. Then okay, but as they are now, they aren't anything special. What people want is for them to be special, for them to be amazing and useful and necessary in some aspects. What about a AC4 being about one assassins that has a partner assassin and has all the skills and their own strengths and weaknesses. Thus meaning that you have to adapt to their strenghts and weaknesses.

You point out that a 7 year old could chain kills together, and it's true because i've seen it. And that is sad and disappointing that a game like this is so easy that a kid with no experience in these games (the kid i saw, my cousin) can kill every guard. This game is too easy and people have been complaining about it for years.

and your final point agrees with my point i stated before, yes it is better to have a character with depth. But these characters, although having more depth, have no use and are pointless. Give us a recruit, even if we only have 1 or 2 recruits in AC4 that have purpose, usefulness, depth, and emotional pull.

-------

I'm not talking about throwing guards into scaffolds, I'm talking about cutting a piece of wood in the scaffold and making it fall on the on the road and making a barricade so noone could fallow you.

TrueAssassin77
11-27-2012, 04:43 PM
Initially the idea behind the customization of the assassin recruits was that you could customize them and say what weapon they used, outfit they wore, and how their parkour skills were. I remember vividly in a video about it in ACB that you could customize all three and that was removed in the final product. Ubisoft has been removing features for the franchise from day one, in AC1 you originally could ride a horse in towns, and break scaffolds. Riding a horse in a town was only released in ACB and the scaffold was only put into ACR. Honestly this game could have been so much better if they kept everything from the original AC1 concept and worked up from there. Not take away what made that version cool and continue to remove features that would make the game better.

Also you had to escape the city after the assassination and if you weren't fast enough the gates would close. And it was probably as hard as dark souls, where one hit and you died



yes the fact that they look different and have different voices and outfits are better i'll give that 2 points. But lack of them wearing a hood is -1 point. They didn't really have any use another -1 point. Putting them back at 0, and lets subtract the fact that they removed all customization from them putting them at -1. But there was another good thing, there was some story behind the characters, back to 0. Well their score is still 0, when they should have been at a 5 out of 5.

exactly how i feel

TrueAssassin77
11-27-2012, 04:45 PM
btw guys. i said the recruits were downgraded in term/regards to customization/replayability

not that they were downgraded entierly.... and i think them having there own unique master assassin suit is way more rewarding than a cook coming to my rescue....

luckyto
11-27-2012, 05:59 PM
I'd rather have better mechanics than pretty costumes.

PDavis, if your complaint is against recruits from Brotherhood to AC3, then I see your point. They have never been required. I think my point was that AC3 is no different than ACB or ACR. But you are right, they are just fun distractions in their current state. I found the stuff in AC3 much more engaging than the past two installments.

It is somewhat of a catch 22. I really don't like "requirements" for open world games. One reason that I love AC1 is that you had the most flexibility in dealing with assassinations. Some people feel like stuff should be mandatory, and I'm not so sure. In AC3's case, I do feel like some number of side missions should missions should have been completed before moving on in the story. Such as: To unlock Sequence 7, complete 8 Homestead missions. To unlock sequence 9, recruit two additional assassins. To unlock sequence 10, upgrade the Aquila with three new items. I feel like this would have tied the story a little tighter to the free roam missions; and perhaps embue a little more significance.

But I am torn. I don't like 'requirements" and neither do many other fans. If you make recruits 'requirements', it might be more trouble than it's worth. Which is why I'm OK with keeping them as fun distractions.

TrueAssassin77
11-28-2012, 05:47 PM
i don't see how a certain skin can interfere with the better echanics.

the devs literally said it themselves. the asssssin outfits are like work cloths.

if thats true then what are my recruits doing? its not like i can't make them outfits. theres a reason why, i have a homestead artisan that makes clothes.

psf22
12-02-2012, 08:00 AM
Initially the idea behind the customization of the assassin recruits was that you could customize them and say what weapon they used, outfit they wore, and how their parkour skills were. I remember vividly in a video about it in ACB that you could customize all three and that was removed in the final product. Ubisoft has been removing features for the franchise from day one, in AC1 you originally could ride a horse in towns, and break scaffolds. Riding a horse in a town was only released in ACB and the scaffold was only put into ACR. Honestly this game could have been so much better if they kept everything from the original AC1 concept and worked up from there. Not take away what made that version cool and continue to remove features that would make the game better.

...

Wait what? You could do that since AC2, or was it Brotherhood (?) but not just until AC:R

Sorry had to point it out.

TrueAssassin77
12-02-2012, 08:02 AM
Wait what? You could do that since AC2, or was it Brotherhood (?) but not just until AC:R

Sorry had to point it out.

. the scaffold break was in AC2 and AC3, but it was only when you throw someone into them. in ACR, you used the hookblade to break them

psf22
12-02-2012, 08:04 AM
. the scaffold break was in AC2 and AC3, but it was only when you throw someone into them. in ACR, you used the hookblade to break them

Now these are the truest details I like, Nice!