PDA

View Full Version : Outrageous mistakes and design choices in AC III (SPOILERS)



Assassin_M
01-02-2013, 10:51 PM
I`ll be sure to put this on the feedback thread as well, but I made it into a single thread so that I can raise more awareness before it`s too late.

Level Design:

There are some incredible missions in AC III that look and feel like there was actual thought poured into them. they were fun and Innovative, but sadly not all the game is this way. I can understand a little drop in quality of missions, a certain shortness, but what I do not understand is the Battle of Concord. The start of this mission is running through the town of Lexington to reach Concord, fair enough, but the problem lies when we get there. I`m given command of a horse (Which is broken) to run back and forth pressing R1 to give orders to fire.

That is not the least bit enjoyable and I simply couldn't help myself, but call this the worst quest I`v ever played in an AC game. Now the Problem first lies in the catalyst. the horse. Horses are not exactly cream of the crop in AC games and that`s understandable, they`v never been forced in a non-transportation method and that`s also fine, but the horses in AC III are broken. they`re the same ones from Brotherhood. the EXACT same apart from some visual upgrades to it. Why make the entire highlight of the mission a broken horse ? If you so desperately want me to use the horse, fix it. change it. upgrade it, not give me the same old same old and make it the whole point of a mission.

The second problem lies in the context. It was stated that Connor is not a Patriot soldier and i`m sure the mission was designed that way to show that it was Patriots who killed all the red coats while Connor merely gave the order, but it does not work. you ultimately feel like you`re a Patriot Soldier.

The third problem lies in the "Assassin" factor. I enjoyed Den defense in ACR, but what`s in AC III, although similar, is not as strategic or fun as Den defense. so if you`re going to fail at that, scrap it. no need to mimic a system using entirely different methods. The Assassin in the AC universe should either Go full combat, Stealthily approach target, or free run. These should`v been the main highlights of this mission. Stealth, Combat or free running. not an officer giving orders simulation.

Another, not as absurd, choice of design is the chase with Lee. I did not find it the last bit difficult to attain 100%, but that`s not the problem. Charles Lee has become the main Antagonist. The main villain opposing the player. AC games had a tradition of making the final battle epic or with so much meat in it. Final battles in every AC game were unique and had elements that were not present in any other mission. I had no problem with the Chase, I only wanted more to this. A chase, then a battle against henchmen, then a one on one battle. keep your explosions, falls, destruction and injuries, but give me more meat. I want to feel like this is the FINAL BATTLE, not final chase that`s present in several other missions. The only thing that salvaged this one for me was the final scene.

Assassinations:

Correct me if I`m wrong, but there`s a total of 12 targets in AC III.

Miko (Press button prompt)
Louise Mills (Sword fight)
Silas Thatcher (Silent approach or full blown combat)
Edward Braddock (Linear chase then Assassinate)
William Johnson (Silent approach or full blown combat)
John Pitcarin (Same as above)
Thomas Hickey (Semi-linear chase then Assassinate)
Benjamin Church (Press button prompt)
Kanentokon (Press button prompt)
Nicholas Biddle (Swrod fight)
Haytham Kenway (Press button prompt)
Charles Lee (Chase-Scene)

FOUR ?? Four out of 12 Targets use button prompts? This isn't Uncharted or heavy rain. Its not a Cinematic QTE game. I appreciate variety, but this is just absurd. Kanentokon should`v had an Awesome Battle and then they can use that scene all they want AFTER the battle. "I will stop when you`re dead" Battle starts, epic back and forth dialogue, Connor bests him, Kanentokon plays possum, gets back up, struggle starts, press button prompt. But just a button Prompt ? Bad choice. the meat could`v done miles to the emotional impact of the Protagonist`s best friend`s death.

Miko`s Assassination should`v been using social stealth AND free running. Miko is somewhere with a lot of people, Haytham arrives, provide many groups to effectively reach Miko and then BAM.

I`d could go on and on and on, but we can all agree that Button prompts are the worst design choice for a quest in an Open world, sand box, non-linear game.

Ubisoft, I TRULY hope you take this into consideration. What salvaged AC III for me were The World, Gameplay, Story, Characters and Naval missions. I suspect that this may not last for very long.

And one last thing........FREEDOM..remember what made this series so loved.

SixKeys
01-02-2013, 11:11 PM
While I agree with most of what you said, I must disagree on the final battles in previous AC games always being epic. Only the battle with Al Mualim in AC1 is what I would call epic. In AC2 you finally get to assassinate the Pope and then...you fistfight him. In the end you don't even kill him (obviously we know why as it wouldn't have been historically accurate, but it was still a letdown). In ACB Cesare is incredibly easy to beat, all you have to do is kick him until he loses all his armor (the level itself is awesome, though). Let's not even talk about the silly skyfight with Ahmet in ACR. Bottom line, the AC series as a whole hasn't had an epic showdown since the first game and even the other assassination targets are getting sloppier with each release.

I don't think the Battle of Concord was anywhere near the worst mission in the game (that honor would go to the Lee chase or Boston's Most Wanted), but I still agree with your points about it. It seemed odd from a character point of view for Connor to become the leader of the Patriot army and the horses were pretty terrible.

I find the worst mission design in the game to be in the side quests. The Frontiersmen and Hunters' club missions were fine, but the letters and delivery items were just a lazy last-minute insertion. The Homestead missions and cut scenes had some of the worst animation and voice-acting in the entire game, so bad they make me cringe every time I play them. Missions are basically: "Connor, I forgot my hammer all the way in Boston, can you go get it for me?". Or chasing pigs. Or picking flowers. For something that's supposed to be a rather big part of the final game, it's embarrassing how badly the entire Homestead system was designed. I think my overall opinion of the game would have been slightly higher if the Homestead parts had more effort put into them.

Assassin_M
01-02-2013, 11:15 PM
While I agree with most of what you said, I must disagree on the final battles in previous AC games always being epic. Only the battle with Al Mualim in AC1 is what I would call epic. In AC2 you finally get to assassinate the Pope and then...you fistfight him. In the end you don't even kill him (obviously we know why as it wouldn't have been historically accurate, but it was still a letdown). In ACB Cesare is incredibly easy to beat, all you have to do is kick him until he loses all his armor (the level itself is awesome, though). Let's not even talk about the silly skyfight with Ahmet in ACR. Bottom line, the AC series as a whole hasn't had an epic showdown since the first game and even the other assassination targets are getting sloppier with each release.

I don't think the Battle of Concord was anywhere near the worst mission in the game (that honor would go to the Lee chase or Boston's Most Wanted), but I still agree with your points about it. It seemed odd from a character point of view for Connor to become the leader of the Patriot army and the horses were pretty terrible.

I find the worst mission design in the game to be in the side quests. The Frontiersmen and Hunters' club missions were fine, but the letters and delivery items were just a lazy last-minute insertion. The Homestead missions and cut scenes had some of the worst animation and voice-acting in the entire game, so bad they make me cringe every time I play them. Missions are basically: "Connor, I forgot my hammer all the way in Boston, can you go get it for me?". Or chasing pigs. Or picking flowers. For something that's supposed to be a rather big part of the final game, it's embarrassing how badly the entire Homestead system was designed. I think my overall opinion of the game would have been slightly higher if the Homestead parts had more effort put into them.
When I described "epic" I did not necessarily mean satisfying, but each final fight had something different from everything that was in the game. AC II had the staff and apple, ACB had the hidden blade scenes, ACR had the parachute chase and fall. They were all different.

I have to disagree with the Homestead missions, though. I thought chasing pigs and picking flowers was appropriate. it`s not fun nor enjoyable, but that`s how it`s supposed to be.

Finally I agree about the Delivery and letter Quests. I believe those were a part of the Random encounters, but when that did not work, they just threw it in as a generic and uninspired side quest.

Megas_Doux
01-02-2013, 11:28 PM
I certainly agree with this!!!!!

SixKeys
01-02-2013, 11:40 PM
I have to disagree with the Homestead missions, though. I thought chasing pigs and picking flowers was appropriate. it`s not fun nor enjoyable, but that`s how it`s supposed to be.

What's the point of putting missions in a game that are neither fun nor enjoyable?

Cephsus
01-02-2013, 11:52 PM
Mission designs were definitely a setback. The Bunker Hills / Ships had me grinding my teeths. Argh i get stress just thinking about it. xD

Tho my biggest complaint with this game would be i never actually felt much like it was a struggling between templar and assassins. My thoughts when i got the game was Connor was going to be a neutral player in the American Revolution, and he would have to deal with both sides to reach the templars. That never happen. Connor was always working with the Patriots, fighting their battles.

And the chase missions, oh gawd so many chases. Why?!. Synchronization, blah.

SixKeys
01-02-2013, 11:57 PM
Tho my biggest complaint with this game would be i never actually felt much like it was a struggling between templar and assassins. My thoughts when i got the game was Connor was going to be a neutral player in the American Revolution, and he would have to deal with both sides to reach the templars. That never happen. Connor was always working with the Patriots, fighting their battles.

^^ This. Though I think that's more of a storytelling failure, not so much mission design. They definitely needed more missions where the Templars were patriots.

Sushiglutton
01-03-2013, 12:04 AM
The mission design is the one thing in AC3 that is the most broken :(. I think almost everyone in this community agrees that it was just too restricted. The mission you describe is one of many with the same basic flaw. What they do is that they introduce a new mini-mechanic, with very limited rules, that is simply not fun. This leads to way too many tutorial-type missions and shallow, restricted gameplay. Like I wrote in an earlier thread I think they are still afraid of being called repetetive after AC1. They need to develop the core mechanics and trust that they will do the job if they give people the freedom to use them! I understand that you also had character and story related issues with that mission, which is another fair point.

Another thing the mission design failed to do was to highlight the things the game does great (frontier parkour) and hide the things it does poorly (horses). One horse mission was ok due to historical reasons (Revere). The others should have been transformed to free running missions. Bosses have always been meh in AC tbh, because in bossfights it's hard to hide the gameplay. The Lee mission was ok I thought though. I was more upset by the way Haytham was dealt with (stand next to a barrel, press a button, repeat. When his health is low QTE to kill).

This seemed like a good thread to test my new sig and avatar :)

Assassin_M
01-03-2013, 12:05 AM
What's the point of putting missions in a game that are neither fun nor enjoyable?
Did you not notice how I did not excuse the Battle of Concord ? It`s also not fun nor enjoyable, but it`s a highlight. The battles, the fighting, the assassin. It`s highlight should BE fun, enjoyment and challenge.

The Homestead missions were not MEANT to be fun, but rather build a story. give context to Connor`s humanity and change the pace of the constant killing. I agree that some could`v used some elements better, but if you were looking for fun in the homestead missions then you were in the wrong place.

Dejan507
01-03-2013, 12:13 AM
I certainly didn't find battle of Concord that bad, and horse worked fine for me in that mission.. Though hearing "Hold your fire" every time I passed the middle group was exhausting at most..

SixKeys
01-03-2013, 12:21 AM
Did you not notice how I did not excuse the Battle of Concord ? It`s also not fun nor enjoyable, but it`s a highlight. The battles, the fighting, the assassin. It`s highlight should BE fun, enjoyment and challenge.

The Homestead missions were not MEANT to be fun, but rather build a story. give context to Connor`s humanity and change the pace of the constant killing. I agree that some could`v used some elements better, but if you were looking for fun in the homestead missions then you were in the wrong place.

I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to make the Homestead missions BOTH enjoyable and interesting from a storytelling point of view. I rather liked the running threads of Norris' courting and Prudence's pregnancy. They had great potential for making me care about these characters and wanting to help them. But the missions themselves were so boring and forgettable and the animation of the people so bad that I never got any enjoyment out of helping them. As a result I never grew attached to them and never cared for the stories they had to tell. In contrast I might mention that I'm probably the only person who actually liked the flower-picking mission in ACR. For some reason that worked for me while the Homestead missions never did. Maybe because I at least cared about Ezio and wanted to see him succeed in courting Sofia, even if Sofia herself was a boring character.

twenty_glyphs
01-03-2013, 12:25 AM
I really think that AC3 was just way too ambitious for its own good and they simply ran out of time, leading to lots of seemingly sloppy, weird mission structures. Oh, and the bugs. Running out of time due to poor planning or over-confidence in their resources is the only thing that makes any sense to me. How else can someone think that the player running back and forth and hitting a button to command soldiers to fire during a major historical battle is fun? It made no sense at all. "You there, I just met you, and if I did know you I'd know that you are an incredibly athletic, trained sneaking and killing machine, but would you please ride back and forth on a horse and command these idiot soldiers of mine when to fire upon the enemy?" I was looking forward to the start of the battle, expecting Connor to sneak through town and through the trees while a battle raged around him. It made no narrative or gameplay sense to suddenly be dropped into the shoes of a commanding officer ordering soldiers when to fire.

I also agree that the Homestead was poorly designed and implemented. It just didn't do it for me from a narrative or gameplay perspective, and felt awkward and forced. I didn't feel like it added anything to Connor's character because it felt so out of character for him to invite people to live on his homestead, and I never really felt him become a part of the community. Case in point: Connor would often look in a completely different direction to the person he was talking to at the end of the missions. Whether that was by design or just unfinished animation, it was really weird.

CC1138
01-03-2013, 12:31 AM
Even some platforms in the cities were baldy placed: you started to climb your little "platform stairs" that go along the wall and that is clearly designed to take you up but then BAM, you take a signboard in your face that is not leapable from the previous platform (and that is not an isolated problem, I've encountered that many times). Good job Ubi on this one ;)

Assassin_M
01-03-2013, 12:34 AM
I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to make the Homestead missions BOTH enjoyable and interesting from a storytelling point of view. I rather liked the running threads of Norris' courting and Prudence's pregnancy. They had great potential for making me care about these characters and wanting to help them. But the missions themselves were so boring and forgettable and the animation of the people so bad that I never got any enjoyment out of helping them. As a result I never grew attached to them and never cared for the stories they had to tell. In contrast I might mention that I'm probably the only person who actually liked the flower-picking mission in ACR. For some reason that worked for me while the Homestead missions never did. Maybe because I at least cared about Ezio and wanted to see him succeed in courting Sofia, even if Sofia herself was a boring character.
Double standards. This debate is over...

I disagree wholeheartedly and I think I explained why

SixKeys
01-03-2013, 12:38 AM
Double standards. This debate is over...

I disagree wholeheartedly and I think I explained why

Suit yourself. I don't see how it's a double standard for me to care about a flower-picking mission when I care about at least one character involved as opposed to another where I don't care about a single one of them, but I guess it's easier to claim double standards all the time rather than figuring out why someone disagrees with you.

Megas_Doux
01-03-2013, 12:40 AM
Strange, I do think that freerunning on AC3 is the best of the series!!!! Really loved NY and the frontier! Boston not that much though....

Assassin_M
01-03-2013, 01:02 AM
Suit yourself. I don't see how it's a double standard for me to care about a flower-picking mission when I care about at least one character involved as opposed to another where I don't care about a single one of them, but I guess it's easier to claim double standards all the time rather than figuring out why someone disagrees with you.
I need not ask why you disagree with me. I already know as you`v made it perfectly clear that you cared more for Ezio than Connor and thus the context of both missions varied for you...It does not take a rocket scientist to see this...

TrueAssassin77
01-03-2013, 01:03 AM
What I hate is that ALOT of the reasons why people hate AC3 are also in the previous installmens. but for some reason it's an actual issue in AC3. I hate double standards

Kaschra
01-03-2013, 01:57 AM
Oh, the lovely Battle of Concorde mission... only thinking about that one makes me angry. That mission was a disaster and not fun to play at all. I agree with everything you said about it, M.
And the sides missions... yeah. I love the naval missions, they were amazing. And I also like the Homestead missions because I've grown attached to the characters - the missions itself weren't that special, but not too bad.
But I don't like the delivery missions and the assassination... "contracts". Both are just boring.

D.I.D.
01-03-2013, 03:56 AM
I find the worst mission design in the game to be in the side quests. The Frontiersmen and Hunters' club missions were fine, but the letters and delivery items were just a lazy last-minute insertion. The Homestead missions and cut scenes had some of the worst animation and voice-acting in the entire game, so bad they make me cringe every time I play them. Missions are basically: "Connor, I forgot my hammer all the way in Boston, can you go get it for me?". Or chasing pigs. Or picking flowers. For something that's supposed to be a rather big part of the final game, it's embarrassing how badly the entire Homestead system was designed. I think my overall opinion of the game would have been slightly higher if the Homestead parts had more effort put into them.

Yeah. The missions surrounding the building of your town were so incredibly poor, I'd be willing to bet money that they were the work of a separate junior team. Also, as you say, this is where you'll find the clunkiest dialogue and voice acting.

It's one thing for the games to have obvious filler all of the ACs do but Revelations and AC3 have been too blatant about it, and the general drop in design standards has made the line between the central game and that filler somewhat blurry too. In AC3, the nature of the Homestead stuff was too bare. For example, the wedding mission: I found the clues, and was told to find the bride. Remembering that every one of the townsfolk has an icon, I found her square icon and set a map marker. I found her in her normal clothes, walking around looking happy, and could not interact with her. Then I realised that this was a mistake, and I would have to find her doppelganger in the wedding dress.

There was some kind of speech I was supposed to hear, but I didn't know this because I caught her before she could speak her next line. Then a wedding was happening. This is similar to the big Haytham showdown, where I made quick use of the barrels like the game told me to do, and apparently I missed some important speech from him because I followed the game's instructions.

D.I.D.
01-03-2013, 03:57 AM
What I hate is that ALOT of the reasons why people hate AC3 are also in the previous installmens. but for some reason it's an actual issue in AC3. I hate double standards

Yes, let's have a race to the bottom where as long as the new game's bad parts are as bad as the old games' bad parts, everything is great.

ToughGuy31
01-03-2013, 05:00 AM
While I agree with most of what you said, I must disagree on the final battles in previous AC games always being epic. Only the battle with Al Mualim in AC1 is what I would call epic. In AC2 you finally get to assassinate the Pope and then...you fistfight him. In the end you don't even kill him (obviously we know why as it wouldn't have been historically accurate, but it was still a letdown). In ACB Cesare is incredibly easy to beat, all you have to do is kick him until he loses all his armor (the level itself is awesome, though). Let's not even talk about the silly skyfight with Ahmet in ACR. Bottom line, the AC series as a whole hasn't had an epic showdown since the first game and even the other assassination targets are getting sloppier with each release.

I don't think the Battle of Concord was anywhere near the worst mission in the game (that honor would go to the Lee chase or Boston's Most Wanted), but I still agree with your points about it. It seemed odd from a character point of view for Connor to become the leader of the Patriot army and the horses were pretty terrible.

I find the worst mission design in the game to be in the side quests. The Frontiersmen and Hunters' club missions were fine, but the letters and delivery items were just a lazy last-minute insertion. The Homestead missions and cut scenes had some of the worst animation and voice-acting in the entire game, so bad they make me cringe every time I play them. Missions are basically: "Connor, I forgot my hammer all the way in Boston, can you go get it for me?". Or chasing pigs. Or picking flowers. For something that's supposed to be a rather big part of the final game, it's embarrassing how badly the entire Homestead system was designed. I think my overall opinion of the game would have been slightly higher if the Homestead parts had more effort put into them.
If my memory is correct, I believe one of Connors quotes from the pig mission is... "The things I do for this place!"

PantherophisG
01-03-2013, 06:02 AM
What I hate is that ALOT of the reasons why people hate AC3 are also in the previous installmens. but for some reason it's an actual issue in AC3. I hate double standards

What I hate is the fact that an issue in several previous games that has not been addressed yet is permissible in this game simply because this game is new. I hate this game because I, apparently, need to play it multiple times to enjoy Connor's story. I hate this game because I feel I was lied to about Connor's character. I hate that the game is now becoming as heavily scripted as any other game on the market. And I hate that the entire structure of the game is still set in the "Expansion Mode" that was introduced in ACB. Funny that these are basically echoes of the complaints many fans have already voiced about ACR. I don't see that as a double standard, merely a reiteration by fans that Ubi made the same mistake......again.

catkiller97
01-03-2013, 07:17 AM
Agreed With M OP. FC3 Suffer with same QTE in boss fights :(

shobhit7777777
01-03-2013, 08:32 AM
+1 to OP

and +1 to SixKeys

The mission design and the crap narrative structure ****ed it all up for me. A member posted about Connor working with the patriots...and I agree....the game felt like a Patriot fetch quest.

this game could've been a masterpiece.

BaronVonES
01-03-2013, 09:38 AM
I`ll be sure to put this on the feedback thread as well, but I made it into a single thread so that I can raise more awareness before it`s too late.

Level Design:

There are some incredible missions in AC III that look and feel like there was actual thought poured into them. they were fun and Innovative, but sadly not all the game is this way. I can understand a little drop in quality of missions, a certain shortness, but what I do not understand is the Battle of Concord. The start of this mission is running through the town of Lexington to reach Concord, fair enough, but the problem lies when we get there. I`m given command of a horse (Which is broken) to run back and forth pressing R1 to give orders to fire.

That is not the least bit enjoyable and I simply couldn't help myself, but call this the worst quest I`v ever played in an AC game. Now the Problem first lies in the catalyst. the horse. Horses are not exactly cream of the crop in AC games and that`s understandable, they`v never been forced in a non-transportation method and that`s also fine, but the horses in AC III are broken. they`re the same ones from Brotherhood. the EXACT same apart from some visual upgrades to it. Why make the entire highlight of the mission a broken horse ? If you so desperately want me to use the horse, fix it. change it. upgrade it, not give me the same old same old and make it the whole point of a mission.

The second problem lies in the context. It was stated that Connor is not a Patriot soldier and i`m sure the mission was designed that way to show that it was Patriots who killed all the red coats while Connor merely gave the order, but it does not work. you ultimately feel like you`re a Patriot Soldier.

The third problem lies in the "Assassin" factor. I enjoyed Den defense in ACR, but what`s in AC III, although similar, is not as strategic or fun as Den defense. so if you`re going to fail at that, scrap it. no need to mimic a system using entirely different methods. The Assassin in the AC universe should either Go full combat, Stealthily approach target, or free run. These should`v been the main highlights of this mission. Stealth, Combat or free running. not an officer giving orders simulation.
...
No disagreements with any of the criticisms you've offered at all. *thumbs up*

I'd like to add that that very mission made me angry for a different reason: the mission briefing makes a specific point of timing when your soldiers actually fire in order to prevent as many casualties as possible. Taking that advice into account, I failed every single time. It's only when I sought advice from a walkthrough that pretty much said 'past a certain point in the battle, just shoot as soon as your horse arrives' that I won on the first attempt using said advice. So the very mission instructions that were given were detrimental (to me at least) to actually completing the mission. I vowed never to replay that mission ever again.

Speaking of the Lee mission, I failed a great many times, but wasn't frustrated by the full-sync requirements. It was the context of them given the altered gameplay from the previous games. If you were Altair or Ezio, shoving a civilian would slow you down. Since you want to reach the target as quickly as possible, it would make sense to take a route with Altair or Ezio that avoided contact with anybody. But Connor isn't fettered by anyone at all - he maintains his speed regardless of whom he runs into and never falls to the ground with a mistimed shove. Why would he then take such a roundabout route to get to Lee? That didn't make sense to me. Plus, as you said, making the final confrontation just a scripted, linear chase sequence followed by a cutscene was just underwhelming.

Lastly, I just want to know something with the horses - did anybody ask for them to become tired? No-one I've ever talked to had an issue in the previous games with horses having unlimited stamina, so I have no clue why the horses suddenly need a stamina guage in this game, because it just slows you down when you want to actually use your horse to gallop from place to place. If they were going to do it for the sake of realism, I don't see why they wouldn't apply it to Connor's running as well - if the justification is that it would make free-running with Connor un-fun, I would argue that it makes riding horses also un-fun and hence shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.

Mardarkin
01-03-2013, 10:05 PM
Speaking of the Lee mission, I failed a great many times, but wasn't frustrated by the full-sync requirements. It was the context of them given the altered gameplay from the previous games. If you were Altair or Ezio, shoving a civilian would slow you down. Since you want to reach the target as quickly as possible, it would make sense to take a route with Altair or Ezio that avoided contact with anybody. But Connor isn't fettered by anyone at all - he maintains his speed regardless of whom he runs into and never falls to the ground with a mistimed shove. Why would he then take such a roundabout route to get to Lee? That didn't make sense to me. Plus, as you said, making the final confrontation just a scripted, linear chase sequence followed by a cutscene was just underwhelming.

Lastly, I just want to know something with the horses - did anybody ask for them to become tired? No-one I've ever talked to had an issue in the previous games with horses having unlimited stamina, so I have no clue why the horses suddenly need a stamina guage in this game, because it just slows you down when you want to actually use your horse to gallop from place to place. If they were going to do it for the sake of realism, I don't see why they wouldn't apply it to Connor's running as well - if the justification is that it would make free-running with Connor un-fun, I would argue that it makes riding horses also un-fun and hence shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.

The constraints feel ... constraining. As opposed to a fun challenge they seem arbitrary and tacked on. 'Do not shove' is a perfect example. Agree completely with your frustration with that and the horse's stamina function. It's bad enough I have to use the broken horse who balks at the mere whiff of an obstacle to get anywhere quickly - I still can't get there [I]quick enough.

Sushiglutton
01-03-2013, 10:12 PM
The constraints feel ... constraining. As opposed to a fun challenge they seem arbitrary and tacked on. 'Do not shove' is a perfect example. Agree completely with your frustration with that and the horse's stamina function. It's bad enough I have to use the broken horse who balks at the mere whiff of an obstacle to get anywhere quickly - I still can't get there [I]quick enough.

Some of the constraints feel constraining, but not all. The best constraints are those that gives extra targets imo. Like "find and assassinate the general/captain".

Assassin_M
01-03-2013, 10:16 PM
Some of the constraints feel constraining, but not all. The best constraints are those that gives extra targets imo. Like "find and assassinate the general/captain".
Or sabotage the cannons..

Mardarkin
01-03-2013, 10:17 PM
I didn't mean to give the impression I thought all felt constraining. I certainly agree with you on finding extra targets, I suppose because it automatically justifies itself. You can see an Assassin eliminating an extra, critical target whose living would make the Assassin's escape more difficult. I think that's what I like about Full Sync challenges from previous games is there seemed to be more of a relationship between the condition [Use a hidden blade, for example] and the type of target you were taking out. Or you could imagine that you did it such a way because Ezio might have done it that way. Some of the constraints [like performing corner kills, for example] didn't necessarily increase the feeling of stealthiness, seem necessary, more efficient, or reflect Connor's particular physicality. Just my personal feeling.

LoyalACFan
01-03-2013, 11:13 PM
The biggest problem I have with the mission design is the inescapable linearity, as many others have said. And part of the problem is that the constraints are often no longer truly optional. Yes, you can technically get away with killing Pitcairn without Air Assassinating him, but anyone who has attempted this knows he's practically a friggin' demigod. It takes like a dozen arrows to kill him, he has a huge health bar in a straight-out fight, and you can't kill him with a tool-counter. Jumping off the flagpole is undeniably the "right" way to do the mission, and that's not what AC is about. Apparently the fans are the only ones who understand that.

Also, about the Homestead missions... Some of them are fine, like helping Norris with courting Miriam or helping Dave escape execution, but others were just shockingly bad and added nothing to Connor's character, or any of the characters for that matter. Like the fetch quests; "Hey Connor, could you go back to [insert city] and bring me my super-important [insert object]?" *runs to city, presses button, runs back* "Oh, thank you!" 100% SYNCHRONIZED. Um... what? How is it adding anything to the characters if he isn't even with them when he's doing the task?

BaronVonES
01-04-2013, 01:01 AM
The constraints feel ... constraining. As opposed to a fun challenge they seem arbitrary and tacked on. 'Do not shove' is a perfect example. Agree completely with your frustration with that and the horse's stamina function. It's bad enough I have to use the broken horse who balks at the mere whiff of an obstacle to get anywhere quickly - I still can't get there [I]quick enough.
This is what I find somewhat baffling. The problem in Brotherhood and Revelations was that while the constraints were challenging and even fun at times, their implementation was downright crap (e.g. having to restart a laborious 10 minute stealth sequence for the upteenth because you got spotted by a guard you couldn't see until the last second). The checkpoint system and multiple-sync requirement system remedy this problem marvelously, but the difficulty in them now seems obtuse (rather than challenging and fun). Also, while I don't have a problem with full-sync in principle, I still think it is a bad idea to have them in the forefront of a first playthrough, because it makes the player think that the level is more linear than it actually is. Maybe the optional objectives should only be highlighted when the memory is being replayed - this would at least let the player believe that there are multiple ways to approach the level (as was the case in the original Assassin's Creed).

Jarek23
01-04-2013, 01:42 AM
I agree with the majority of what people have said on the first page, don't feel like reading through everything so if I say something that's already been beaten to death, then I apologize, except for my first issue.

1. Ambient F'n Music!

2. The whole Templars vs Assassins was the weakest in AC3 than it was in any other game. Even liberating forts, before when you would liberate a den or a fort an assassins flag would be raised, here, an American flag, which brings me to my next point.

3. Like assassin_M said, this game was way too pro American, at the end of the day, you felt like an American fighting the Brits, not an assassin fighting the templar order. Even the laundry hanging on clothes lines are red white and blue, lol ridiculous!

4. The QTE and Uncharted like linearity. I hated the end of this game simply because it gave you no freedom at all, and what worries me more is the survey ubi sent out, asking players if they enjoyed uncharted 3 and would like to see AC games take a similar approach, hellll no, I love uncharted, but I don't want to be forced to walk slow because I'm injured, blurry vision and what not, this isn't COD.

5. While I love the frontier and jumping from tree to tree, it was easier to run on the ground, as it was in the cities, every other game I spent more time on rooftops than I did on the ground, certainly not the case in AC3, I would only climb if I was forced to.

6. Tombs/lairs/peg leg missions, sure they were cool, but they're crap compared to what previous installments gave us.

7. The whole Haytham/Connor growing up took wayyy too long, this could have easily be done within 3 sequences with connor being a full out assassin at the start of seq 4...using up half the game just to pretty much tell a story and give us tutorials, ridiculous. This game was made with newcomers in mind, and it all started with it's location, this series has been selling well over the years, but it's always sold worse in north america than anywhere else, so the solution is to set the game in america and make it noob friendly.

8. The ending, just like Assassin_m said, this was the worst ending, just a crappy chase scene.

9. White on white subtitles! WTF!


At the end of the day this is still a great game and I love it, but there are certain things about it that were awful choices.

SixKeys
01-04-2013, 02:00 AM
Speaking of the Lee mission, I failed a great many times, but wasn't frustrated by the full-sync requirements. It was the context of them given the altered gameplay from the previous games. If you were Altair or Ezio, shoving a civilian would slow you down. Since you want to reach the target as quickly as possible, it would make sense to take a route with Altair or Ezio that avoided contact with anybody. But Connor isn't fettered by anyone at all - he maintains his speed regardless of whom he runs into and never falls to the ground with a mistimed shove. Why would he then take such a roundabout route to get to Lee? That didn't make sense to me. Plus, as you said, making the final confrontation just a scripted, linear chase sequence followed by a cutscene was just underwhelming.

Lastly, I just want to know something with the horses - did anybody ask for them to become tired? No-one I've ever talked to had an issue in the previous games with horses having unlimited stamina, so I have no clue why the horses suddenly need a stamina guage in this game, because it just slows you down when you want to actually use your horse to gallop from place to place. If they were going to do it for the sake of realism, I don't see why they wouldn't apply it to Connor's running as well - if the justification is that it would make free-running with Connor un-fun, I would argue that it makes riding horses also un-fun and hence shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.

Good points. The horses were just fine in previous installments, I don't know why they felt the need to make so many changes to them. The stamina thing was especially annoying considering this game has the largest maps in the entire franchise. The "rear" option was entirely useless, too. As a PC player I'm used to the Space bar being for gallop, so it made chases all the more annoying when I wanted to go faster and the horse just rears instead.


I didn't mean to give the impression I thought all felt constraining. I certainly agree with you on finding extra targets, I suppose because it automatically justifies itself. You can see an Assassin eliminating an extra, critical target whose living would make the Assassin's escape more difficult. I think that's what I like about Full Sync challenges from previous games is there seemed to be more of a relationship between the condition [Use a hidden blade, for example] and the type of target you were taking out. Or you could imagine that you did it such a way because Ezio might have done it that way. Some of the constraints [like performing corner kills, for example] didn't necessarily increase the feeling of stealthiness, seem necessary, more efficient, or reflect Connor's particular physicality. Just my personal feeling.

While I agree with your overall points, I must say I hate the constraints that force you to use a particular weapon to kill your target. There's one Templar agent mission in ACB where there's a guy shooting random civilians. The full synch requires you to kill him with your hidden blade, but I always shoot him with the hidden gun. It just feels more poetic to shoot the shooter. Similarly missions where I could easily perform a badass air assassination require you to kill the target with your gun instead. Constraints are best left a bit vague, like "kill two enemies without using any kind of blades". That leaves you with many different options.

iArfal
01-06-2013, 01:29 AM
I disliked Connor so bad, he was plain boring and cold. No emotions, no jokes, no laughs, 0 funny enjoyable moments, unlike Ezio. The scene when prudence had a baby was so weird because they tried to show him surprised but it failed, he was like "GReaayt omg baby!!" with a plain poker face. Haytham had way more chances to please the audience.

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 02:26 AM
I disliked Connor so bad, he was plain boring and cold. No emotions, no jokes, no laughs, 0 funny enjoyable moments, unlike Ezio. The scene when prudence had a baby was so weird because they tried to show him surprised but it failed, he was like "GReaayt omg baby!!" with a plain poker face. Haytham had way more chances to please the audience.
Basically hated Connor because he was not Ezio...

Mute..

SixKeys
01-06-2013, 02:30 AM
Basically hated Connor because he was not Ezio...

Mute..

Mute = Unable to speak

Moot = Point that is rendered invalid

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 02:42 AM
Mute = Unable to speak

Moot = Point that is rendered invalid
I know what each means, but thanks for making it clear to anyone who did not...

SixKeys
01-06-2013, 02:49 AM
So why do you think the person who posted about Connor is unable to speak?

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 02:53 AM
So why do you think the person who posted about Connor is unable to speak?
I mute his opinion to my perception and he/she will most likely be unheard by others as well..

roostersrule2
01-06-2013, 02:58 AM
Basically hated Connor because he was not Ezio...

Mute..Although I half agree with you, you seem to hate others who have different views to you. That's very Templarish.

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 03:03 AM
Although I half agree with you, you seem to hate others who have different views to you. That's very Templarish.
I don't hate others who have different opinions. I`v no right to hate anyone. If I find a different opinion, I leave it be and offer no reply. If I find an opinion that I deem ridiculous and close minded, even if it`s the same as mine (I have every right to form an opinion about an opinion) I`ll point out how ridiculous said opinion is..

Surely THIS VERY thread proves this...I disagree with a a lot of things in here..

IronEagl3
01-06-2013, 03:03 AM
Yeah those Homestead missions were really bad. The only good ones I can recall great were the ones with actual cinematics. The rest were just straight up bad. Words cannot describe the awful feeling of watching them. The cut scenes were boring, everybody had a straight back, arms moved in an awkward manor, and eyes brows went up and down when they were to show any emotion.

I remember one cut scene when Norris tells Connor he likes Myriam. "I like her Connor." "We all do Norris." "Not like me..." "Oh...OHHH" and all Connor did was open his eyes, lift his eye brows, and stand there with nothing else moving.

Or when Achilles told Connor who his old robes belonged to, and the camera was zooming slowly into Achilles's face while he stood there with no emotion, just moving his shoulders back and forth as he was talking about how it resembled honor and all that stuff.

Also someone mentioned how 1/3 of the game was played as Haytham, and even as Connor, a lot of it was just boring old stuff like a sequence of him being trained and tutorials. His portion of the game was so short that I was afraid to advance further as I progressed through the game, because I knew that the sequences wouldn't last long. There were like 3 missions per sequence am I right? 4 at the most.

roostersrule2
01-06-2013, 03:15 AM
I don't hate others who have different opinions. I`v no right to hate anyone. If I find a different opinion, I leave it be and offer no reply. If I find an opinion that I deem ridiculous and close minded, even if it`s the same as mine (I have every right to form an opinion about an opinion) I`ll point out how ridiculous said opinion is..

Surely THIS VERY thread proves this...I disagree with a a lot of things in here..Hate was probably too strong a word but anyway, you seem to jump to conclusions like if someone doesn't like Connor you automatically jump to the conclusion that it's because he's not Ezio Jr.

FirestarLuva
01-06-2013, 03:23 AM
I agree with some of the missions being bad. There were many that made me RAGE!
What was even more worse, were the stupid optional objectives. They could've at least made some sence. Like, for example, when chasing Hickey the first time, it says don't shove or tackle anyone. Seriously? Even though it wasn't that hard, I find it hard to believe Connor didn't touch anyone while chasing him.
And the lack of tutorials. Air assassinate a grenadier. What's a grenadier? I didn't know until I killed him and failed and had to start all over again.
And I disagree about the Homestead missions. They were really fun, at least for me. And if you finish them there is something really important that happens top Achilles at the end of the story, no spoilers. I'm not sure if I'm alone here, but part of AC3's story felt like a soap opera, at least the homestead missions. Barely any of them had enough action.
And I don't blame the devs about no boss fights. they said it themselves that they made them focusing them more story-wise than gameplay-wise.
AC3 is my fav AC and one of my fav games ever, Connor's story was beautiful and emotional, something you don't see everyday in movies or games, but I hope some of these things the above posters mentioned are fixed if there is another Connor game coming out. Polishing these things and tweaking the existing gameplay features would make the next AC the best ever!

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 03:24 AM
Hate was probably too strong a word but anyway, you seem to jump to conclusions like if someone doesn't like Connor you automatically jump to the conclusion that it's because he's not Ezio Jr.
He perfectly made it clear that he hated Connor because he was not Ezio....I did not jump to conclusions...You did

roostersrule2
01-06-2013, 03:27 AM
He perfectly made it clear that he hated Connor because he was not Ezio....I did not jump to conclusions...You didHe may of, but whenever someone else says I don't like Connor, you always take the "because it's not Ezio" approach.

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 03:35 AM
He may of, but whenever someone else says I don't like Connor, you always take the "because it's not Ezio" approach.
Never...Show me where I`v done that before...instance being said poster not making it perfectly clear that he hated Connor because he was not Ezio, that is...

And may have ? Read his post again...it screams it (CONNOR NOT BEING EZIO MADE ME HATE HIM)

roostersrule2
01-06-2013, 03:45 AM
Never...Show me where I`v done that before...instance being said poster not making it perfectly clear that he hated Connor because he was not Ezio, that is...

And may have ? Read his post again...it screams it (CONNOR NOT BEING EZIO MADE ME HATE HIM)May of was just my way of saying ok he did, but only look at your previous posts to see how many times someone has said I don't like Connor and you immediately think it's because he's not Ezio.

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 03:49 AM
May of was just my way of saying ok he did, but only look at your previous posts to see how many times someone has said I don't like Connor and you immediately think it's because he's not Ezio.
I`v never done that...

Like I said....I know what I post and unless someone bluntly posts it, I never call him/her out about hating Connor because he`s not Ezio..

Toa TAK
01-06-2013, 04:35 AM
I don't think I really had that much of a problem with the mission design with this game. Concord was easy, and pre-patch Lee chase wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. Got him on my 5th go.

BUT, I agree with the constant "Press X" for major assassinations. It shouldn't be like that. And Lee should've gotten some sort of boss battle.

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 04:37 AM
Concord was easy
It was not hard at all. nothing was hard.

It was just not FUN...

Toa TAK
01-06-2013, 04:51 AM
It was not hard at all. nothing was hard.

It was just not FUN...

Truth. We should've been taking those guys head on, or at least doing something behind enemy lines.
EDIT: And get John Parker out of here, too.

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 04:54 AM
Truth. We should've been taking those guys head on, or at least doing something behind enemy lines.
EDIT: And get John Parker out of here, too.
Exactly. I didn't want to be a commander, I wanted to kill redcoats my self, chase Pitcairn, free run through the trees, escape redcoats...ANYTHING that`s actually FUN..

Do something relevant to the AC games....Innovation.. replay-ability, Enjoyment..

shobhit7777777
01-06-2013, 07:30 AM
Truth. We should've been taking those guys head on, or at least doing something behind enemy lines.
EDIT: And get John Parker out of here, too.

With all the focus on combat...I was honestly expecting missions where you infiltrate enemy lines and assassinate a key commander (ficitonal ofcourse) and turning the tide of the battle or buying time. I thought that that would be a main mission structure....and a classic "assassin" mission.

roostersrule2
01-06-2013, 07:36 AM
With all the focus on combat...I was honestly expecting missions where you infiltrate enemy lines and assassinate a key commander (ficitonal ofcourse) and turning the tide of the battle or buying time. I thought that that would be a main mission structure....and a classic "assassin" mission.I just wanted to run into 2000 redcoats and see what happened.

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 07:37 AM
I just wanted to run into 2000 redcoats and see what happened.
I was heartbroken when I got desynced trying to run into the army...

roostersrule2
01-06-2013, 07:40 AM
I was heartbroken when I got desynced trying to run into the army...As was I, then I tried to go from the back and there were trees blocking my way, I got so angry I ended up killing John Pitcairn.

iArfal
01-06-2013, 05:51 PM
Basically hated Connor because he was not Ezio...

Mute..

I said I disliked him because he was cold and boring, I never wrote "I hate Connor because he's not Ezio". Your post was useless and unnecessary.

Assassin_M
01-06-2013, 05:53 PM
I said I hated him because he was cold and boring, I never wrote "I hate Connor because he's not Ezio". Your post was useless and unnecessary.
First, Yes you did..

Second, As was yours. it was off-topic

Gi1t
01-06-2013, 09:23 PM
I don't think I really had that much of a problem with the mission design with this game. Concord was easy, and pre-patch Lee chase wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. Got him on my 5th go.

BUT, I agree with the constant "Press X" for major assassinations. It shouldn't be like that. And Lee should've gotten some sort of boss battle.

Trouble with AC is, when it comes to epic conclusions, gameplay wise there's really no ideal option. The game is too grounded in the real world for a 'throwing lasers and pillars' final boss battle, it's an assassination game, so it feels stupid to end with a ton of enemies to fight and yet, because of its nature, that also means that one important enemy is FAR to weak to be a challenging opponent, yet giving them more health feels arbitrary. You could do something more cinematic, but that also makes it more scripted and if you try to throw in a bunch of failure scenarios, you just make it more frustrating and kill all the momentum of the epic story moment you've built up. AC has tried pretty much every option in the book it seems, but there's just no specific "type" of conclusion gameplay that fits perfectly. (Unfortunately, looking for a silver bullet does seem to be Ubisoft's style.)

I think the only way to really make an epic final boss or whatever you want to call it is to have an enemy that's just really good at fighting (something like a Templar knight or another Assassin like you, either way someone who you would expect to be a tough, intelligent opponent.) Unfortunatley, to make that work, the game really needs a deeper combat system to the point where you can have an enemy that's REALLY good at fighting, however, Ubisoft may have stumbled upon a really good way to create an enemy with more health all the way back in AC1:

Back then, I noticed something I always thought was brilliant, but they never used it the way I figured they would. Sometimes when people took a hit they wouldn't just 'take a hit', but instead would block the attack incorrectly, staving off death, but having their defenses weakened at the same time. All they really did was to replace the 'getting hit' animation with a 'blocking but not correctly' animation, and I thought they were going to make all of the combat like that, where attacks would wear down the defenses of the person on the recieveing end, and weaken them and when they died, they would finally take a direct hit and that would be the end of them.

What I'm saying is, this could be a terrific way to have an opponent who can take a lot more damage. Instead of letting your attacks through, they would be quick enough to avoid a killing stroke, but it wouldn't be a perfect block and it would fatigue them. Do this and suddenly you have a health system that excludes the unrealistic 'getting hit in the face with a sword' animation. ANY animation of taking damage could be designed to imply that the hit wasn't taken directly, but the attack still had a negative effect on the character.

I also think that when it comes to major opponents, you need to come up with some more creative attacks. I know, it's not a fantasy game and I don't expect to see them hurling Demon Fangs at me, but there are plenty of non-magical physical attacks they could use to demonstrate superior skill. Think of it like a real action or action RPG boss just a little bit and give them some abilities to distinguish them from the rank and file you've been slaughtering the whole game. Maybe they leap forward and deliver a guard-crushing heavy slash to catch you off-guard when you think you're just outside the circle of death, or maybe they'll dodge an obvious frontal attack and launch a counter attack etc.

For tha assassination part, someone like this could not be your target, but rather somone else who shows up either before or after the final assassination. And making them a little unusual in some way is a good way to signal to the player that they aren't to be taken lightly and make them expect a tough fight out of this person. You HAVE to give the player a plausible reason why they can't treat this opponent like a typical enemy, and it can't be something cheap. They'll have to put some real work into it if they want an award-winning last fight scenario. With boss battles in any game it's all or nothing. There's no substitute for a good one. :)