PDA

View Full Version : Do you want more frontier areas?



lothario-da-be
01-05-2013, 06:27 PM
A simple question would you like more maps like the frontier in future ac games? Or do you want cities only?

Bucur92
01-05-2013, 06:30 PM
Yes more frontier.

Astatos XIX
01-05-2013, 06:31 PM
That depends on the setting of the game to be honest. It worked in AC3 because it was the central hub for hunting as well as being the main place you found new members for the homestead. If, say, the next game is set in London during the Victorian or Edwardian era then it wouldn't make any sense to have it.

kriegerdesgottes
01-05-2013, 06:50 PM
I find the frontier a bit boring. The cities are the real attraction for me in AC games because they can be recreated. If I wanted to see forests I'd go outside. Don't get me wrong, The frontier is fine but I'd prefer they not focus so much on it in future games. I think it was a mistake to make the frontier such a huge map and make the cities relatively small although they are a decent size in ACIII. So I guess I hope they put in some sort of wilderness area in future games but I don't want it to be the main area again. It's just not that exciting to me and it gets old so fast.

AjinkyaParuleka
01-05-2013, 06:55 PM
WTB Pre-Production Frontier :>.Yeah i found frontier very interesting and much more beautiful than the cities,so i would love it if the setting's right.
Edit:Frontier can never get old o.O.Yesterday I went to some place in the frontier and i found trees covered with fungus...

lothario-da-be
01-05-2013, 07:10 PM
I find the frontier a bit boring. The cities are the real attraction for me in AC games because they can be recreated. If I wanted to see forests I'd go outside. Don't get me wrong, The frontier is fine but I'd prefer they not focus so much on it in future games. I think it was a mistake to make the frontier such a huge map and make the cities relatively small although they are a decent size in ACIII. So I guess I hope they put in some sort of wilderness area in future games but I don't want it to be the main area again. It's just not that exciting to me and it gets old so fast.
True, i have the feeling that the frontier is 3 times Rome instead of 1.5

dewgel
01-05-2013, 07:14 PM
True, i have the feeling that the frontier is 3 times Rome instead of 1.5

I wouldn't have said so. Rome was really big, it just had some pointless areas you'd never want to visit.

But yeah, I'd like to see more Frontier. I would like it to be a bit more filled out though. More settlements and places like Lexington and Concord. I'd like to see other people hunting too, not just Connor.

One thing I liked, which happens rarely, is I sometimes saw Redcoats fighting the Colonists. I'd like more of that. It felt like a glitch when I saw it. I'd like something like the E3 demo. When Connor is doing his own stuff, you can see a platoon sneaking up on a Redcoat fort.

And, the thing that was promised, frozen lakes to unlock more areas. That thing got me stoked back when I originally heard about it.

Sushiglutton
01-05-2013, 07:44 PM
I wouldn't mind if they skipped the cities in the next game. Concentrated on building a believable forest (with some small settlements like in AC3, where you can trade and interact with people). Perhaps the Amazon rainforest (Brazil ;) ).

lothario-da-be
01-05-2013, 07:51 PM
I wouldn't mind if they skipped the cities in the next game. Concentrated on building a believable forest (with some small settlements like in AC3, where you can trade and interact with people). Perhaps the Amazon rainforest (Brazil ;) ).
OMG NO i wouldn't even buy it.

kriegerdesgottes
01-05-2013, 07:54 PM
OMG NO i wouldn't even buy it.

Same. That would just be terrible. It wouldn't even be AC anymore. It would be a third person far cry game. (although far cry 3 is a good game)

lothario-da-be
01-05-2013, 07:56 PM
Same. That would just be terrible. It wouldn't even be AC anymore. It would be a third person far cry game. (although far cry 3 is a good game)
Do you have fc3?

Sushiglutton
01-05-2013, 08:01 PM
Same. That would just be terrible. It wouldn't even be AC anymore. It would be a third person far cry game. (although far cry 3 is a good game)

So all games set in a forest are the same :confused:? It would still have a historical setting, hidden blade, assassins, templars, leap of faith, parkour, stealth, melee combat. Fail to see the big deal.

lothario-da-be
01-05-2013, 08:02 PM
So all games set in a forest are the same :confused:? It would still have a historical setting, hidden blade, assassins, templars, leap of faith, parkour, stealth, combat. Fail to see the big deal.
Woods aren't realy historical

Sushiglutton
01-05-2013, 08:04 PM
Woods aren't realy historical

People and villages are. I'm not talking about an unexplored forest. I said something similar to AC3's frontier.

lothario-da-be
01-05-2013, 08:07 PM
People and villages are. I'm not talking about an unexplored forest. I said something similar to AC3's frontier.
The frontier didn't felt historical for me.

kriegerdesgottes
01-05-2013, 08:16 PM
Do you have fc3?

Yes

kriegerdesgottes
01-05-2013, 08:19 PM
So all games set in a forest are the same :confused:? It would still have a historical setting, hidden blade, assassins, templars, leap of faith, parkour, stealth, melee combat. Fail to see the big deal.

You can't historically recreate a forest. It's just not possible. Nor would I want them to. I think they should make it more like AC1 was where there are three major cities and then have a relatively large forest area that you can occasionally go to to hunt or whatever but not make it such a huge portion of the game.

Sushiglutton
01-05-2013, 08:21 PM
The frontier didn't felt historical for me.

Don't know what to say to that :). Connor himself is an unusual beast in modern society. I mean running around in the wild armed with a bow and a couple of flintlocks is not something people usually do. And then ofc the little towns and the settlers doing their tasks. That doesn't exactly look like modern day to me. Then ofc the soldiers with their drums and their muskets. Have a hard time believing anyone can explore the frontier for long thinking he is in modern day US.

Sushiglutton
01-05-2013, 08:30 PM
You can't historically recreate a forest. It's just not possible. Nor would I want them to. I think they should make it more like AC1 was where there are three major cities and then have a relatively large forest area that you can occasionally go to to hunt or whatever but not make it such a huge portion of the game.

AC has a huge issue with too much quantity. Gampelay is not what it should be, mission design is really weak, sidemissions are underdeveloped, tons of bugs and so on. Building three major cities and a large forest area is the last thing they should do at this point imo. I think that having just one type of enviroment would make things easier. The frontier was really cool the way it was, mixing villages and the wild, and I'm curious to see how good it could be if they could focus completely on it.

I don't understand what you mean by a "You can't historically recreate a forest". They allready did the frontier, it was fine.

lothario-da-be
01-05-2013, 08:35 PM
Yes
How is the MP? my little bro is cod addicted and strange enough darksiders is the only game that can keep him away of cod, he even did it platina! So i'am searching for similar mp games to get him away of cod. Is it good for cod players?

DELTA Kristian
01-05-2013, 09:40 PM
Try BF3 ( Battlefield 3 ) Its amazing: Tanks,jets,boats,interesting story,building destruction,Big arsenal of weapons,Knife kill animations/no,nice team work based modes such as : Rush,Conquest,Tank Superioty.

pacmanate
01-05-2013, 09:42 PM
If there is another Frontier they NEED to make more us of it. AKA more missions scattered around the whole map, not just the middle. They could have done something with Black Creek, that part of the Frontier is amazing but at the same time there is nothing to do there except one fort.

SixKeys
01-06-2013, 12:25 AM
I voted no. Some wilderness is fine, but the Frontier was way too big and empty in AC3. I prefer the cities where you have people around you to interact with and observe.

DroppedClock56
01-06-2013, 12:38 AM
How is the MP? my little bro is cod addicted and strange enough darksiders is the only game that can keep him away of cod, he even did it platina! So i'am searching for similar mp games to get him away of cod. Is it good for cod players?

Call of Duty players and Assassins Creed players dont realy match. The Assassin community groups COD players as 12 year old kids who have no taste or skill.

kriegerdesgottes
01-06-2013, 05:46 AM
AC has a huge issue with too much quantity. Gampelay is not what it should be, mission design is really weak, sidemissions are underdeveloped, tons of bugs and so on. Building three major cities and a large forest area is the last thing they should do at this point imo. I think that having just one type of enviroment would make things easier. The frontier was really cool the way it was, mixing villages and the wild, and I'm curious to see how good it could be if they could focus completely on it.

I don't understand what you mean by a "You can't historically recreate a forest". They allready did the frontier, it was fine.

I disagree. It was not fine. It was boring. And there is no such thing imo as "too much quantity" as long as it is done right. ACI was amazing except for its limitations and all the stuff it left out. If there was a game with all frontier and no cities, I can assure you, I would not buy it.

@ Lothario. Sorry to be honest I don't do MP so I don't know what it's like but the SP is pretty good if you like first person. My only problem with it is that I hate FPM but otherwise it's great.

shobhit7777777
01-06-2013, 07:26 AM
I liked the frontier
It made sense within the Context
It was a technical achievement IMO

I do not want it in the next AC game. Actually...I do not NEED it in another AC game.

It did 0 for me in terms of evolution of the franchise. It was fun and all but time to get back to the basics.

That said....does anyone really think that after Ubi has invested so much time, effort and money on this tech they would NOT incorporate it into the next game? Be prepared to see frontier/forests in the next game.

Sushiglutton
01-06-2013, 09:58 AM
I disagree. It was not fine. It was boring. And there is no such thing imo as "too much quantity" as long as it is done right. ACI was amazing except for its limitations and all the stuff it left out. If there was a game with all frontier and no cities, I can assure you, I would not buy it.

@ Lothario. Sorry to be honest I don't do MP so I don't know what it's like but the SP is pretty good if you like first person. My only problem with it is that I hate FPM but otherwise it's great.

The word "fine" referred to the job they did of recreating a historical rural area. I agree with you that there were too little to do and the things that you could do (like hunting) were underdeveloped and not particulary fun. Same could be said for the cities though. In a game with just a frontier type area they would ofc have to come up with new more fun activities.

You dispute that if you do a lot of things, the quality of each individual thing will be less, all other things equal?

D.I.D.
01-06-2013, 10:28 AM
AC has a huge issue with too much quantity. Gampelay is not what it should be, mission design is really weak, sidemissions are underdeveloped, tons of bugs and so on. Building three major cities and a large forest area is the last thing they should do at this point imo. I think that having just one type of enviroment would make things easier. The frontier was really cool the way it was, mixing villages and the wild, and I'm curious to see how good it could be if they could focus completely on it.

I don't understand what you mean by a "You can't historically recreate a forest". They allready did the frontier, it was fine.

It would have fully become Adventurer's Creed if it was all frontier and villages though. There are tons of games for that.

I think it's a question of scale. You could make a wild landscape as big as you like, but your character would be an "x"-sized lump in that world, and every other person you encountered would be x-size too. The world might be large, but you're seeing the same size of bubble around you most of the time unless you're watching the synchronisation animation from a treetop, or you've reached a lakeside cliff.

What the city gives you, when you're high up among the highest parts of the architecture, is the feeling of being this deadly speck among a million points of detail (features of the buildings, other people, animals, stalls etc.). If you choose to cause some kind of disturbance, you're going to have to swoop in to street level, and then you're experiencing a different range. Then you haul yourself away to safety, and once again you have that eagle-eye view of things. Even sound is 'zoomed out'. Lots of games are 3D, but very few emphasise that verticality.

Aside from the atmospheric aspects, I think the game needs politically important targets. A wilderness-only game would be forever having to contrive reasons why such people happen to be in the woods visiting small rural towns.

Sushiglutton
01-06-2013, 10:51 AM
It would have fully become Adventurer's Creed if it was all frontier and villages though. There are tons of games for that.

I think it's a question of scale. You could make a wild landscape as big as you like, but your character would be an "x"-sized lump in that world, and every other person you encountered would be x-size too. The world might be large, but you're seeing the same size of bubble around you most of the time unless you're watching the synchronisation animation from a treetop, or you've reached a lakeside cliff.

What the city gives you, when you're high up among the highest parts of the architecture, is the feeling of being this deadly speck among a million points of detail (features of the buildings, other people, animals, stalls etc.). If you choose to cause some kind of disturbance, you're going to have to swoop in to street level, and then you're experiencing a different range. Then you haul yourself away to safety, and once again you have that eagle-eye view of things. Even sound is 'zoomed out'. Lots of games are 3D, but very few emphasise that verticality.

Aside from the atmospheric aspects, I think the game needs politically important targets. A wilderness-only game would be forever having to contrive reasons why such people happen to be in the woods visiting small rural towns.

There are zero games like that actually. No other game let's you climb around an area like the frontier. And then ofc we have all the other things the AC franchise stands for. Hidden blade, mixture of stealth and melee combat, leap of faith etc.

There was plenty of verticality in the frontier I don't see the problem with that. Yeah a city is different than a frontier type area and obv offer some things the frontier can't. But it works both ways. In the frontier there is a calm and sense of freedom that you don't get in the cities. You can do ambushes and hunt as well. There is also that special feeling when you get back to civilization again after a long time in the frontier ;).

There could be a temple hidden somewhere in the area that both the assassins and templars are trying to get to first. The templars have sent a large expedition (army rather lol) . They have built bases and camps scattered through the wild. The assassins have sent Connor :cool:!

D.I.D.
01-06-2013, 11:03 AM
There are zero games like that actually. No other game let's you climb around an area like the frontier.

Skyrim, RDR, Fable, countless MMOs? The only thing that's different is that you can't climb trees, and I don't play AC to assassinate voles and badgers.


And then ofc we have all the other things the AC franchise stands for. Hidden blade, mixture of stealth and melee combat, leap of faith etc.

The hidden blade has been created as an urban weapon, just like the real concealed weapons throughout history. I think it loses its meaning in a village.


There was plenty of verticality in the frontier I don't see the problem with that. Yeah a city is different than a frontier type area and obv offer some things the frontier can't. But it works both ways. In the frontier there is a calm and sense of freedom that you don't get in the cities. You can do ambushes and hunt as well. There is also that special feeling when you get back to civilization again after a long time in the frontier ;).

Yeah I agree, the frontier is a nice change of pace and I enjoyed exploring it, but I had been following the conversation from earlier in the thread where you proposed an all-wilderness game.


There could be a temple hidden somewhere in the area that both the assassins and templars are trying to get to first. The templars have sent a large expedition (army rather lol) . They have built bases and camps scattered through the wild. The assassins have sent Connor :cool:!

That's true :) You couldn't have many of those in one area or it would become a little comical (even if the next gen tech allowed for a vast area, there's a limit to how big players would really want it to be), but I suppose you could have separate environments like Cappadocia. Still, I like the cities. The games are inspired by a real history where assassination was a huge risk for any powerful person, and I enjoy the recognition factor. I'm less impressed by the missions involving invented targets, and find it much more exciting to be sent after someone like Francesco de Pazzi.

DragonAddicted
01-06-2013, 11:05 AM
It would be awesome when they expand "the Frontier", maybe with some extra animal species, more forts and villages.

Th3Aw3som3On31
01-06-2013, 11:14 AM
If it fits with the story ex: If its modern day N.Y. (I know its not that) there shouldn't be a frontier in the game. Also they need to add more things, while its absolutely amazing looking, it needs more things other than hunting. More forts, enemies attacking innocent hunters for their pelts, etc.

Sushiglutton
01-06-2013, 11:28 AM
Skyrim, RDR, Fable, countless MMOs? The only thing that's different is that you can't climb trees, and I don't play AC to assassinate voles and badgers.



The hidden blade has been created as an urban weapon, just like the real concealed weapons throughout history. I think it loses its meaning in a village.



Yeah I agree, the frontier is a nice change of pace and I enjoyed exploring it, but I had been following the conversation from earlier in the thread where you proposed an all-wilderness game.



That's true :) You couldn't have many of those in one area or it would become a little comical (even if the next gen tech allowed for a vast area, there's a limit to how big players would really want it to be), but I suppose you could have separate environments like Cappadocia. Still, I like the cities. The games are inspired by a real history where assassination was a huge risk for any powerful person, and I enjoy the recognition factor. I'm less impressed by the missions involving invented targets, and find it much more exciting to be sent after someone like Francesco de Pazzi.

To me the climbing makes all the difference. Making a climbable rural area was for me the greatest achievement Ubi accomplished with AC3. There are similarities, but I think they have something very unique that no other game does. Then ofc you can improve upon it and add more features like river rafting, underwater swimming, fun horse riding :eek:, a sleigh perhaps etc (make it more playable and varied). It doesn't even have to be an AC game for me. I wouldn't mind a native American game, a Robin Hood type game or whatever. It's just that Ubi has some really cool toys that I hope they will take full advantage of :).

I do suggest a game that takes place fully in a frontier type area (not just wilderness though). I don't want all future AC games to be like that, just the next one. I think for a middle game like AC3.5 it would provide a nice change and it would be interesting to see what Ubi could do with it, if it was the only thing they had to worry about.