PDA

View Full Version : Why do you love or hate the modern day?



ToughGuy31
01-07-2013, 07:48 AM
I've seen a lot of threads about if you like the modern day, but none of them ask why you like/hate it. So I decided to start one about that. :rolleyes:

wapikas
01-07-2013, 09:15 AM
Not exactly hate it but when I wanted to play modern day stealth I would play splinter cell. For me AC is all about distant historic settings.

ProletariatPleb
01-07-2013, 09:41 AM
Why I hate it:
Barely any interesting characters(Shaun is exempted).
Nothing much to do.
Not using guns on a large scale makes no sense.

http://i.imgur.com/Jj8z3.jpg

infamous_ezio
01-07-2013, 10:00 AM
I love it, it's so interesting. Subject 16's part in the games were fascinating, however I do have a problem with how they handled it in revelations onwards... it seems like they don't care much for the modern day plot.. they really should sort it out, it has the potential to be pretty good.

TheArcaneEagle
01-07-2013, 10:30 AM
I buy the game for the Animus Story, not for Desmonds Story. I kinda hate when it drags you out of the Animus now and again especially just after you obtain Connor's Assassin Robes. The only thing good thing about modern day is climbing the huge skyscrapers in I think it was New York. I kinda felt like Batman. :cool:

But a modern day setting for an Assassin's Creed game would just ruin the use of the Hidden Blade. That's why I don't want a modern day setting.

pirate1802
01-07-2013, 10:48 AM
Why I hate it:
Barely any interesting characters(Shaun is exempted).
Nothing much to do.
Not using guns on a large scale makes no sense.


Pretty much this. Having a modem day setting and not using guns is ******ed as hell. But having guns would take away the "AC essence". So I prefer the modern day sections to be as less as possible. ..Unless a brilliant dev finds out a way to circumvent both the problems.

Also this:


I buy the game for the Animus Story, not for Desmonds Story. I kinda hate when it drags you out of the Animus now and again especially just after you obtain Connor's Assassin Robes. The only thing good thing about modern day is climbing the huge skyscrapers in I think it was New York. I kinda felt like Batman. :cool:

But a modern day setting for an Assassin's Creed game would just ruin the use of the Hidden Blade. That's why I don't want a modern day setting.

I'd say I too, buy the games primarily for the history parts. As a history buff, there's literally no game out there like AC, while there are plenty of modern stealth games out there. The ancestors were the primary reason for me to be attracted to AC in the first place. I couldn't care less about Desmond and his ilk. For me he was just a plot device to get into the Animus and the real fun to begin

I'm aware that the modern day parts give AC much of its mystery and lore, and it should continue to be just that: The backbone and not the centrestage. The main focus should always be in the past IMO. The day the modern day sections become the mainstay of AC is the day I'd (sadly) bid adieu to this beautiful series.

As the person above me said: The Skyscraper was pretty much the ONLY modern day part in the entire series till now that I actually enjoyed. Maybe because it had no fist-fighting guards who have guns but forget to use them (lol)

pirate1802
01-07-2013, 10:50 AM
not exactly hate it but when i wanted to play modern day stealth i would play splinter cell. For me ac is all about distant historic settings.

qft.

roostersrule2
01-07-2013, 10:56 AM
I love the modern day parts, because of the story. It's has so much more potential though.

ACfan443
01-07-2013, 11:22 AM
I love it, it's so interesting. Subject 16's part in the games were fascinating, however I do have a problem with how they handled it in revelations onwards... it seems like they don't care much for the modern day plot.. they really should sort it out, it has the potential to be pretty good.

This.
I loved the modern day story, it added so much depth and mystery to the main plot. But I also think they handled it really badly after Revelations, it was obvious they didn't care about it. I was expecting big and epic Desmond missions since technically, the main plot in AC1-AC3 was the modern day which revolved around Desmond and building him up to be a master assassin, the ancestors' part was a sub plot which made up the main plot. I hated that there was no real fight with the modern day Templars or that there was no searching for temples, and I was furious when Shaun sent an email which said that the eye Abstergo launch was cancelled. It just became such lazy and annoying storytelling, and as of now I don't know how I feel about the modern day plot.

dxsxhxcx
01-07-2013, 11:49 AM
I don't hate it, but it's an aspect of the game that is in desperate need of improvement (IMO ALL Desmond sequences in AC3 were awful, I was expecting a lot more of them), IMO the modern day sequences are necessary because they give more meaning to the ancestor part...

slade109
01-07-2013, 12:26 PM
I buy the game for the Animus Story, not for Desmonds Story. I kinda hate when it drags you out of the Animus now and again especially just after you obtain Connor's Assassin Robes. The only thing good thing about modern day is climbing the huge skyscrapers in I think it was New York. I kinda felt like Batman. :cool:

But a modern day setting for an Assassin's Creed game would just ruin the use of the Hidden Blade. That's why I don't want a modern day setting.

This is going to sound like i'm flaming you, which i'm not meaning to come off that way I just want to add my opinion to your comment. it kind of irritates me when people buy assassins creed for "what they think" the game is about. Maybe it's just a little hipster rage, but ac3 being about the revolution brought a giant fan base to this game that I hate. People buying the third game and not even playing the others,

Honestly i'm surprised there aren't ignorant threads lingering about these forums about "stupid scifi crap" or some nonsense like that., but yeah sorry if it sounded like I was aiming at you it's just the whole "I buy the game for the animus story, not for desmonds story." kind of fits my example because assassins creed in my opinion is more about the present day and the animus story is the side story even if it does seem a whole lot bigger.

Sushiglutton
01-07-2013, 12:34 PM
Dislike the modern part for several reasons [SPOILERS BELOW]:
Adds nothing in terms of gameplay. It's either walk, watch cutscene, or a reskin of the ancestor for that game.
Has become more and more silly. The ending of AC3 was a new lowpoint for me. Touching a sphere to synch DNA and unleash a green glow that covers the earth and saves it from a solar flare? And in doing so the protagonist dies and unleashes a new foe for the cliffhanger? I mean contrived doesn't even begin to describe it.
Key parts are explained in other media and/or sold as DLC (explanation for Lucy's actions. Daniel Cross).
Disrupts the pacing. Having the Desmond intro on top of the Haytham intro is just too much. And every time Connor's story is interupted by Desmond's it's annoying.
In a franchise that struggles with too much weakly developed content, getting rid of the modern part seems like a no-brainer to me.

D.I.D.
01-07-2013, 03:05 PM
*MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD* The modern day stuff keeps hobbling the quality standard for the entire story, forever locking it into a bad sci-fi theme. There is a totally different standard for which Ubisoft could aim, but I'm not sure they'll ever be able to claw their way out of the thing they've created. The relationships between modern day characters are very thin, and the attempts to add sophistication via the father/son relationship just made it worse.

The modern day needs more reasons to exist than just being a drop-off point for rediscovered artefacts. The connection between the modern day sections and the world in which they exist is barely there. After five games, we've not been sent to investigate a political aspect of Abstergo's dealings in the world. We're told they pull all the strings, but we don't see any evidence of it. AC2/Brotherhood were only hinting at the ways that history and contemporary events connected with the fiction, and they still had immeasurably more depth than the modern day story has provided. Nobody so much as looks at a newspaper.

You would think, given that we were only presented with tiny contained pieces of the world, that all of those pieces would be extremely tight and well built but the big showdown ended up being very scrappy. It made no sense that Vidic insisted on Desmond bringing the devastating weapon that only he can wield. He knew exactly what it could do, and in his shoes I'd have insisted that Miles would not be allowed near the building unless he proved he didn't have it with him. The mastermind Vidic looked like an idiot, and the ultimate assassin Cross became a weak opponent. The chapter appeared to have been prepared in a hurry, but of course that can't be true because AC3 alone has been worked on for years. The only explanation is that the writing is very bad, so new people should be hired. These guys seem to be in love with Star Wars and The Matrix, and can't imagine any classier way to present this idea.

I also dislike the modern day because it brings TWCB with it. They're terrible clichés, visually and thematically, and they set the stakes too high. The game is apparently always going to be about the end of the world, in one way or another. That's really dull.

she-assassin
01-07-2013, 05:30 PM
I LOVE the modern day story, but at the same time I agree with all the criticism it gets except the complaints that the characters are dull or that the plot is boring because that's nonsense. It's actually a pretty complex story, in fact, much more complex than the stories of the ancestors, or at least it used to be. But somewhere around the end of Brotherhood and the start of Revelations it lost its direction, and I wouldn't say it's the writers' fault because the basic premise, as crazy as it is, is still great. Just look at the comics or AC Initiates, well, you won't see anything there right now, but everyone who followed the Initiates updates for past few months had to realise that the story by far surpassed the AC3's story, even though it's basically the same events. Except they're just so much better put together. So i'd say there's nothing wrong with the storytelling, it's just that the execution is awfully poor. Don't blame the writers, blame those who decide which part of the initial script makes it into the game and which doesn't.

twenty_glyphs
01-07-2013, 06:02 PM
I used to like the modern day story because of the atmosphere and sense of mystery. The concept of exploring history for modern-day uses is an interesting premise. Unfortunately, the story just came off the rails after the first game, even though I didn't think so at the time. Trying to stop Abstergo's mind-control satellite was an interesting enough premise to drive the story, and the Templars and their methods made good antagonists. Even adding TWCB was interesting to me, and the solar flare threat really amped things up. I assumed there was an actual plan for how these two main threats would interact and resolve that would make it worth the confusion it was causing everyone. Their buildup of Desmond and his seeming importance to TWCB and Subject 16 was also interesting, and felt like it had a deliberate, purposeful conclusion planned. Unfortunately, all of that story buildup was just tossed aside with trite resolutions for a new, contrived threat and no hint of what the current status quo of the world is.

The modern-day segments have always had the most boring gameplay as well, and even AC3 couldn't fix that. In fact, it spiraled out of control and ruined it for me. I truly had more fun reading emails in AC1, talking to the team in the warehouse in AC2 and running around the villa in Brotherhood than I did in any of Desmond's segments from AC3. It felt like they were so desperate to generate some gameplay payoff for Desmond without having a real plan for how they were going to do that. If they couldn't do a proper confrontation between Vidic and Desmond, I'd have rather just not seen it. Daniel Cross was just thrown in because people liked him from the comics, and the game and his character would have been better off without what we see of him in AC3.

I think AC3 was also the worst when it came to interrupting the story in the past with the present. In AC1, you always knew when it was coming because it was always at the end of each sequence. In AC2 the interruptions were very sparing. In ACB, you could leave the Animus when you wanted to and only got spit out by the main story twice. In AC3, it just keeps happening and forcing you to do a cheesy Desmond mission before you can get back to the story. They need to really work on the flow of how the past and present stories move back and forth, and cut down on the intrusions of the story in the past and do it at good moments to take a break in the story.

I don't want to see the modern-day story go away, but I think they need to tone it down and scale back the gameplay. AC3 just shows that if they're not going to invest the time in making a completely new game system (which does feel like a waste of time for so little payoff), the modern-day segments fall really flat. I'd like to see the Animus concept continue, but most of the modern-day segments happen through virtual reality type gameplay within the Animus, like hacking into files or something. Perhaps that's the reason Desmond needed to die, to clear the stage and setup a new modern-day premise that won't drag down the gameplay and pacing the way it had gotten.

SixKeys
01-07-2013, 06:37 PM
I love the modern day parts. Without them we wouldn't have things like the glyph puzzles or the Pieces of Eden. If it was just an assassins vs. Templars war in historical times with no modern day connection, there would be no point to uncovering mysteries about TWCB. The modern day parts provide a nice change of pace. In AC3 I mostly wanted to get the Connor parts over with so I could get back to Desmond.

xboxauditore
01-07-2013, 06:52 PM
I quite like the Modern day missions in Assassins Creed 3.

In real life I hate the modern day, *Sigh* I wish I could move to Rapture.

D.I.D.
01-07-2013, 07:22 PM
I love the modern day parts. Without them we wouldn't have things like the glyph puzzles or the Pieces of Eden. If it was just an assassins vs. Templars war in historical times with no modern day connection, there would be no point to uncovering mysteries about TWCB. The modern day parts provide a nice change of pace. In AC3 I mostly wanted to get the Connor parts over with so I could get back to Desmond.

Do you think you could deal with some games including the modern day, and some that are purely historical? I think they need to find a way to space out this 21st century/TWCB stuff so that it doesn't drag down every entry. Maybe it could seem more fresh if it wasn't a constant element?

CalgaryJay
01-07-2013, 07:58 PM
I also dislike the modern day because it brings TWCB with it. They're terrible clichés, visually and thematically, and they set the stakes too high. The game is apparently always going to be about the end of the world, in one way or another. That's really dull.

I agree. Just never been a big sci-fi person, and all that TWCB stuff is way too sci-fi for me. Personally I just find everything too convoluted. For the modern story, the current version of the historic Assassins vs. Templars battle, and Desmond & co's war with Abstergo was good enough for me. TWCB angle is just too over the top for me, there's just too much going on. But I have a feeling I'm in the minority here, which is fine.

she-assassin
01-07-2013, 08:24 PM
I agree. Just never been a big sci-fi person, and all that TWCB stuff is way too sci-fi for me. Personally I just find everything too convoluted. For the modern story, the current version of the historic Assassins vs. Templars battle, and Desmond & co's war with Abstergo was good enough for me. TWCB angle is just too over the top for me, there's just too much going on. But I have a feeling I'm in the minority here, which is fine.
Actually, you're not. I think the general consensus is that the AC series would do much better without TWCB, but NOT without the modern day story.

I don't like how some people say that they hate the modern day storyline because they think it's too convulted and when you ask them what exactly they don't like they say the "aliens". Excuse me, but TWCB are in the ancestors' stories as much as in the modern day if not even more. The fact that you don't like TWCB is not a reason for hating the whole modern day story too.

Gi1t
01-07-2013, 08:47 PM
I used to like the modern day story because of the atmosphere and sense of mystery. The concept of exploring history for modern-day uses is an interesting premise. Unfortunately, the story just came off the rails after the first game, even though I didn't think so at the time. Trying to stop Abstergo's mind-control satellite was an interesting enough premise to drive the story, and the Templars and their methods made good antagonists. Even adding TWCB was interesting to me, and the solar flare threat really amped things up. I assumed there was an actual plan for how these two main threats would interact and resolve that would make it worth the confusion it was causing everyone. Their buildup of Desmond and his seeming importance to TWCB and Subject 16 was also interesting, and felt like it had a deliberate, purposeful conclusion planned. Unfortunately, all of that story buildup was just tossed aside with trite resolutions for a new, contrived threat and no hint of what the current status quo of the world is.

The modern-day segments have always had the most boring gameplay as well, and even AC3 couldn't fix that. In fact, it spiraled out of control and ruined it for me. I truly had more fun reading emails in AC1, talking to the team in the warehouse in AC2 and running around the villa in Brotherhood than I did in any of Desmond's segments from AC3. It felt like they were so desperate to generate some gameplay payoff for Desmond without having a real plan for how they were going to do that. If they couldn't do a proper confrontation between Vidic and Desmond, I'd have rather just not seen it. Daniel Cross was just thrown in because people liked him from the comics, and the game and his character would have been better off without what we see of him in AC3.

I think AC3 was also the worst when it came to interrupting the story in the past with the present. In AC1, you always knew when it was coming because it was always at the end of each sequence. In AC2 the interruptions were very sparing. In ACB, you could leave the Animus when you wanted to and only got spit out by the main story twice. In AC3, it just keeps happening and forcing you to do a cheesy Desmond mission before you can get back to the story. They need to really work on the flow of how the past and present stories move back and forth, and cut down on the intrusions of the story in the past and do it at good moments to take a break in the story.

I don't want to see the modern-day story go away, but I think they need to tone it down and scale back the gameplay. AC3 just shows that if they're not going to invest the time in making a completely new game system (which does feel like a waste of time for so little payoff), the modern-day segments fall really flat. I'd like to see the Animus concept continue, but most of the modern-day segments happen through virtual reality type gameplay within the Animus, like hacking into files or something. Perhaps that's the reason Desmond needed to die, to clear the stage and setup a new modern-day premise that won't drag down the gameplay and pacing the way it had gotten.

That's pretty much my opinion on it too. I always liked the mystery of the modern day story-looking out of Abstergo's windows and wondering what was going on out there. I think it's an inherently interesting part of the game, but that comes with a lot of high expectations for what it would be like, and unfortunately, they seemed to have big plans at first and then they sort of glazed over those plans and just made it a super-simplified version of the regular gameplay. That was fine when it was just the simple elegance of walking around and occasionally climbing on things, but once you introduce conflict, it gets to a point where you really need a big change. Your first introduction into a real mission with Desmond should have been a huge, epic moment. Even in Brotherhood, I felt like we were still leading up to that moment, they still could have pulled it off at that point, I think. But Ubisoft just seems too enamoured with the easy way to do things and I think that's what kind of spoiled it towards the end. -__-

Toa TAK
01-07-2013, 08:50 PM
*Spoilers*

Honestly, the modern day storyline is what got me hooked for the most part in ACI. I thought it was very interesting and added tons of mystery and eeriness to both the historical and modern day storytelling. I love the distorted biblical connections, glyphs, the Pieces of Eden, TWCB and all of those things that make the modern day story so interesting. But the story lost its way with Brotherhood's ending. Revelations didn't do anything well beyond the Animus Island (which is cool itself, but there was nothing else beyond the crappy FPsections), including Subject 16's previous messages, and just give us a visual of what we already knew.

I actually didn't hate the modern day stuff in ACIII. I thought it was much better than the stuff we got in ACB, and ACR. But what messed it up was the final mission with Abstergo and killing off Cross and Vidic was incredibly anti-climatic. Oh and the ending, too (that's been discussed to death).

I love the modern day storyline, I just wish they continued to put the same care and as they did in ACI, ACII, and the majority of ACB.

Assassin_M
01-07-2013, 08:55 PM
I don't hate the Modern day, but I can`t say I`m madly in love with it either. to me, it`s the main attraction. the piece that provokes thought and connection with the past. I accepted that this portion will always be overshadowed by the Animus sessions and so I never become disappointed with what we get from the Modern times.

One thing I also accepted is that it wont always be so mysterious. Answers and secrets would be uncovered some time and I had to live with letting go of the Mystery. It didn't irk me when I felt no more intrigue, because that`s how it is. the first games had this, because they were the first and all the mysteries were still fresh and beginning. later games answered so much of the questions and there was no more mystery. it had to happen, but that did not lessen the Modern plot in my eyes...

CalgaryJay
01-07-2013, 09:03 PM
Actually, you're not. I think the general consensus is that the AC series would do much better without TWCB, but NOT without the modern day story.

I don't like how some people say that they hate the modern day storyline because they think it's too convulted and when you ask them what exactly they don't like they say the "aliens". Excuse me, but TWCB are in the ancestors' stories as much as in the modern day if not even more. The fact that you don't like TWCB is not a reason for hating the whole modern day story too.

I don't hate it, I just find it kind of "meh". Getting pulled out for a Desmond mission right after finally Connor getting the assassin robes was a bummer (though I will say the Desmond missions were surprisingly fun and for the most part well done), and thats how I usually felt when I had to get pulled out of the Animus the past 3 games.

I'll echo those who mentioned that they were REALLY into the modern storyline in AC1, the mystery was so interesting, and that blood filled room with secret messages splotched onto it just sent your mind racing. The glyphs in AC2 that helped you slowly decode an ancient, "futuristic" clip was awesome too, loved slowly building that video, and all the mystery with it. But since ACB they just lost me on it. Its their own fault, really, they pushed it to the side and made you not care about it as much.

I'll stop here though, I'm not going to repeatedly bag on an aspect of the game that I don't even hate. I just don't care about it really, which is unfortunate, given how much I did in AC 1 & 2.

Gi1t
01-07-2013, 09:28 PM
I don't hate it, I just find it kind of "meh". Getting pulled out for a Desmond mission right after finally Connor getting the assassin robes was a bummer (though I will say the Desmond missions were surprisingly fun and for the most part well done), and thats how I usually felt when I had to get pulled out of the Animus the past 3 games.

I'll echo those who mentioned that they were REALLY into the modern storyline in AC1, the mystery was so interesting, and that blood filled room with secret messages splotched onto it just sent your mind racing. The glyphs in AC2 that helped you slowly decode an ancient, "futuristic" clip was awesome too, loved slowly building that video, and all the mystery with it. But since ACB they just lost me on it. Its their own fault, really, they pushed it to the side and made you not care about it as much.

I'll stop here though, I'm not going to repeatedly bag on an aspect of the game that I don't even hate. I just don't care about it really, which is unfortunate, given how much I did in AC 1 & 2.

One of my friends played the AC games on Steam not that long ago and when I saw him over the hollidays he said it felt like Brotherhood was the point where they weren't really interested in 'going' anywhere with the games anymore, the point was just to keep them going on forever. That's kind of how I felt too, even though I kind of liked the modern day aspect of Brotherhood (probably even more than the parts in Rome, which felt kind of stale to me. -__-) But from there it just seemed like they were more interested in dragging it out than in having it really 'go somewhere'.

she-assassin
01-07-2013, 11:18 PM
I don't hate the Modern day, but I can`t say I`m madly in love with it either. to me, it`s the main attraction. the piece that provokes thought and connection with the past. I accepted that this portion will always be overshadowed by the Animus sessions and so I never become disappointed with what we get from the Modern times.

One thing I also accepted is that it wont always be so mysterious. Answers and secrets would be uncovered some time and I had to live with letting go of the Mystery. It didn't irk me when I felt no more intrigue, because that`s how it is. the first games had this, because they were the first and all the mysteries were still fresh and beginning. later games answered so much of the questions and there was no more mystery. it had to happen, but that did not lessen the Modern plot in my eyes...
Are you serious? They didn't answer any of the questions. They completely abandoned most of the plot points introduced in AC1 and AC2. That, or they're just dragging them out to the point when nobody will care anymore. Just think about what they did with Lucy. The "answer"came way too late and in a very anticlimatic fashion. Oh, and then there's Clay. They even admitted that half of the things he said were just ramblings of an insane person. I mean what kind of answer is that? It's like they don't even care. Not to mention all the background information from the emails in AC1. The permanent hurricane seasons in the coastal areas, American refugees fleeing to Mexico. We haven't heard much about the outside modern world after AC1.

On the contrary, there IS still the mystery, the only problem is there won't be any answers any time soon.

Assassin_M
01-07-2013, 11:27 PM
Are you serious? They didn't answer any of the questions. They completely abandoned most of the plot points introduced in AC1 and AC2. That, or they're just dragging them out to the point when nobody will care anymore. Just think about what they did with Lucy. The "answer"came way too late and in a very anticlimatic fashion. Oh, and then there's Clay. They even admitted that half of the things he said were just ramblings of an insane person. I mean what kind of answer is that? It's like they don't even care. Not to mention all the background information from the emails in AC1. The permanent hurricane seasons in the coastal areas, American refugees fleeing to Mexico. We haven't heard much about the outside modern world after AC1.

On the contrary, there IS still the mystery, the only problem is there won't be any answers any time soon.
You just said it yourself. we were given answers.....saying that they didn't answer any of the questions is a bit of an exaggeration..

she-assassin
01-07-2013, 11:33 PM
You just said it yourself. we were given answers.....saying that they didn't answer any of the questions is a bit of an exaggeration..
Well, I guess I'm just disappointed because I expected real answers and not poor excuses. :/

Assassin_M
01-07-2013, 11:41 PM
Well, I guess I'm just disappointed because I expected real answers and not poor excuses. :/
That`s thing....I was disappointed with a LOT of answers as well. The Satellite, Lucy, Cross......But I have to give credit where it is due

she-assassin
01-07-2013, 11:50 PM
That`s thing....I was disappointed with a LOT of answers as well. The Satellite, Lucy, Cross......But I have to give credit where it is due
Oh god, let's not talk about Daniel. It was the biggest disappointment of AC3 for me. And that's saying a lot.

dbuddy101
01-07-2013, 11:51 PM
I am in the middle with this one. I enjoy the modern day storyline, and wouldn't mind to see another one. However, I would in no way, shape, or form would like to see any game that is in the Assassin's Creed series to be devoted to a modern day setting.

To me, it seems to break what Assassin's Creed tries to truly do. Assassin's Creed, like all games, is trying to let the player have an experience. In this case, the experience is to be an Assassin in a historical time period. That is what every game mainly has been about, and while the game features other kinds of experiences, this is their main goal (hence the phrase "history is our playground").

Now, if other games similar to Assassin's Creed (That being open world action games) took place in true historical periods, rather than fantasy realms like Tamriel, I would be totally OK with seeing the game try to branch more into the modern day setting. This isn't the case though. I can only think of one game off of the top of my head that is an open world action game set in a historical setting. That game would be Red Dead Redemption, and you still experience a fictional story with every character you meet being fictional.

Because no other games seem to provide the same kind of experience, that being to experience a historical time period, I would have to say to keep the modern day out of the game as a main, explorable setting, and but still keep modern day inside of the game as a story. I'm still open to the idea of not having one at all though.

twenty_glyphs
01-08-2013, 12:02 AM
Well, I guess I'm just disappointed because I expected real answers and not poor excuses. :/

^ This. I still don't feel like we were given any true answers to anything. Even Lucy's betrayal was barely "answered", and it was never truly dealt with by the characters within the story. It was simply presented as a glimpse into her true intentions all along, given only through a recording of a conversation with Vidic and a letter she wrote Subject 16, and that was it. No real explanation from Lucy herself. We didn't even get to see Desmond and company properly learn the information and then deal with it themselves. Why was Desmond so special to TWCB and Abstergo? Why did Abstergo need the map from Altaïr's Apple, then set up an elaborate ruse to let Desmond think he had escaped even though he was already fully cooperating? I must have missed that conversation in AC3. Subject 16 was not revealed as a rambling madman who didn't make sense within the game itself, he was just brushed aside. The developers hinted that might be the case, but the story doesn't even bother to actually address that in any way. AC3 makes it feel like Subject 16 never even existed.

I feel like the sense of mystery is gone because the old mysteries were neutered and rendered mostly meaningless, not because they were actually answered. I was prepared to accept the loss of some mystery when answers were revealed, but those answers were either half-hearted excuses or mostly ignored. The sense of mystery is gone because I can't bring myself to care about those old mysteries anymore when the game seems to go out of its way to treat them as though they never mattered or ignore them altogether.


One of my friends played the AC games on Steam not that long ago and when I saw him over the hollidays he said it felt like Brotherhood was the point where they weren't really interested in 'going' anywhere with the games anymore, the point was just to keep them going on forever. That's kind of how I felt too, even though I kind of liked the modern day aspect of Brotherhood (probably even more than the parts in Rome, which felt kind of stale to me. -__-) But from there it just seemed like they were more interested in dragging it out than in having it really 'go somewhere'.

This is obviously true in hindsight for me as well. AC1 and AC2 felt like they were building to a conclusion. Brotherhood felt that way for the most part, and ironically it threw in the most sense of intrigue and mystery for me and made it seem there was a giant mystery waiting to be revealed soon. Then Revelations came along and it was obvious they were just trying to keep the golden goose laying eggs and didn't even bother to advance the plot in a meaningful way or resolve old plot threads in a satisfying way. AC3's ending is so obviously a ploy to just keep the series going on and on without doing the work of properly concluding the first story and then creating a new story within the same world from scratch. In hindsight, it's obvious to me that a lot of things were thrown into Brotherhood to flesh out the universe and make it seem big and mysterious. So many mysteries just seem like they had no endgame in mind, but were just thrown in to create mystery and intrigue. Either that, or they're intentionally dragging everything out more and more. I don't know which is worse, but I have no faith that they have an amazing or even satisfying ending in mind for the present-day story.

Sushiglutton
01-08-2013, 12:03 AM
It suprised me a lot that Ubi left a cliffhanger for the modern part. Since Desond's story was over I thought they would at least have given themselves the option to skip it moving forward. Instead we have an ancient, flimmering, superwoman in an, uhum, unusual costume running around the globe trying to enslave us all. Things can only go downhill from here I fear lol ;). I almost wish they go full cheesy, like Metal Gear Solid or something. Give Juno a giant octopus robot and let her say stuff like "YOU WILL BOW TO ME!" followed by a vicious "MWAHAHAHA".

Gi1t
01-08-2013, 12:31 AM
This is obviously true in hindsight for me as well. AC1 and AC2 felt like they were building to a conclusion. Brotherhood felt that way for the most part, and ironically it threw in the most sense of intrigue and mystery for me and made it seem there was a giant mystery waiting to be revealed soon. Then Revelations came along and it was obvious they were just trying to keep the golden goose laying eggs and didn't even bother to advance the plot in a meaningful way or resolve old plot threads in a satisfying way. AC3's ending is so obviously a ploy to just keep the series going on and on without doing the work of properly concluding the first story and then creating a new story within the same world from scratch. In hindsight, it's obvious to me that a lot of things were thrown into Brotherhood to flesh out the universe and make it seem big and mysterious. So many mysteries just seem like they had no endgame in mind, but were just thrown in to create mystery and intrigue. Either that, or they're intentionally dragging everything out more and more. I don't know which is worse, but I have no faith that they have an amazing or even satisfying ending in mind for the present-day story.

Yeah, and what's rediculous is that AC is clearly a franchise that could go on forever without any of that forced expansion. Once a story comes to an end, a new one can begin and there's NO LIMIT to what they could do with it. The possibility for new games does not disappear with the conclusion of one plot line. SO many polular games repeatedly jump to different points in a vast history that's only loosely discernable. Even a series Ubisoft worked on themselves for years, Prince of Persia, has the exact same flexibility and they were even starting to utilize that potential. Sands of Time was a multiple part story that had a beginning and an end and was not realted to the original series of games. Then they started a new story that had no relationship with Sands of TIme plotline. That too was set to eventually reach a conclusion, which would be followed by yet another new story. Assassin's Creed games would obviously share the same overall history, but that makes no difference. Once one plotline ended, a new one could begin.

But it seemed like after AC2 somthing went wrong and they forgot all about that possibility. Someone out there forgot that the end of a story is by no means the end of a franchise and began desperately rewriting everything and cramming stuff in to make it longer. And Prince of Persia? They haven't done a **** thing. All they've done is try a couple of lazy attempts to cash in on the Sands of Time story. I've never seen such a stark shift in a company's attitude toward their own games. (Though I'm sure someone else here has. XD )

she-assassin
01-08-2013, 01:00 AM
Yeah, and what's rediculous is that AC is clearly a franchise that could go on forever without any of that forced expansion. Once a story comes to an end, a new one can begin and there's NO LIMIT to what they could do with it. The possibility for new games does not disappear with the conclusion of one plot line. SO many polular games repeatedly jump to different points in a vast history that's only loosely discernable. Even a series Ubisoft worked on themselves for years, Prince of Persia, has the exact same flexibility and they were even starting to utilize that potential. Sands of Time was a multiple part story that had a beginning and an end and was not realted to the original series of games. Then they started a new story that had no relationship with Sands of TIme plotline. That too was set to eventually reach a conclusion, which would be followed by yet another new story. Assassin's Creed games would obviously share the same overall history, but that makes no difference. Once one plotline ended, a new one could begin.

But it seemed like after AC2 somthing went wrong and they forgot all about that possibility. Someone out there forgot that the end of a story is by no means the end of a franchise and began desperately rewriting everything and cramming stuff in to make it longer. And Prince of Persia? They haven't done a **** thing. All they've done is try a couple of lazy attempts to cash in on the Sands of Time story. I've never seen such a stark shift in a company's attitude toward their own games. (Though I'm sure someone else here has. XD )

That's exactly what I thought. Are the developers so insecure about their own abilities that they can't finish one story properly and take the risk of starting a completely new one without artificial cliffhangers when there's really no need for it? The fans would come back and like the new modern story arc anyway because the modern day story is not only the games. There are the comics, Initiates, Project Legacy and other things that further the story and introduce new characters. I'm afraid that whoever came up with the idea of having a modern day twist to the historical setting doesn't work on the games anymore and those who do, well, they apparently hate everything about it. So yeah, the worst is yet to come.

SixKeys
01-08-2013, 01:31 AM
One of my friends played the AC games on Steam not that long ago and when I saw him over the hollidays he said it felt like Brotherhood was the point where they weren't really interested in 'going' anywhere with the games anymore, the point was just to keep them going on forever. That's kind of how I felt too, even though I kind of liked the modern day aspect of Brotherhood (probably even more than the parts in Rome, which felt kind of stale to me. -__-) But from there it just seemed like they were more interested in dragging it out than in having it really 'go somewhere'.

The feeling I got from ACB was that at that point they already realized they had a lucrative franchise on their hands and wanted to stall the story for one more year before AC3. They made up a few new plotpoints involving Subject 16 and Lucy that they hoped to be able to answer in AC3. Then after the game became a success, one of the higher-ups decided to turn the Nintendo DS work-in-progress into Revelations. This game involved a completely different head writer and the story had already been mostly developed for the DS title. They suddenly had to scramble to force the new plot twists from ACB into ACR because they knew fans would be expecting a direct continuation of these events. Desmond's original purpose was to go through Subject 16's memories like in TLA where he would have found out about Lucy, but this was botched when plans changed midway through production.

In essence, I believe they still had something of a plan while writing ACB, even though the story had probably already changed from the one they had planned from the very beginning. By ACR there were so many teams working on different games, transmedia and whatnot that they lost track of the overall picture and decided to completely change the course for AC3. Hence why the whole Abstergo satellite plot which had been built up as the climax from AC1 through ACB was handwaved away in AC3 like it never mattered and Lucy's betrayal and Subject 16 were only mentioned in passing, confusing those who never played TLA.

ToughGuy31
01-08-2013, 02:16 AM
Dislike the modern part for several reasons [SPOILERS BELOW]:
Adds nothing in terms of gameplay. It's either walk, watch cutscene, or a reskin of the ancestor for that game.
Has become more and more silly. The ending of AC3 was a new lowpoint for me. Touching a sphere to synch DNA and unleash a green glow that covers the earth and saves it from a solar flare? And in doing so the protagonist dies and unleashes a new foe for the cliffhanger? I mean contrived doesn't even begin to describe it.
Key parts are explained in other media and/or sold as DLC (explanation for Lucy's actions. Daniel Cross).
Disrupts the pacing. Having the Desmond intro on top of the Haytham intro is just too much. And every time Connor's story is interupted by Desmond's it's annoying.
In a franchise that struggles with too much weakly developed content, getting rid of the modern part seems like a no-brainer to me.
As I said in another post, Corey actually want's to put more effort into the modern day parts, and get's annoyed every time someone says it's pointless or ruins the immersion. But I do agree with your point of view on the end and dlc.


^ This. I still don't feel like we were given any true answers to anything. Even Lucy's betrayal was barely "answered", and it was never truly dealt with by the characters within the story. It was simply presented as a glimpse into her true intentions all along, given only through a recording of a conversation with Vidic and a letter she wrote Subject 16, and that was it. No real explanation from Lucy herself. We didn't even get to see Desmond and company properly learn the information and then deal with it themselves. Why was Desmond so special to TWCB and Abstergo? Why did Abstergo need the map from Altaïr's Apple, then set up an elaborate ruse to let Desmond think he had escaped even though he was already fully cooperating? I must have missed that conversation in AC3. Subject 16 was not revealed as a rambling madman who didn't make sense within the game itself, he was just brushed aside. The developers hinted that might be the case, but the story doesn't even bother to actually address that in any way. AC3 makes it feel like Subject 16 never even existed.

I feel like the sense of mystery is gone because the old mysteries were neutered and rendered mostly meaningless, not because they were actually answered. I was prepared to accept the loss of some mystery when answers were revealed, but those answers were either half-hearted excuses or mostly ignored. The sense of mystery is gone because I can't bring myself to care about those old mysteries anymore when the game seems to go out of its way to treat them as though they never mattered or ignore them altogether.



This is obviously true in hindsight for me as well. AC1 and AC2 felt like they were building to a conclusion. Brotherhood felt that way for the most part, and ironically it threw in the most sense of intrigue and mystery for me and made it seem there was a giant mystery waiting to be revealed soon. Then Revelations came along and it was obvious they were just trying to keep the golden goose laying eggs and didn't even bother to advance the plot in a meaningful way or resolve old plot threads in a satisfying way. AC3's ending is so obviously a ploy to just keep the series going on and on without doing the work of properly concluding the first story and then creating a new story within the same world from scratch. In hindsight, it's obvious to me that a lot of things were thrown into Brotherhood to flesh out the universe and make it seem big and mysterious. So many mysteries just seem like they had no endgame in mind, but were just thrown in to create mystery and intrigue. Either that, or they're intentionally dragging everything out more and more. I don't know which is worse, but I have no faith that they have an amazing or even satisfying ending in mind for the present-day story.

Sometimes I feel the same way too, especially when someone comes up with a amazing fan theory, that would've blown our minds if it came true, and the actual canon result ends up being unsatisfying and make us dream of what could've been. Revelations didn't even have a real revelation.

LoyalACFan
01-08-2013, 06:16 AM
I started off enjoying the modern day story, but Ubisoft is doing everything in their power to make me despise it. AC1's ending left me curious, AC2 left me intrigued, and ACB left my jaw on the floor. But ever since then, it's as if they're only content to create new plot threads rather than resolve old ones. Revelations "revealed" nothing for Desmond (his only real accomplishment in the entire game was waking up from a coma) and the ending, coming off the emotional farewell to Altair and Ezio, fell flat in comparison. Then, in AC3, he died. You'd think a death scene would offer some closure, but no. Not at all. We've just traded one crisis for another, and the Templars are still there as well.

I'm just getting sick of all the lackluster revelations of this series. They drop little tidbits of new information here and there, but it seems like nothing ever really gets resolved. We're still dealing with the same problems we've had since AC1, plus new ones picked up along the way, even though every single character from the original cast has been killed off. Not to mention all the hanging threads from secondary media (Erudito and Consus, anyone?) After a while, you start losing faith that Ubi has any real plan for an ending in mind, and they're just milking the cash cow dry. We've been given hints of all kinds of conspiracies and massive secrets ever since 2007, but there still hasn't been a single "Aha!" moment where it all slides into place. I'm afraid Ubi thinks that if they just keep adding stuff, the series will go on forever. But the most important element of any good story is a satisfying ending, and for this franchise, that's still nowhere in sight.

infamous_ezio
01-08-2013, 09:02 AM
one thing that bothers me most is the whole lucy thing... In revelations desmond was suppose to view clay's memories, that was tossed aside, instead, we played as Clay viewing his own memories over and over again. Source: Jeff yohalem (writer of TLA).

Desmond awakes from coma, we don't even see the conversation of when they ask him what happened with Lucy, but later on in the game he says how he saw what she was going to do... Ok if this is the case, then why the hell did desmond regret what he did in revelations? at the start when clay says "you might make it back for lucy's funeral" desmond's all like "lucy.. i'm sorry". If they wanted to go this path they should have showed us these vision desmond had just before he stabbed lucy... All this lazy story telling and poor execution of showing it is what's dragging the modern day plot down.. it has so much potential...

shobhit7777777
01-08-2013, 09:17 AM
Lemme see

Do I want to play as a boring *** bartender in an overused setting with a terribly cliched, banal plot about saving the world?

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/1a/cc/1acc0ebad83e2adab1f982a8abefc830.jpg

OR

DO I want to revisit historical settings in exotic locations and get a glimpse of how people lived with an intriguing and layered plot about 2 politically active and shifty organizations which are near mirror images of each other yet have different ideology? As an interesting character?

http://cdn2-www.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2011/05/ACR-1.jpg

No to former. Yes to latter.

CockneyCharmer
01-08-2013, 10:00 AM
For me, the modern day storyline is the whole point of the series....Desmond visited his ancestors to prepare himself for the Assassins/Templars war in modern day and to save the world

What I liked about the modern day was you finally got to see Desmond becoming the assassin that his training was preparing him for, its the online time you really see Desmond evolve from just a guy on a table in AC to the lethal Assassin in AC3....especially in ACII, Brotherhood where using Desmond and his new skills to explore worked really well

Only thing I didnt like about it, was how little Desmond actually got to fight in the modern time, by the time you reach AC3 he is just an unstoppable killing machine really, but he never got to fight enough, all exploring and climbing and little action

But from a storypoint of view, its the modern day we are existing it, we are only visiting the past

LightRey
01-09-2013, 03:11 AM
What I love about the modern day parts of the story is how it it places the historical events seen in the animus in the context of an overarching story. It is one of the reasons I love the games so much.

The story has a whole extra meaning because it's placed in that context. Assassin's Creed II isn't just about Ezio killing Templars for the Assassins and for revenge, it's also about the Pieces of Eden, the Codex, the message left for Desmond.

Then there are the things Subject 16 reveals, just how the Templars and Assassins were involved in major historic events, what the orders are, where certain myths seem to come from, what the truth actually is. The overarching story shows us how big a thing the game's story is part of. That's what I like so much.

To top it all off, you're not just playing an assassin fighting a war against the Templars, you're playing someone who's actually in a very similar position as you are. You're playing a guy that at the beginning of it all barely has any clue just what the hell is going on and who is quite literally playing a kind of video game himself. You see the lives of these ancestors of his in an almost identical way to how he sees them. He brings to the story a form of immersion the other characters could never bring, and because of the nature of his story he makes the stories of the other main characters more immersive themselves. To me, Desmond isn't just another main character, he's the main character.

ToughGuy31
01-09-2013, 03:19 AM
What I love about the modern day parts of the story is how it it places the historical events seen in the animus in the context of an overarching story. It is one of the reasons I love the games so much.

The story has a whole extra meaning because it's placed in that context. Assassin's Creed II isn't just about Ezio killing Templars for the Assassins and for revenge, it's also about the Pieces of Eden, the Codex, the message left for Desmond.

Then there are the things Subject 16 reveals, just how the Templars and Assassins were involved in major historic events, what the orders are, where certain myths seem to come from, what the truth actually is. The overarching story shows us how big a thing the game's story is part of. That's what I like so much.

To top it all off, you're not just playing an assassin fighting a war against the Templars, you're playing someone who's actually in a very similar position as you are. You're playing a guy that at the beginning of it all barely has any clue just what the hell is going on and who is quite literally playing a kind of video game himself. You see the lives of these ancestors of his in an almost identical way to how he sees them. He brings to the story a form of immersion the other characters could never bring, and because of the nature of his story he makes the stories of the other main characters more immersive themselves. To me, Desmond isn't just another main character, he's the main character.
What's funny is that that's exactly Desmond's purpose. He's meant to be the relatable character player's can identify with. Yet because he was built to b similar to Gordan Freeman, or Link, and have no personality so the player's can insert there own for him, people said he was bland, or uninteresting.

ProletariatPleb
01-09-2013, 03:22 AM
What's funny is that that's exactly Desmond's purpose. He's meant to be the relatable character player's can identify with. Yet because he was built to b similar to Gordan Freeman, or Link, and have no personality so the player's can insert there own for him, people said he was bland, or uninteresting.
Hah! Except Gordon Freeman is a badass and he doesn't have a voice.

LightRey
01-09-2013, 03:25 AM
Hah! Except Gordon Freeman is a badass and he doesn't have a voice.
I think you're missing the point, sid.

ProletariatPleb
01-09-2013, 03:37 AM
I think you're missing the point, sid.
Not really, It's AC, they give us defined characters, we're not supposed to put ourselves in their shoes or w/e. We're just watching a story.

And I was just having a jab at him.

ToughGuy31
01-09-2013, 03:38 AM
I think you're missing the point, sid.
Desmond was NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE BADASS FROM THE START! He was meant to be the person players identify with and the person who becomes badass overtime. It doesn't matter if he has a voice or not, it's the same concept. To me, Silent protagonist doesn't mean mute, it's the protagonist who the player becomes.

Gi1t
01-09-2013, 03:54 AM
Desmond was NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE BADASS FROM THE START! He was meant to be the person players identify with and the person who becomes badass overtime. It doesn't matter if he has a voice or not, it's the same concept. To me, Silent protagonist doesn't mean mute, it's the protagonist who the player becomes.

I think that was probably the intent, and the people who didn't like him were those who felt like he had too much personality for them to do that. Characters made for that purpose can't have any distinct traits of their own. If a character has ANY personality trait that people don't want to identify with, they won't like it/want to identify with them.

Unfortunately, a lot of people look at all main characters like they're supposed to serve that purpose, even if they aren't. XD

LightRey
01-09-2013, 03:57 AM
Not really, It's AC, they give us defined characters, we're not supposed to put ourselves in their shoes or w/e. We're just watching a story.

And I was just having a jab at him.
What are you talking about? The entire idea of immersion, which is one of the core aspects of video games, or really just stories in general, is the very fact that you put yourself in the shoes of the main character. Basically every main character is "designed" to have the player put themselves in their shoes and Desmond is probably one of the best examples of that.

Turul.
01-09-2013, 04:02 AM
I love it because it connects all the games together in a unique way that is also very interesting.

it takes the story a step further and creates a narrative bigger than just assas and creates some interesting insight into history and politics of the world.

I like desmond because he is a character I can relate to among all the craziness

warner4692
01-09-2013, 01:04 PM
I love it because it's an interesting backdrop, and it has the bulk of the story. I like the characters a lot better. I remember always being annoyed when a sequence with Desmond would end after only like 5 or 10 minutes. Everything that happens in the Animus is for the benefit of the modern day's intriguing and mysterious story. The conspiracy plot with Abstergo and the First Civilization plot were interesting.

Of course, ACIII has pretty much destroyed the franchise, but the biggest tragedy is definitely the way they (I would almost say purposefully) butchered the modern plot.

RinoTheBouncer
01-09-2013, 03:57 PM
If there's a dream that I want to come true regarding the next Assassin's Creed, it would be that I want an entirely modern day AC game with few visits to the past.

LightRey
01-09-2013, 04:47 PM
If there's a dream that I want to come true regarding the next Assassin's Creed, it would be that I want an entirely modern day AC game with few visits to the past.
That I feel is going way too far. The entire concept of the modern-day story is that it is an overarching story. If it gets anywhere near 50% of the game (let alone over it), it loses that position, because its own story becomes too "personal", so to speak. The stories of Altaïr, Ezio and Connor are part of Desmond's story, part of the story about the scale of the war between the Assassins and the Templars and the origins of mankind. The games are about history, literally. They're not just set in a certain time, they're set in a certain time as a part of the entirety of human history.

SixKeys
01-09-2013, 05:16 PM
The best compromise (and what the series may have originally been aiming for, before the spinoffs) would have been 50% modern day, 50% history. The first two games were meant for Desmond to be honing his skills via his ancestors' memories and in the third and final game he would be using all these skills to take on modern day Templars. But plans changed when Desmond proved unpopular and the developers were left to struggle with how to keep him in the story while making him appear as little as possible.

D.I.D.
01-09-2013, 07:43 PM
The best compromise (and what the series may have originally been aiming for, before the spinoffs) would have been 50% modern day, 50% history. The first two games were meant for Desmond to be honing his skills via his ancestors' memories and in the third and final game he would be using all these skills to take on modern day Templars. But plans changed when Desmond proved unpopular and the developers were left to struggle with how to keep him in the story while making him appear as little as possible.

I don't know if that was really the problem. I liked to think that Desmond was unpopular because I don't like him, and people tend to emphasise and dismiss the reactions of a crowd according to their bias. However, the biggest polls on this forum seem to show that Desmond is disliked only by a minority, albeit quite a large minority. I don't think AC3 could have been 50% modern day because Ubisoft hadn't established enough of the modern day world in the previous games.

I think the problems of AC3's modern day, in terms of quantity, have more to do with how much time and work Ubisoft could devote to locations which would only be seen once. The other factor would be disc/console capacity, particularly for the ageing X360. I think what you see in AC3 is pretty much in keeping with what you've seen in previous games with one-off locations. AC3 has Brazil and two Abstergo offices, the Pegleg missions, the seas, the coastal Fort infiltration and various mission-specific strongholds. ACR has Cappadocia, the tombs, the roads to Masyaf, Masyaf itself, the endgame road section, Brainwrong Island, World of Portal, Galata docks; Brotherhood had lairs/tombs, Lucrezia's palace, the interior of Castel Sant'Angelo, Leonardo's war machine missions, Cristina memories, and so on.

Given how rushed the main parts of AC3 feel a lot of the time, I don't think that we were ever going to see much more of Desmond's story than we did. The one thing I could believe is that Ubisoft were hoping when they were writing AC1 and AC2 that the next gen consoles would arrive in time for AC3, and then all kinds of things could have been different.

SkiesSeven
01-09-2013, 07:45 PM
Ubisoft may have originally intended to make AC a half-historical half-modern game. But the bottom line is the vast majority hated Desmond, and everything to do with the modern day story. Ubisoft tried this 5 games in a row. They insisted on it each and every game.

While the Animus was interesting for a while, the concept was only aesthetically pleasing to core gamers. To the average gamer, it is needlessly convoluted, and it breaks the immersion.

I happen to think that they can stick to 'basic' modern elements like a computerized interface, but they need to implement it in a way that doesn't tax one's console, or blind a person because of poor design choices like that horrible white screen that pops up way too often.

YuurHeen
01-09-2013, 08:46 PM
I just loved that in ac1 you really felt like playing desmond in a machine reliving his ancestor. It gave depth and an good accuse for the hud, continue after dieing and skipping parts. How it says fast forwarding if you fast travel after a kill was just freaking. after ac1 it became more of a side story that did not add any depth to the overal experience. It is a shame.

Gi1t
01-09-2013, 09:05 PM
Ubisoft may have originally intended to make AC a half-historical half-modern game. But the bottom line is the vast majority hated Desmond, and everything to do with the modern day story. Ubisoft tried this 5 games in a row. They insisted on it each and every game.

While the Animus was interesting for a while, the concept was only aesthetically pleasing to core gamers. To the average gamer, it is needlessly convoluted, and it breaks the immersion.

I happen to think that they can stick to 'basic' modern elements like a computerized interface, but they need to implement it in a way that doesn't tax one's console, or blind a person because of poor design choices like that horrible white screen that pops up way too often.

Whatever your opinions, I don't think you can claim to speak for the 'vast majority'.

Either way, this subject seems to relate to the growing tensions between 'core' and 'average' gamers and how core gamers feel like more complex elements of games and their stories are being removed or downsized because of more casual gamers who don't understand them and demand that they be removed. It's likely that core gamers look at the argument against the modern day story as the average gamer saying 'where did this come from? Make it go away,' -__-

Personally, I think they need to work on implementing the modern day elements better, but I definitely prefer having it in there over removing it. I don't mind when I hear people saying they should do it differently, but I do find it rather annoying when people write it off completely and say they just want the Assassins. To me that's just like people who buy Ninja Gaiden and then get all mad when they get to chapter three becuase they assumed it all took place in the distant past etc. I wish people were a little more inquisitive about the unexpected instead of immediately being judgmental about it. I mean, it seems like there are so many people who encounter something that doesn't immediately make sense to them and they just get mad about it instead of taking it in stride and saying 'let's see how this plays out'. XD

ToughGuy31
01-09-2013, 09:20 PM
Whatever your opinions, I don't think you can claim to speak for the 'vast majority'.

Either way, this subject seems to relate to the growing tensions between 'core' and 'average' gamers and how core gamers feel like more complex elements of games and their stories are being removed or downsized because of more casual gamers who don't understand them and demand that they be removed. It's likely that core gamers look at the argument against the modern day story as the average gamer saying 'where did this come from? Make it go away,' -__-

Personally, I think they need to work on implementing the modern day elements better, but I definitely prefer having it in there over removing it. I don't mind when I hear people saying they should do it differently, but I do find it rather annoying when people write it off completely and say they just want the Assassins. To me that's just like people who buy Ninja Gaiden and then get all mad when they get to chapter three becuase they assumed it all took place in the distant past etc. I wish people were a little more inquisitive about the unexpected instead of immediately being judgmental about it. I mean, it seems like there are so many people who encounter something that doesn't immediately make sense to them and they just get mad about it instead of taking it in stride and saying 'let's see how this plays out'. XD
EXACTLY! They should be focusing on quality, not quantity. And when player's love the modern day part's they ask for more. The problem was though that they loved the historical parts more though. :( They should be focusing on making it better, not how much is in it. I could be happy with 2 modern parts if they're amazing.

SkiesSeven
01-09-2013, 10:30 PM
Whatever your opinions, I don't think you can claim to speak for the 'vast majority'.

The vast majority are often the silent majority. Most people playing AC don't actually come to websites like this one, where their voices may be heard. So let's not consider this forum the 'majority'.

Sure, people can take polls to try prove their ideas are shared by others, but you just know that certain ideas will win out purely out of fandom. On the other hand, if you consider MOST gamers out there, who are obviously not here, and who have a considerably different opinion - then you know based on the first opinion what the second opinion is going to be.

exkrima
01-09-2013, 11:47 PM
Whatever your opinions, I don't think you can claim to speak for the 'vast majority'.

Either way, this subject seems to relate to the growing tensions between 'core' and 'average' gamers and how core gamers feel like more complex elements of games and their stories are being removed or downsized because of more casual gamers who don't understand them and demand that they be removed. It's likely that core gamers look at the argument against the modern day story as the average gamer saying 'where did this come from? Make it go away,' -__-

Personally, I think they need to work on implementing the modern day elements better, but I definitely prefer having it in there over removing it. I don't mind when I hear people saying they should do it differently, but I do find it rather annoying when people write it off completely and say they just want the Assassins. To me that's just like people who buy Ninja Gaiden and then get all mad when they get to chapter three becuase they assumed it all took place in the distant past etc. I wish people were a little more inquisitive about the unexpected instead of immediately being judgmental about it. I mean, it seems like there are so many people who encounter something that doesn't immediately make sense to them and they just get mad about it instead of taking it in stride and saying 'let's see how this plays out'. XD
Amen

EXACTLY! They should be focusing on quality, not quantity. And when player's love the modern day part's they ask for more. The problem was though that they loved the historical parts more though. http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20120411.419/images/smilies/frown.png They should be focusing on making it better, not how much is in it. I could be happy with 2 modern parts if they're amazing.hmm. as long as those 2 parts are long enough, not some plug in batteries. =)



The vast majority are often the silent majority. Most people playing AC don't actually come to websites like this one, where their voices may be heard. So let's not consider this forum the 'majority'.

Sure, people can take polls to try prove their ideas are shared by others, but you just know that certain ideas will win out purely out of fandom. On the other hand, if you consider MOST gamers out there, who are obviously not here, and who have a considerably different opinion - then you know based on the first opinion what the second opinion is going to be.
+1

Gi1t
01-10-2013, 12:33 AM
The vast majority are often the silent majority. Most people playing AC don't actually come to websites like this one, where their voices may be heard. So let's not consider this forum the 'majority'.

Too true.


Sure, people can take polls to try prove their ideas are shared by others, but you just know that certain ideas will win out purely out of fandom. On the other hand, if you consider MOST gamers out there, who are obviously not here, and who have a considerably different opinion - then you know based on the first opinion what the second opinion is going to be.

That would be assuming that everyone not voicing their opinion has the opposite opinion of those who chose to speak up. -__-

That isn't true at all. If someone doesn't voice their opinions then you simply don't know what they are; you can't just assume they think the opposite based on the fact that they aren't posting. There are many games I have never voiced an opinion about online. If you wanted to know what I thought of, say, Bioshock, you could not deduce my opinion based on what other people say because they're not me.

The silent majority means you can't assume that a heavily voiced opinion online speaks for a real majority; people MIGHT disagree, but it doesn't mean they all MUST disagree. You just don't know. :)

TheHumanTowel
01-10-2013, 12:35 AM
The vast majority are often the silent majority. Most people playing AC don't actually come to websites like this one, where their voices may be heard. So let's not consider this forum the 'majority'.

Sure, people can take polls to try prove their ideas are shared by others, but you just know that certain ideas will win out purely out of fandom. On the other hand, if you consider MOST gamers out there, who are obviously not here, and who have a considerably different opinion - then you know based on the first opinion what the second opinion is going to be.
How can you know what the opinion of the vast "silent majority" is? Just assuming because the idea of the modern day is somewhat popular on a forum dedicated to the game that the vast majority of other people disliked it isn't much of a line of reasoning.

exkrima
01-10-2013, 12:42 AM
How can you know what the opinion of the vast "silent majority" is? Just assuming because the idea of the modern day is somewhat popular on a forum dedicated to the game that the vast majority of other people disliked it isn't much of a line of reasoning.

hmm. so in the end the argument is pointless, since we really don't know what the vast majority or silent majority really wants. :)

TheHumanTowel
01-10-2013, 12:47 AM
hmm. so in the end the argument is pointless, since we really don't know what the vast majority or silent majority really wants. :)
No we can still discuss what we like and dislike about the modern day it's just wrong for SkiesSeven to say the vast majority of people disliked the modern day.

LoyalACFan
01-10-2013, 12:58 AM
it's just wrong for SkiesSeven to say the vast majority of people disliked the modern day.

Not really. It's logical to assume that most gamers who aren't devoted to the AC series (and therefore obviously not on this site) are probably not as interested in Desmond and the modern day story as they are in the badass historical Assassins that are plastered all over the promotional media that caused them to buy the games in the first place. Most of my friends who are only moderately interested in AC despised the modern stuff. They think it just cuts into the action, which is pretty much true unless you've been invested in Desmond's story from the start.

TheHumanTowel
01-10-2013, 01:07 AM
Not really. It's logical to assume that most gamers who aren't devoted to the AC series (and therefore obviously not on this site) are probably not as interested in Desmond and the modern day story as they are in the badass historical Assassins that are plastered all over the promotional media that caused them to buy the games in the first place. Most of my friends who are only moderately interested in AC despised the modern stuff. They think it just cuts into the action, which is pretty much true unless you've been invested in Desmond's story from the start.
You can't say that with any kind of authority. Most of my friends who also play AC quite enjoy the modern day part. Should I assume then that the vast majority of people loved the modern day then? No. Just in the same way you can't assume that on the other side.

LoyalACFan
01-10-2013, 01:31 AM
You can't say that with any kind of authority. Most of my friends who also play AC quite enjoy the modern day part. Should I assume then that the vast majority of people loved the modern day then? No. Just in the same way you can't assume that on the other side.

You're kind of missing the point by bringing up your friends who play AC habitually. I'm talking about people who've only played one or two of the games, who maybe jumped on board with Brotherhood or even AC 3. Ubi keeps trying to pick up new players with every new installment (obviously) but they only advertise the historical parts. If you got into the series solely to play as Connor, what possible reason do you have to like Desmond? You don't know his background, and he doesn't have 1/100 of the adventures Connor does. A significant minority of people even on this site, representing the hardcore AC fans, despise Desmond. It's logical to assume that the casual fans who don't even have any investment in his story would have less reason to like him. Which isn't to say NONE of them like him, but it's safe to say that this site has a higher opinion of Desmond that the general populace.

Sushiglutton
01-10-2013, 01:48 AM
Not really. It's logical to assume that most gamers who aren't devoted to the AC series (and therefore obviously not on this site) are probably not as interested in Desmond and the modern day story as they are in the badass historical Assassins that are plastered all over the promotional media that caused them to buy the games in the first place. Most of my friends who are only moderately interested in AC despised the modern stuff. They think it just cuts into the action, which is pretty much true unless you've been invested in Desmond's story from the start.

This is my guess too. The true hardcore fans are deeply invested in the modern day story. They know that Mahatma Gandhi had an apple (I think I read that somewhere today) and can tell which famous scientists were in fact templars. The average joe who plays this game is porbably more confused than anything as major plot points and characters have been explained in DLC and comics. The main attraction just has to be the historic part.

Another point. Ubi seems to rely a lot on surveys for their decisions. If the surveys showed that more than 50% loved the modern part I think they would have expanded it by now. Instead in AC3 my feeling is that they cut it as short as they possibly could. This indicates that the modern part is not that popular.

exkrima
01-10-2013, 02:32 AM
No we can still discuss what we like and dislike about the modern day it's just wrong for SkiesSeven to say the vast majority of people disliked the modern day.
yeah i totally forgot about the topic, sorry bout that.

Question, who writes the modern story? is it corey only or corey with friends?

ToughGuy31
01-10-2013, 04:20 AM
yeah i totally forgot about the topic, sorry bout that.

Question, who writes the modern story? is it corey only or corey with friends?
It depends. Brotherhood and Revelations weren't, but 3,2,and 1 are I believe. And also, can everyone get back on topic.

Gi1t
01-10-2013, 05:20 AM
This is my guess too. The true hardcore fans are deeply invested in the modern day story. They know that Mahatma Gandhi had an apple (I think I read that somewhere today) and can tell which famous scientists were in fact templars. The average joe who plays this game is porbably more confused than anything as major plot points and characters have been explained in DLC and comics. The main attraction just has to be the historic part.

Another point. Ubi seems to rely a lot on surveys for their decisions. If the surveys showed that more than 50% loved the modern part I think they would have expanded it by now. Instead in AC3 my feeling is that they cut it as short as they possibly could. This indicates that the modern part is not that popular.

Even so, there's just no way to draw assumptions about the point of view of a mass of people who never gave their opinions. Consider: how many of these surveys were you involved in? Okay, maybe you did participate, but what about people like me who didn't? Point being, it's all estimation, and I think your point IS valid in that Ubisoft has to try SOMETHING to determine what they should do next, I just don't think you can conclude whether it's an accurate representation of what the majority of people think. Something like that is a valid hypothesis, but as in the scientific community, a hypothesis cannot be loosely referrred to as something more concrete. :)

I actually think they're going about their research the wrong way somewhat. Market research is probably an unavoidable necessity, but I feel like game companies these days are struggling with figuring out what people want because of the massive influx of statistic-only feedback. Even people who write reviews of their own are very often dedicated to either bashing a game or worshipping the case it came out of, and so these opinons amount to nothing more complex than yet another thumbs-up or thumbs-down. There's an obsession with numbered rating systems which have no common basis. And like you said, a lot of attention to polls; they focus on the market research statistics completely and it seems to me that this lack of analytical opinions is ripping games apart into fragments designed for completely different audiences, weighted proportionally by the apparent size of those audiences, but they have no clue how to blend those pieces together and make them build on each other, because all they're reading are yes/no answers to what people want. I think the regions where opinions in different parts of the spectrum intersect is very valuable when it comes to designing the next game in a series. It helps you understand what's driving the trends you see in the stats. I think ignoring that and only focusing on the different views separately, as adversaries, is tearing games and fanbases apart, and that's why it frustrates me when I hear conclusions being drawn from what is ultimately estimated data. Even if you're pretty sure it's accurate, it's not worth as much as you think it is if you don't really understand it. :)

SkiesSeven
01-10-2013, 09:12 AM
That isn't true at all. If someone doesn't voice their opinions then you simply don't know what they are; you can't just assume they think the opposite based on the fact that they aren't posting. There are many games I have never voiced an opinion about online. If you wanted to know what I thought of, say, Bioshock, you could not deduce my opinion based on what other people say because they're not me.


Yes, I can very well extrapolate. In the end this isn't a highly-complex sociological issue to 'deduce'. It's a video game.

HisSpiritLives
01-10-2013, 10:48 AM
I would hate modern setting,why?Because first of all n history and ,,older times,, ,and that is how AC would lose charm ,too many andvanced guns(automatic riifles),no more old cities you can explore,and no swords,daggers,arrows...........It isnt AC anymore.

Gi1t
01-10-2013, 06:24 PM
Yes, I can very well extrapolate. In the end this isn't a highly-complex sociological issue to 'deduce'. It's a video game.

Yeah, that's what I mean. :) I understand why they try to draw conclusions from market data, but I think they're starting to run into problems because they're overdoing it.

SkiesSeven
01-10-2013, 06:56 PM
Yeah, that's what I mean. :) I understand why they try to draw conclusions from market data, but I think they're starting to run into problems because they're overdoing it.

Not really. I happen to have the opposite view that too many franchises are trying to appeal to only a minority of fans who just happen to be extremely vocal. Example: Skyrim's whole theme was 'dragons', and how you could encounter them almost anywhere - an immensely broken component that offered no joy whatsoever. I found myself highly critical of such a feature only to discover that it was 'fans' who happened to be the ones who suggested it in the first place.

In reality, most fans are not professional writers, or game developers. It's not surprising that most ideas that come from fan-bases aren't practical, or even enjoyable. And if I happen to be a fan of this or that series, often what stirs my own passion is the complete lack of objectivity that I observe at venues like this one.

twenty_glyphs
01-10-2013, 07:18 PM
I don't understand why market surveys would have made Ubisoft scale back on the modern-day aspects of the game. I saw the surveys after Brotherhood, Revelations and AC3, and I don't recall any of them asking how much people liked Desmond or if they wanted more or less of the modern-day gameplay. Besides, the way the AC3 developers consistently talked about providing closure to the 2012 story and touting it as the most and best Desmond gameplay there had ever been, they must have known enough people liked the modern-day story to speak directly to that audience so often. Of course, they didn't do that much in the general marketing, but it was a consistent point of emphasis in developer interviews, making me think they were trying to give the modern-day segments and their fans some attention.

I do think they felt that Desmond was boxing them in somewhat once they started to extend the series beyond the original storyline. It also seems to me that big fans of the AC story generally like Desmond quite a bit because they know about all the conspiracy/mystery elements, while casual fans (casual fans, not casual gamers) generally don't like him or care much because they are there mostly for the gameplay and the historical setting. Moving forward into a framework where there are modern-day elements, but not much actual gameplay like Desmond's segments makes sense and I actually think it's a good idea. I think it's a way of keeping the modern-day framework going and keeping long-time fans interested in those modern elements while also allowing casual fans to ignore it if they want to.

The bigger problem to me seems to be what Desmond's original role was. I really find it hard to believe that before or just after AC1 a bunch of writers and creative types decided that Desmond's ultimate purpose and conclusion was going to be pushing a button and dying to save the world. I really don't see how that's a satisfying story. But let's assume Desmond's ultimate purpose was originally going to be relatively simple like that, and that he would only have 3 games to star in, and I can understand why his personality was relatively bland. Their problem was introducing the concept of training Desmond to use Assassin skills in AC2 and teasing the fact that Desmond would play a big role in the present. While the concept is cool, their engine of historical combat just doesn't handle modern-day combat or social stealth very well, so any attempt at that falls really flat. It's also not worth it to spend a ton of resources designing a better system to accommodate an hour or two of Desmond's gameplay. That's why I think they should have had a clear endgame in mind for him that would work well with their game engine. I always expected Desmond's payoff would involve some stealth (not social) and free running as an actual assassination mission instead of the "tomb"-like levels they ended up creating, filled with clunky combat. I felt their engine could handle that pretty well even in the present, because Desmond would be forced to avoid combat and execute a stealth assassination of Vidic or something. I also imagined free-running through a First Civilization vault or temple to get to the magical device that was going to save the world.

In the end, they seem to have just not really known what they wanted to do with Desmond. Between his personality, fan reaction and their game engine, it was hard to make him into a really cool character. I'm all for a future concept of less modern-day character time and having people relive memories of people who aren't their ancestors. But before they jumped into that, I expected a better payoff for Desmond's 5 games of story.

Gi1t
01-10-2013, 07:27 PM
Not really. I happen to have the opposite view that too many franchises are trying to appeal to only a minority of fans who just happen to be extremely vocal. Example: Skyrim's whole theme was 'dragons', and how you could encounter them almost anywhere - an immensely broken component that offered no joy whatsoever. I found myself highly critical of such a feature only to discover that it was 'fans' who happened to be the ones who suggested it in the first place.

In reality, most fans are not professional writers, or game developers. It's not surprising that most ideas that come from fan-bases aren't practical, or even enjoyable. And if I happen to be a fan of this or that series, often what stirs my own passion is the complete lack of objectivity that I observe at venues like this one.

Okay, yeah we're definitely at odds on that. XD I actually loved the fact the dragons showed up wherever the f*** they wanted to (though, the frequency with which this occurred, especially later in the game was too high.) Even so, it definitely led to a lot enjoyable moments in the game for me.

I do think that shows they're still dealing with things in a very fractured way; diving full-tilt into an idea that's popular with one side, but not trying hard enough to dovetail it into the rest of the game. They make one feature for the hardcore audience and then another for the casual audience and all they get are people who hate one or the other because at the end of the day, they're still in the same game. XD So I think what we're getting is everyone's trying to directly appeal to both ends of the spectrum and they sort of end up clashing instead of being woven together. I guess they ARE reading what fans say, but they aren't trying to blend the two. Seems like casual gamers and hardcore gamers are rarely interested in finding common ground with one another.

Sushiglutton
01-10-2013, 10:42 PM
Even so, there's just no way to draw assumptions about the point of view of a mass of people who never gave their opinions. Consider: how many of these surveys were you involved in? Okay, maybe you did participate, but what about people like me who didn't? Point being, it's all estimation, and I think your point IS valid in that Ubisoft has to try SOMETHING to determine what they should do next, I just don't think you can conclude whether it's an accurate representation of what the majority of people think. Something like that is a valid hypothesis, but as in the scientific community, a hypothesis cannot be loosely referrred to as something more concrete. :)

I actually think they're going about their research the wrong way somewhat. Market research is probably an unavoidable necessity, but I feel like game companies these days are struggling with figuring out what people want because of the massive influx of statistic-only feedback. Even people who write reviews of their own are very often dedicated to either bashing a game or worshipping the case it came out of, and so these opinons amount to nothing more complex than yet another thumbs-up or thumbs-down. There's an obsession with numbered rating systems which have no common basis. And like you said, a lot of attention to polls; they focus on the market research statistics completely and it seems to me that this lack of analytical opinions is ripping games apart into fragments designed for completely different audiences, weighted proportionally by the apparent size of those audiences, but they have no clue how to blend those pieces together and make them build on each other, because all they're reading are yes/no answers to what people want. I think the regions where opinions in different parts of the spectrum intersect is very valuable when it comes to designing the next game in a series. It helps you understand what's driving the trends you see in the stats. I think ignoring that and only focusing on the different views separately, as adversaries, is tearing games and fanbases apart, and that's why it frustrates me when I hear conclusions being drawn from what is ultimately estimated data. Even if you're pretty sure it's accurate, it's not worth as much as you think it is if you don't really understand it. :)

You are correct I have no proof and I'm just speculating :). I want to stress that I have never seen any surveys, have no clue which questions they have asked, or what the answers were. I'm 100% guessing!

ToughGuy31
01-10-2013, 11:39 PM
You are correct I have no proof and I'm just speculating :). I want to stress that I have never seen any surveys, have no clue which questions they have asked, or what the answers were. I'm 100% guessing!
The survey's ask stuff like on a scale from one to ten, how do you like Desmond, Connor, how did you like the end for AC3, would you like the idea of co-op? How bout a new modern day protagonist?
AND PLEASE GET BACK ON TOPIC!

ProletariatPleb
01-15-2013, 08:14 AM
So I was on reddit today, and well, the obvious thing comes out, nobody likes Desmond.

http://i.imgur.com/g1W2X.png

UrDeviant1
01-15-2013, 08:27 AM
That's a tiny fraction of people. Someone also said they want the animus ditched all together. So you have to wonder what kind of people are writing this stuff/giving It thumbs up.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ubi could have given Desmond more justice.

ProletariatPleb
01-15-2013, 08:31 AM
That's a tiny fraction of people. Someone also said they want the animus ditched all together. So you have to wonder what kind of people are writing this stuff/giving It thumbs up.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ubi could have given Desmond more justice.
I don't know, but I agree with it. Ditch modern day and animus. It was cool at first but now it's boring and the "animus" excuse just doesn't work.

I'd rather just have a historical game, the Modern Day parts, they should be optional if they really wanna throw it in, they're just terribad.

UrDeviant1
01-15-2013, 08:36 AM
I honestly love the modern day story, and AC wouldn't be AC without It. But It comes down to preference I guess!

SilverFlame101
01-15-2013, 08:37 AM
As of right now, no, I do not wish to play in the modern time yet. I feel like there's allot more things I want to explore, experience, and do in the past before I'm ready to be in the present time.