PDA

View Full Version : Should AC's sync system be like Mark of the Ninja?



Frank9182011
02-18-2013, 08:24 PM
Since posting this in another thread, I've become intrigued as to how the Ubisoft forum community at large feels about this.

In another thread about the sync system, I proposed revamping Assassin's Creed's current sync system (which has discrete, detailed objectives necessary to complete a mission 100%) with something more akin to the scoring system seen in Mark of the Ninja.

Many have complained that the current sync system fosters rigidity and a lack of creativity in multiple play-through's. I think that this assertion is debatable, but it's certainly a valid point.

One alternative I've stumbled across recently came from Mark of the Ninja, a game many of you are likely familiar with. Mark of the Ninja had a fairly detailed scoring system that rewards players for virtually everything, albeit in different ways, so long as it is within the game's existing mechanics. For instance, you are rewarded for killing guards, killing guards stealthily, and, conversely, for not killing guards at all. By setting up a detailed and flexible scoring regime, Mark of the Ninja encourages numerous play-through's, virtually all of them capable of being different from the last.

Mark of the Ninja also offers players different outfits that unlock different powers and abilities (as well as accompanying constraints) that suit certain types of play-through's more than others. This could be hybridized from AC: Liberation's costume system, and provide a way for outfits in AC to be more than cosmetic.

Of course, this structure would need to be justified by the existence of the Animus and the current structure of playing through actual memories. I don't think this would be particularly difficult, as the Animus essentially projects memories as simulations, which could be tampered with.

In any case, let me know what you guys think!

Gi1t
02-18-2013, 09:52 PM
I think where the rubber meets the road with something like that is what constitutes a perfect score. If there were a maximum score in any given mission, which the player could achieve in any given configuration of accomplishments, then it would ceertainly be more flexible.

Frank9182011
02-18-2013, 10:09 PM
I'm not sure you necessarily need to set a maximum score, though one would obviously happen organically. Most of the time in Mark of the Ninja, a no-kill play-through is the best score you can get (I believe).

Fans will necessarily experiment with different play-through styles to maximize their scores, and eventually a "maximum" would emerge. As I stated above, this encourages creativity, experimentation, and interaction among gamers, which, I think in most gamers' opinions, enhances the experience of an open-world game without requiring an internet access for always-online multiplayer- the singleplayer experience remains intact, with friendly competition between players.

Thresholds for achievements can be set at above certain point values, not necessarily the maximum (i.e. achieve greater than 5,000 points on Mission X).

Sushiglutton
02-18-2013, 10:21 PM
I like this idea as well. Like I said in the other thread it relies on changing the mission structure, which in turn would be very welcome. I think Ubi and AC-fans are a bit too obsessed about things making sense in the Animus framework. Basically that's a secondary problem imo. If you have a great and fun scoring system, such as yours, there is always some (more or less silly) explanation you can come up with for it. I doubt most people care.


I'm not sure you necessarily need to set a maximum score, though one would obviously happen organically. Most of the time in Mark of the Ninja, a no-kill play-through is the best score you can get (I believe).

Fans will necessarily experiment with different play-through styles to maximize their scores, and eventually a "maximum" would emerge. As I stated above, this encourages creativity, experimentation, and interaction among gamers, which, I think in most gamers' opinions, enhances the experience of an open-world game without requiring an internet access for always-online multiplayer- the singleplayer experience remains intact, with friendly competition between players.

Thresholds for achievements can be set at above certain point values, not necessarily the maximum (i.e. achieve greater than 5,000 points on Mission X).

I like your philosophy :D! These would be very welcome things indeed. Kind of reminds me of the thread I made about the difference between AC3 and BF3 youtube vid (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/746404-The-difference-between-AC3-and-BF3-youtube-videos).

Frank9182011
02-18-2013, 10:43 PM
True, I don't think you need to take the Animus structure to its logical extreme. Current thinking seems to be, "OK, do these optional objectives in the mission to get 100% sync because (1) it presents a greater challenge for players and (2) they can be justified within the Animus framework as how Haytham/Connor actually performed the mission."

The first reason is a valid one and, I think, how the dev's are attempting to appeal to gamers of all types and abilities. Obviously, this is a positive thing. It allows Assassin's Creed to cater to as many consumers as would like to play it, while also accounting for varying player ability. It's the second reason that seems to be problematic, and lead to what some fans see as a rigid mission structure that, taken to its logical extreme, can be unforgiving of alternate play styles.

Sushiglutton
02-18-2013, 11:35 PM
True, I don't think you need to take the Animus structure to its logical extreme. Current thinking seems to be, "OK, do these optional objectives in the mission to get 100% sync because (1) it presents a greater challenge for players and (2) they can be justified within the Animus framework as how Haytham/Connor actually performed the mission."

The first reason is a valid one and, I think, how the dev's are attempting to appeal to gamers of all types and abilities. Obviously, this is a positive thing. It allows Assassin's Creed to cater to as many consumers as would like to play it, while also accounting for varying player ability. It's the second reason that seems to be problematic, and lead to what some fans see as a rigid mission structure that, taken to its logical extreme, can be unforgiving of alternate play styles.

Yeah in short I think more advanced players have two main problems with AC: 1) it's too easy, 2) it's too restircted. Problem with the full-synch system is that it tries to adress 1), but at the same time it makes 2) way worse. At the end of the day pretty much no one is happy about it. The casuals don't like to get a red cross smacked in their faces every time they mess something up. And the more experienced players don't like that their freedom is taken away even more.

Given the feedback I have seen on this forum and, perhaps more importantly, in various professional reviews I'm pretty confident Ubi will make tweaks to the full-synch system for the next game.

Frank9182011
02-19-2013, 12:01 AM
I'd love for the sync system to be adjusted to increase flexibility. As I stated in another thread, I think mission structure is probably the most interesting and debatable aspects of AC3.

Out of pure curiosity, what exactly makes you think Ubisoft will address the sync system?

Again, I'm not saying that what you say is wrong - I very much hope it's true. I'm simply curious what you've seen that indicates this.

Sushiglutton
02-19-2013, 12:09 AM
I'd love for the sync system to be adjusted to increase flexibility. As I stated in another thread, I think mission structure is probably the most interesting and debatable aspects of AC3.

Out of pure curiosity, what exactly makes you think Ubisoft will address the sync system?

Again, I'm not saying that what you say is wrong - I very much hope it's true. I'm simply curious what you've seen that indicates this.

Well like I said I have seen this complaint in the forums a lot and also in reviews (too lazy to find which ones, have read a lot of them lol). But obv it's just speculation from my part.

Gi1t
02-19-2013, 01:00 AM
Well like I said I have seen this complaint in the forums a lot and also in reviews (too lazy to find which ones, have read a lot of them lol). But obv it's just speculation from my part.

I think the key is to make it clear that it's not just the casual fans who don't like the full sync. If they think it's only casuals, they'll leave it in thinking it'll please hardcore gamers. -__-