PDA

View Full Version : Please return to the old AC formula PLEASE UBISOFT!



rupok2
02-20-2013, 05:14 AM
I just played the new DLC. I am tired of facing hordes after hordes of enemies in missions. This isn't assassins creed its slaughters creed like seriously. Even tho past ac games weren't stealthy by any means they at least gave you an option. It was very satisfying in past games to stealthy crossbow everyone or take out snipers (riflemen) with hidden blade on roofs.


This games doesn't give you an option at all with with sauron AI who can see behind them and instantly start attacking you after seeing you for like 2 seconds. Trying to play stealthy in AC3 is so annoying that I just don't even try anymore. Not to mention the horribly glitchy stealth mechanics that get you caught most of the time. Also the mission architecture is just plain out stupid now, in past ac games most missions you learned about a target, did some crap, killed a few guards, killed a target, etc. In this game its just slaughter everyone and then go near target, don't kill him and watch a cutscene. This dlc reminded me of how terrible some of the mission types were in the original game. And what do you guys do? Put some of THE WORST mission types back in the dlc, for example the cannon mission.

Btw while I like the ghost recon/crysis cloaking, it doesn't justify the crappy stealth mechanics and don't even think about putting that in future games. I like it for dlc but thats it. Its fun to play around with but its is very op.


So ya thanks for reminding me why I was so disappointing in ac3 ubisoft. I was forgetting about it when I was free roaming in main game doing side quests (which is genuinely fun) but then you reminded me again with the dlc.

ihateyou0
02-20-2013, 06:12 AM
I wish they would but its too late.

Assassin_M
02-20-2013, 07:32 AM
From the bottom of my heart, I sincerely hope, if you mean by "old formula" AC II, that they NEVER go back to it...

If it`s AC I, then Yes please

Gi1t
02-20-2013, 07:38 AM
I wish they would but its too late.

True, once a game becomes too content-heavy, I don't think you can go back without getting a ton of haters screaming about the lack of pointless extras in every nook and cranny of the game. -__-

To be fair, it seems there are things they never got rid of as well as new things that fit veyr well, but the general formula of the game just seems to be broken down into too many little pieces of moment-to-moment action.

Krayus Korianis
02-20-2013, 07:42 AM
All I read was the following:

"WAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I CAN'T FIGHT ALL THESE PIXELATED PEOPLE! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME?! WHY ARE YOU SENDING THIS MANY NPC'S AT ME?! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!"

RinoTheBouncer
02-20-2013, 09:25 AM
I hope they bring the ACII or AC:R fighting techniques, style and atmosphere back. I hate the idea of having to fight many people just because I was seen for 2 seconds. I hope they concentrate more on the story, the gameplay and how you finish the mission not how you fight your way through the mission. I also don't understand why that whenever I tail somebody, they seem to set their radar on me of all people in the street. Just make it realistic, when you follow somebody, they don't just detect you when hundreds of people are doing just like you.

Gi1t
02-20-2013, 09:49 AM
All I read was the following:

"WAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I CAN'T FIGHT ALL THESE PIXELATED PEOPLE! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME?! WHY ARE YOU SENDING THIS MANY NPC'S AT ME?! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!"

That's because you're ignoring what the topic starter is saying and replacing it with what you WANT to read. -__-

They said nothing about being UNABLE to handle the volume of enemies. (In fact, their statement about not even bothering to be stealthy anymore strongly implies the opposite.)

This attitude is probably the one I am most tired of seeing and I think it's one of the most pervasive in holding games back; this attitude of pretending that anyone criticizing a game's mechanics is really just an inept player when in reality, they haven't said anything at all about not being able to finish the game or succeed at difficult tasks. Just because somebody doesn't like the way a game plays doesn't mean they're not able to play it just as well as anyone.

You need to maintain the attitude that a game can get better, whether you're optimistic or you think it's got a long way to go yet. :) Doing as the topic starter suggests would not elimintate the option to break out into open combat at any time; you can have both options.

RinoTheBouncer
02-20-2013, 09:54 AM
That's because you're ignoring what the topic starter is saying and replacing it with what you WANT to read. -__-

They said nothing about being UNABLE to handle the volume of enemies. (In fact, their statement about not even bothering to be stealthy anymore strongly implies the opposite.)

This attitude is probably the one I am most tired of seeing and I think it's one of the most pervasive in holding games back; this attitude of pretending that anyone criticizing a game's mechanics is really just an inept player when in reality, they haven't said anything at all about not being able to finish the game or succeed at difficult tasks. Just because somebody doesn't like the way a game plays doesn't mean they're not able to play it just as well as anyone.

You need to maintain the attitude that a game can get better, whether you're optimistic or you think it's got a long way to go yet. :) Doing as the topic starter suggests would not elimintate the option to break out into open combat at any time; you can have both options.

I totally agree with you.

If nobody voices their opinion about a game then no game will improve it if it had any flaws. With AC1, everyone complained about it being repetitive and BOOM we get AC2 which improved everything and yes, I share the same feelings about the combat and also the optional objectives. Now I don't bother playing in stealth, like at all,

Assassin_M
02-20-2013, 09:56 AM
I totally agree with you.

If nobody voices their opinion about a game then no game will improve it if it had any flaws. With AC1, everyone complained about it being repetitive and BOOM we get AC2 which improved everything and yes, I share the same feelings about the combat and also the optional objectives. Now I don't bother playing in stealth, like at all,
If that`s the case, I wish I was never part of this fanbase..

AC II effed everything up for me

SuperLoboMau 25
02-20-2013, 11:06 AM
I agree with the creator of topic. I prefer stealth. Anyway there are people who prefer the action way, and I guess the new fans would prefer the current style.
I prefer even the formula of AC1 to AC3.

I really don't think bad fight against a ton of enemies, it is already an AC's mark, but it can't happen anytime. ACB, for example there were missions you fought against a lot of wolfmen or in Borgia's castle some guards appeared and another times you explore just need kill the main target and nothing more. Assassin's Creed must be a balanced game, with moments of intense action and stealth, not Metal Gear Solid and not Devil May Cry.

BoeserBengel83
02-20-2013, 11:42 AM
I liked the gameplay in Brotherhood and Revelations.

AC 1 and AC 2 are just boring when i comes to a fight against 5+ enemies, it isn't hard, it just feels long and sometimes annoying. The only thing that i liked was the stealth.

A new AC game should mix the newer and older style, if you can't kill a target "the stealth way", reinforcment will arrive and you have to fight hords of enemies like in AC3.

SuperLoboMau 25
02-20-2013, 11:47 AM
I liked the gameplay in Brotherhood and Revelations.

AC 1 and AC 2 are just boring when i comes to a fight against 5+ enemies, it isn't hard, it just feels long and sometimes annoying. The only thing that i liked was the stealth.

A new AC game should mix the newer and older style, if you can't kill a target "the stealth way", reinforcment will arrive and you have to fight hords of enemies like in AC3.

This problem of boring fight was fixed in borhterhood with the sequences of kills.

Flying-Tempest
02-20-2013, 11:51 AM
This series soul was lost after Brotherhood. Constantinople wasn't interesting and way too short a campaign, but had the best multiplayer (yes better than AC3).

AC3 was the worst with a horrible city design, unnecessary revamped controls (WHY?) on an already tried and amazing control experience and overpriced mediocre DLC.

DaVinci Disappearance was the best DLC value for $10. Four hour campaign, new MP modes, new MP characters.

The Infamy was a reminder was just another reminder of why I hated AC3 in the first place. Sorry, Ubisoft next time I won't buy into your trailers.

LightRey
02-20-2013, 11:52 AM
This problem of boring fight was fixed in borhterhood with the sequences of kills.
Yeah, but then they threw in even more enemies.

straty88
02-20-2013, 11:52 AM
This problem of boring fight was fixed in borhterhood with the sequences of kills.

No they didn't. Fights became boring after the novelty of the kill chain wore off, which for me was after the first hour.

SuperLoboMau 25
02-20-2013, 11:57 AM
Yeah, but then they threw in even more enemies.

In my opinion fight against many enemies sometimes is good.


No they didn't. Fights became boring after the novelty of the kill chain wore off, which for me was after the first hour.

Perhaps I didn't feel it because I usually play stealthly most part of time. Anyway I would like if they remove the kill chain.

Assassin_M
02-20-2013, 12:07 PM
This series soul was lost after Brotherhood. Constantinople wasn't interesting and way too short a campaign, but had the best multiplayer (yes better than AC3).

AC3 was the worst with a horrible city design, unnecessary revamped controls (WHY?) on an already tried and amazing control experience and overpriced mediocre DLC.

DaVinci Disappearance was the best DLC value for $10. Four hour campaign, new MP modes, new MP characters.

The Infamy was a reminder was just another reminder of why I hated AC3 in the first place. Sorry, Ubisoft next time I won't buy into your trailers.
I never disagreed with someone so much xD

LightRey
02-20-2013, 12:09 PM
In my opinion fight against many enemies sometimes is good.



Perhaps I didn't feel it because I usually play stealthly most part of time. Anyway I would like if they remove the kill chain.
Oh, I liked it, but people who didn't enjoy the combat as much just had another long, boring fight.

SuperLoboMau 25
02-20-2013, 12:13 PM
This series soul was lost after Brotherhood. Constantinople wasn't interesting and way too short a campaign, but had the best multiplayer (yes better than AC3).

AC3 was the worst with a horrible city design, unnecessary revamped controls (WHY?) on an already tried and amazing control experience and overpriced mediocre DLC.

DaVinci Disappearance was the best DLC value for $10. Four hour campaign, new MP modes, new MP characters.
http://forums.ubi.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8932728
The Infamy was a reminder was just another reminder of why I hated AC3 in the first place. Sorry, Ubisoft next time I won't buy into your trailers.

The design of cities in AC3 isn't so handsome because Boston wasn't so handsome. Ubisoft reproduces the landscapes with fidelity, and the controls improved (aren't perfects yet, but improved).

BoeserBengel83
02-20-2013, 12:28 PM
This problem of boring fight was fixed in borhterhood with the sequences of kills.

Hi SuperLoboMau

I like the kill streaks. There are two ways to make the game harder without getting rid off the series of kills.

1. Just put heavy guards in the groups (like Jaegers, Janissaries or Brutes), the kill streaks wouldn't be that easy.

2. Add different difficulties, hard, very hard and professional. Higher difficult means, less time to counter, more energy for the enemies etc.

IMO that should solve the problem, everyone would be happy :D.

straty88
02-20-2013, 12:31 PM
Hi SuperLoboMau

I like the kill streaks. There are two ways to make the game harder without getting rid off the series of kills.

1. Just put heavy guards in the groups (like Jaegers, Janissaries or Brutes), the kill streaks wouldn't be that easy.

2. Add different difficulties, hard, very hard and professional. Higher difficult means, less time to counter, more energy for the enemies etc.

IMO that should solve the problem, everyone would be happy :D.

1. Or just use the current system where you have to use different moves to i.e. break defence to continue your kill chain.
2. +1

SuperLoboMau 25
02-20-2013, 12:49 PM
Hi SuperLoboMau

I like the kill streaks. There are two ways to make the game harder without getting rid off the series of kills.

1. Just put heavy guards in the groups (like Jaegers, Janissaries or Brutes), the kill streaks wouldn't be that easy.

2. Add different difficulties, hard, very hard and professional. Higher difficult means, less time to counter, more energy for the enemies etc.

IMO that should solve the problem, everyone would be happy :D.

Yeah, I don't understand why they didn't implemented a system to change difficulties yet. Or they could decrease the successful chance of defense and counter attack by back.
Could even "nerf" the character every time difficulty ups.

pacmanate
02-20-2013, 01:14 PM
All I read was the following:

"WAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I CAN'T FIGHT ALL THESE PIXELATED PEOPLE! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME?! WHY ARE YOU SENDING THIS MANY NPC'S AT ME?! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!"

How on earth did you manage that?

Sushiglutton
02-20-2013, 01:15 PM
The combat is one of the three core pillars (stealth, combat, navigation) of the franchise. All three have been there since the very first game and it's natural to build missions around them. For example remember in AC1 when we slaughtered our way to Robert De Sable? To me the combat in AC3 is more fun than in any of the previous games and def good enough to build missions around. It's far from perfect and still behind the competition, but Ubi has a solid foundation now and I hope they keep pushing forward.

The problem for me is not too much focus on combat (which is a fleshed out core mechanic), but all the missions built around auxiliary mechanics that are simply not fun (like ordering firing lines). Combat missions, like the Boston Teaparty, are among the better missions imo. That said there should be a balance between stealth and combat and preferably most missions should allow you to choose between them. But I certainly don't mind a few slaughter missions as long as the combat is fun.

I can agree with going back to the roots in the sense that the franchise needs to trim a lot of the fat, focus more on the assassinations and open up the missions design. But I think many fans are a bit too nostalgic. To me AC has always had underwhelming gameplay and AC3 actually improved every core pillar. Therefor going back won't solve a thing and instead they need to push forward. And the way to do that is to concentrate on making core elements as fun as possible and then let them speak for themselves.

Assassin_M
02-20-2013, 01:17 PM
The combat is one of the three core pillars (stealth, combat, navigation) of the franchise. All three have been there since the very first game and it's natural to build missions around them. For example remember in AC1 when we slaughtered our way to Robert De Sable? To me the combat in AC3 is more fun than in any of the previous games and def good enough to build missions around. It's far from perfect and still behind the competition, but Ubi has a solid foundation now and I hope they keep pushing forward.

The problem for me is not too much focus on combat (which is a fleshed out core mechanic), but all the missions built around auxiliary mechanics that are simply not fun (like ordering firing lines). Combat missions, like the Boston Teaparty, are among the better missions imo. That said there should be a balance between stealth and combat and preferably most missions should allow you to choose between them. But I certainly don't mind a few slaughter missions as long as the combat is fun.

I can agree with going back to the roots in the sense that the franchise needs to trim a lot of the fat, focus more on the assassinations and open up the missions design. But I think many fans are a bit too nostalgic. To me AC has always had underwhelming gameplay and AC3 actually improved every core pillar. Therefor going back won't solve a thing and instead they need to push forward. And the way to do that is to concentrate on making core elements as fun as possible and then let them speak for themselves.
Best post ever...

saydrix12
02-20-2013, 01:18 PM
i actually love being Just 1 assasins and those 50 soldiers fighting me and please dont go back to ac1 ac1 was soooooooooooooooooo boring

Assassin_M
02-20-2013, 01:19 PM
i actually love being Just 1 assasins and those 50 soldiers fighting me and please dont go back to ac1 ac1 was soooooooooooooooooo boring
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I wish they`d go back to AC I and return the Investigations...

Spider_Sith9
02-20-2013, 02:07 PM
They need to do that as well. In both gameplay and story. I'm getting a tad bored of experiencing a person's life (even if it isn't every day of their life). Plus give us a reason to investigate and not make him story missions like we are playing another game

LightRey
02-20-2013, 02:11 PM
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I wish they`d go back to AC I and return the Investigations...
That would actually be fun. They should be more dynamic/interactive though.

Assassin_M
02-20-2013, 02:13 PM
That would actually be fun. They should be more dynamic/interactive though.
That`s the thing with AC II. they could`v expanded upon this feature..made it more malleable and dynamic with so many variations and combinations of Information and finally based on what you`v collected, YOU deduce a plan with so many outcomes and freedom...JUST IMAGINE....that would be awesome

BATISTABUS
02-20-2013, 02:59 PM
I never disagreed with someone so much xD
I second this xD

Also, contrary to popular belief, IMO the biggest improvements from AC1 to AC2 were the variety of missions (or at least that the missions weren't as repetitive as AC1) and the main character being voiced by a good voice actor with an accent. The rest of the stuff was just as good (cities, music, the rest of the cast's voice acting, etc.) or worse. It's not the "all-around improvement" some people seem to consider it.

SixKeys
02-20-2013, 03:28 PM
I second this xD

Also, contrary to popular belief, IMO the biggest improvements from AC1 to AC2 were the variety of missions (or at least that the missions weren't as repetitive as AC1) and the main character being voiced by a good voice actor with an accent. The rest of the stuff was just as good (cities, music, the rest of the cast's voice acting, etc.) or worse. It's not the "all-around improvement" some people seem to consider it.

While I love AC1, AC2 improved on more than just one or two things. They improved blending, freerunning, NPC animations/interactions, assassination techniques, weapons, day/night cycle (which affected guards' patrol routines), notoriety system, character customization, Animus database, modern day parts etc.

I view AC1 and AC2 as two very different experiences. AC1 was a bare-bones assassin simulator. It was designed to be played with HUD off to encourage exploration as opposed to running directly from one mission to another. There were no pointless races or restoring shops because Altaïr was focused and driven by his cause. Every mission had to have a point in the context of getting closer to your target, not just killing time. The dialogues were long and ponderous. Heroes and villains weren't all black-and-white. It was all about story and atmosphere. AC2 was more geared towards the mass market: plenty of pointless side missions for no other reason than to have fun, a more Hollywoodian hero, bigger and more colorful yet slightly more plastic-looking cities, cliché yet memorable side characters, more emphasis on combat and cinematic moments. They're two entirely different experiences for me, and I judge them as such.

BATISTABUS
02-20-2013, 03:41 PM
While I love AC1, AC2 improved on more than just one or two things. They improved blending, freerunning, NPC animations/interactions, assassination techniques, weapons, day/night cycle (which affected guards' patrol routines), notoriety system, character customization, Animus database, modern day parts etc.

I forget how blending worked in AC1, so I can't really comment on that.
I think freerunning was actually worse with the edition of the climb jump. It made scaling buildings faster, but more mindless (which I don't like).
Any NPC improvements weren't very noticeable.
Assassination techniques were better, I'll give this one to you.
Weapons were worse. In AC1, every weapon served a specific purpose. In AC2, the over-saturation and upgrade system only served to make the game easier.
Day/Night was a nice touch, but the guard's patrol routines are not really noticeable. Night time during AC1 barely affects NPCs anyway.
Notoriety improvements were a neutral change in my opinion. In AC1 they were a story tool, so they just served separate purposes.
Character customization I see as negative. Again, armor only served to make the game easier, but dying robes (which is something I never liked to do) is fine I suppose.
Animus database was nice.
Modern day parts are debatable. Some people hate them all together, but I didn't. I actually preferred the Desmond bits in AC1 for their narrative purposes.

But I agree. Some stuff can't be looked at through the lens of being better or worse...it's just different.

MohMurad
02-20-2013, 03:45 PM
That`s the thing with AC II. they could`v expanded upon this feature..made it more malleable and dynamic with so many variations and combinations of Information and finally based on what you`v collected, YOU deduce a plan with so many outcomes and freedom...JUST IMAGINE....that would be awesome

But then half the people would be going on about how they're just playing L.A. Noire again. :eek:

I think they should make these variations of investigations into side missions, replacing some (not all) of the current ones which have no reason to be there. Because in AC1 I was just stuck for so long. It said sync with a viewpoint, and at the fourth time of doing the exact same thing after syncing (killing), the next mission wouldn't unlock and I didn't know what to do.

bveUSbve
02-20-2013, 03:51 PM
The combat is one of the three core pillars (stealth, combat, navigation) of the franchise.
That's when we talk about "mechanics". But what about locations? All games but ACIII featured foremost big (in their time) historical cities. They by themselves were a core feature of the franchise. Since Boston and New York before 1800 weren't as fascinating, ACIII tried to make the frontier a replacement. With mixed success, I would say.

So, back to "really" interesting cities? Yes, please. That's not to say an equivalent to the frontier should not make a reappearance ever again. But then it should factor in better into the main story-line and its missions.

Depending on which of the first 2 or 3 games is your favorite, other things can be considered core features. I favor ACII regarding its atmosphere, special missions for platforming/environmental puzzles (assassin's tombs) and Subject 16's mysteries - which significantly contributed to the atmosphere. (The way the story was told also was quite effective (imo) - but I cannot say WHY it "worked" so much better than that of ACIII (imo).)


The problem for me is not too much focus on combat (which is a fleshed out core mechanic), but all the missions built around auxiliary mechanics that are simply not fun (like ordering firing lines). Combat missions, like the Boston Teaparty, are among the better missions imo. That said there should be a balance between stealth and combat and preferably most missions should allow you to choose between them. But I certainly don't mind a few slaughter missions as long as the combat is fun.
Ok, if you put it that way I mostly agree. Just that for me the dominance of "slaughter" as the best approach to deal with resistance - if you don't want to try and fail "endlessly" and in the process become really frustrated.. - IS a problem. Stealth-mechanics should be improved, and mission- and level-design should cater more for players who prefer their assassin to be a silent one.


(...) the franchise needs to trim a lot of the fat, focus more on the assassinations and open up the missions design.
Agreed.


To me AC has always had underwhelming gameplay and AC3 actually improved every core pillar
I can see why you would say that STEALTH has improved: some stealth-mechanics were introduced. But despite this somehow the mission-/level-design and the enemy AI manage to make stealth either not very satisfying or, when none of these special mechanics can be utilized, downright frustrating.

And please don't ignore the other "pillars" I mentioned at the beginning ... ;)

Sushiglutton
02-20-2013, 04:20 PM
I really love all the constructive gameplay discussion in the forum lately, it's amazing :D! So many people with great thoughts (often opposite from mine though lol).


That's when we talk about "mechanics". But what about locations? All games but ACIII featured foremost big (in their time) historical cities. They by themselves were a core feature of the franchise. Since Boston and New York before 1800 weren't as fascinating, ACIII tried to make the frontier a replacement. With mixed success, I would say.

So, back to "really" interesting cities? Yes, please. That's not to say an equivalent to the frontier should not make a reappearance ever again. But then it should factor in better into the main story-line and its missions.

Depending on which of the first 2 or 3 games is your favorite, other things can be considered core features. I favor ACII regarding its atmosphere, special missions for platforming/environmental puzzles (assassin's tombs) and Subject 16's mysteries - which significantly contributed to the atmosphere. (The way the story was told also was quite effective (imo) - but I cannot say WHY it "worked" so much better than that of ACIII (imo).)

Yeah I meant the three gameplay pillars (the developers frequently refer to them as such). To me the greatest enjoyment from the AC franchise has been to climb around beautiful historical worlds. So I def think the locations is a huge part of what makes the franchise fascinating. Personally I loved the frontier (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/739275-Ubi-deserves-more-praise-for-the-frontier-Forums) and thought it was a great accomplishment, especially given it was a first attempt. I def want to see a similar type of enviroment in future games.

I agree Boston and New York were slightly underwhelming compared to the cities in the earlier games (not Ubi's fault obv) and imo it would have been better to simply skip New York which added very little to the game. Instead those resources should have been used to flesh out the frontier and Boston. One city and one nature area I think would have been perfect.

I also miss some of the mystery aspects of AC2 that were not as noticeable in AC3. The tone of the tomb missions worked better for me than the kind of all over the place feel of the peg-leg missions. The Truth video and the puzzles to unlock it were great. That said Ubi tends to keep more things than they should so I don't want to be too nostalgic ;).



Ok, if you put it that way I mostly agree. Just that for me the dominance of "slaughter" as the best approach to deal with resistance - if you don't want to try and fail "endlessly" and in the process become really frustrated.. - IS a problem. Stealth-mechanics should be improved, and mission- and level-design should cater more for players who prefer their assassin to be a silent one.

I used "slaughter" because TC used that term and it was a bit funny to me lol. Like I said I think missions as far as possible should allow for different playstyles. I think some pure combat missions are fine though. It just doesn't make sense to sneak in some situations. I'm personally not that concerned with the moral or believability of going in "guns blazing". I respect that some hate it though.


I can see why you would say that STEALTH has improved: some stealth-mechanics were introduced. But despite this somehow the mission-/level-design and the enemy AI manage to make stealth either not very satisfying or, when none of these special mechanics can be utilized, downright frustrating.

And please don't ignore the other "pillars" I mentioned at the beginning ... ;)

I think running assassinations, whistle, stalking zones are all good additions. I have played the forts quiet a bit lately (manage to get pass the beginning finally) and there is def fun to be had. Sadly you are 100% correct about that the campaign mission desgin kills the fun of the stealth gameplay.

SixKeys
02-20-2013, 04:25 PM
I forget how blending worked in AC1, so I can't really comment on that.

You could only blend with scholars and on benches. Scholars had to be "unlocked" by helping citizens in distress, so if you didn't do any of that, you were often hard-pressed to find a scholar group nearby when you needed one. The button which is now Fast Walk used to be the Blend button, so you could also "blend" by simply putting your hands together and walking slower.


I think freerunning was actually worse with the edition of the climb jump. It made scaling buildings faster, but more mindless (which I don't like).

I was more talking about the general speed with which Ezio could climb buildings (even before the climb jump, which I agree looked pretty silly) and the corner helpers. Minor improvements, I'll admit, but a stepping stone on which all following games have built upon.


Any NPC improvements weren't very noticeable.

Are you kidding me? In AC1 the NPCs didn't have any individual movements that made them feel like real people. Everybody just milled around like mindless zombies, with no expression. In AC2 you'll frequently run into people shading their eyes from the sun, sneezing, animatedly arguing with each other, curiously surveying merchants' wares, irritably tapping their foot as if waiting for someone, polishing their jewelry, looking at their shoe as if they just stepped in something etc. etc. Seriously, go back to AC1 and watch how NPCs move and act, then look at AC2.


Weapons were worse. In AC1, every weapon served a specific purpose. In AC2, the over-saturation and upgrade system only served to make the game easier.

For what it's worth, I wasn't talking about the numerous different-but-same variations of swords, hammers etc., but the actual new, useful weapons like smoke bombs and poison. Even money could be used as a "weapon" of sorts, to slow down pursuers while you're being chased.


Day/Night was a nice touch, but the guard's patrol routines are not really noticeable. Night time during AC1 barely affects NPCs anyway.

Are you sure you didn't mean AC2? Because AC1 didn't have nighttime.
I'll admit that the guard patrol routines aren't noticeable. They should have perhaps done more with that, like a mission that requires you to navigate through rooftops while guards are changing shifts. (The guards would be in one place when you get to point A and by the time you have to get back to the starting point, they'll have switched to different positions, so you couldn't use the same route twice.)


Notoriety improvements were a neutral change in my opinion. In AC1 they were a story tool, so they just served separate purposes.

In AC1 notoriety was a very vague concept anyway. Guards in the Kingdom somehow automatically were always suspicious of you regardless of rank and archers instantly recognized you from miles away (it was a welcome challenge, but why would they just assume that any monk in a white robe must be an assassin?). In the cities notoriety mostly served to force you to walk at a snail's pace. It makes more sense that notorious actions should make guards suspicious, not the mere fact of you walking around.


Character customization I see as negative. Again, armor only served to make the game easier, but dying robes (which is something I never liked to do) is fine I suppose.

I get bored with the same look very quickly, so I'm constantly dying my robes post-AC1. I don't care about armor either (ugly and makes the game too easy as you said), but it did feel like a nice reward when you unlocked a new piece of armor or weapon after completing a sequence. In AC1 you unlocked new skills which admittedly felt rather contrived. How could Altaïr know how to grab a ledge before he was demoted and then "remember" it again after he gained another rank? There were also minor weapon upgrades (more throwing knives, superior sword/short blade) but these were barely noticeable and more tied to the skills you learned.


Modern day parts are debatable. Some people hate them all together, but I didn't. I actually preferred the Desmond bits in AC1 for their narrative purposes.

Again, I view the modern day parts as two different experiences. The first game made me feel like a detective, walking around looking for clues and trying to figure out what the heck was going on. Loved reading the e-mails and piecing it all together. The second game made Desmond feel more like an assassin, allowing him to get out and test his skills. I also liked being able to talk to Shaun, Rebecca and Lucy and seeing Desmond develop a different relationship with each one.

rupok2
02-20-2013, 06:43 PM
Look I never said to get rid of the combat. I actually think the combat system in ac3 is very good. HOWEVER, the missions are not. Every mission is just a slaughter fest because either the mission type is like that or because the stealth mechanics in this game are absolutely horrendous. I want variety in missions and want to choose how to approach things. In ac3 the only option (unless you want to keep hitting retry objective) is to just slaughter everyone to get to objectives. That is not fun at all. I want missions to be more open minded where u choose how you want to approach things, and then have a few epic slaughterfests here and there.

And again please fix the all seeing AI who are extremely unpredictable/glitchy . While I guess its more realistic, it doesn't fit in a stealth game. Make the guards more like the past games. They should not detect u in 2 seconds, you should not be Noterious just because you are in their proximity, if you left their sights then the game should return you to incognito after 5-8 seconds. The guards in this game seem to have more communication then modern police forces. The stealth mechanics need to be polished and reworked as well, why the hell can't you whistle from ledges and other hiding spots?

Btw I do not suck at the game, I never died once from fighting. I just find fighting horde after horde annoying.

pacmanate
02-20-2013, 06:51 PM
That would actually be fun. They should be more dynamic/interactive though.

Sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards. I think the main problem is ubisoft keeps adding stuff. It just makes me feel invincible. In AC1 I never really got that feeling. Just a guy with two swords and throwing knives, trying to hunt down someone. ****... really want to play AC1 now haha

ajl992008
02-20-2013, 06:54 PM
I want ac in future to become a hybrid of all the previous games taking their best aspects:

ac1:

bring back investigations and also open level design as well as that more gritty atmosphere and storyline.

ac2:

bring that variety of missions with the vast array of weapons, upgrades, having all these various tools made me feel more like an assassin in the game as I had many tools at my disposal which means many ways to tackle missions

acb:

have side missions as deep as acb such as the guild missions but make them more varied using each of the 3 core pillars, combat, stealth and navigation, I didn't like acb but i can't deny that it had a lot of content in terms of side missions.

acr:

crafting: this doesn't have to be bombs it can be included, it could be for loads of aspects such as various poisons, forging your own weapons, more customisation of your character in terms of their appearance. one small thing I want to see is the way that templar agents where shown in acr to return, this was something i really missed in ac3 which i want to see returned in future games.

ac3:

carry on with the great combat system in ac3, the only thing i think they need is more finishing moves (just to make it feel fresh in future games) and more enemy archetypes. bring back the great free running system but make aspects such as the vaulting smoother, it needs to flow a little bit better but I overall enjoyed it, with the right setting it could give us amazing free running. bring something like the homestead to the next game, this was an amazing addition that needs to come back. the social stealth in ac3 was great, bring it back and just push forward to improve it. one small thing is that they need to expand on is the passthroughs and stuff of that nature, make them more frequent so that the assassin feels more flexible and has more options to them to make an escape.

other things that are just needed:

random events: these were promised so many times, now lets deliver on them ubi

longer story: I want ac2's length or more please

much more fleshed out present day: heres what i think, we should sped the first couple of hours of the game in the present, maybe see the new present day character from childhood to adulthood to set up their back story and character, the time line could be parallel to ac1-ac3 so this could be a friend of Desmond's on the farm which means farm free roam, maybe even training with bill.

innovation/new ideas: end of the day just surprise us with new ideas as long as they improve the game and they revolve around the core of what makes ac.

this would make the game a hybrid of all the best aspects of ac making it a winner, well that's my thought on it anyway.

LightRey
02-20-2013, 06:59 PM
Sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards. I think the main problem is ubisoft keeps adding stuff. It just makes me feel invincible. In AC1 I never really got that feeling. Just a guy with two swords and throwing knives, trying to hunt down someone. ****... really want to play AC1 now haha
I don't mind the diversity of the tools, but they have to "upgrade" the enemies accordingly.

TheHumanTowel
02-20-2013, 07:09 PM
Ubisoft really needs to remember that Assassin's Creed is supposed to be about acting like an Assassin. The games have completely lost this focus to the point where it's almost an afterthought. 4 of the 6 targets in AC3 are killed in a quick time event or a cutscene. There's more focus on delivering "cinematic moments" than there is on good level design. Look at the assassination side missions we got, being assigned 3 random unguarded and completely unaware NPCs to kill, and look at the time and effort put into the Homestead and Naval missions. That's a good indicator of where Ubi's priorities were.

Instead of focusing on the core gameplay pillars of the series Ubi has just shoved mechanics in that don't belong in an AC game at all to try and please everyone and their grandmother.

Caeser_of_Rome
02-20-2013, 07:38 PM
I just played the new DLC. I am tired of facing hordes after hordes of enemies in missions. This isn't assassins creed its slaughters creed like seriously. Even tho past ac games weren't stealthy by any means they at least gave you an option. It was very satisfying in past games to stealthy crossbow everyone or take out snipers (riflemen) with hidden blade on roofs.


This games doesn't give you an option at all with with sauron AI who can see behind them and instantly start attacking you after seeing you for like 2 seconds. Trying to play stealthy in AC3 is so annoying that I just don't even try anymore. Not to mention the horribly glitchy stealth mechanics that get you caught most of the time. Also the mission architecture is just plain out stupid now, in past ac games most missions you learned about a target, did some crap, killed a few guards, killed a target, etc. In this game its just slaughter everyone and then go near target, don't kill him and watch a cutscene. This dlc reminded me of how terrible some of the mission types were in the original game. And what do you guys do? Put some of THE WORST mission types back in the dlc, for example the cannon mission.

Btw while I like the ghost recon/crysis cloaking, it doesn't justify the crappy stealth mechanics and don't even think about putting that in future games. I like it for dlc but thats it. Its fun to play around with but its is very op.


So ya thanks for reminding me why I was so disappointing in ac3 ubisoft. I was forgetting about it when I was free roaming in main game doing side quests (which is genuinely fun) but then you reminded me again with the dlc.

Agree with everything you say, except for the Cloak. The game series seems like it isn't Assassins creed anymore because, you never Assassinate anyone anymore, and the whole stealth thing is trashed completly. Then now they introduce a Cloaking system?!?!?! I mean wow, Now I feel like I'm playing Halo series!

rupok2
02-20-2013, 08:05 PM
Agree with everything you say, except for the Cloak. The game series seems like it isn't Assassins creed anymore because, you never Assassinate anyone anymore, and the whole stealth thing is trashed completly. Then now they introduce a Cloaking system?!?!?! I mean wow, Now I feel like I'm playing Halo series!

As I said I like it for dlc but I would hate it if they include it in a real game. For dlc I like that they experiment around with stuff.

Gi1t
02-20-2013, 08:50 PM
That`s the thing with AC II. they could`v expanded upon this feature..made it more malleable and dynamic with so many variations and combinations of Information and finally based on what you`v collected, YOU deduce a plan with so many outcomes and freedom...JUST IMAGINE....that would be awesome

I guess the problem with AC2 was that it broke up that investigation system and made it into a series of organized tasks. (I found the tasks to be enjoyable and quite a few of them had some leeway as to how you could do them, so I still liked the game.) Becuase people complained about the investigations being dull, Ubisoft did what they always do and threw everything about that system out instead of thinking about how it could be adapted to make it more interesting to the people who didn't care for it.

All they needed to do, really, was to make it optional. People don't want to get any info, that's their choice. I was kind of hoping the series might even adopt a Majora's Mask kind of schedule where targets move around throughout the day, attending to their daily tasks.

Sushiglutton
02-20-2013, 09:00 PM
I guess the problem with AC2 was that it broke up that investigation system and made it into a series of organized tasks. (I found the tasks to be enjoyable and quite a few of them had some leeway as to how you could do them, so I still liked the game.) Becuase people complained about the investigations being dull, Ubisoft did what they always do and threw everything about that system out instead of thinking about how it could be adapted to make it more interesting to the people who didn't care for it.

All they needed to do, really, was to make it optional. People don't want to get any info, that's their choice. I was kind of hoping the series might even adopt a Majora's Mask kind of schedule where targets move around throughout the day, attending to their daily tasks.

I think they did worse than just throwing the investigations out the window. They took what was the main problem with them (namely that they were restricted, mindless tasks that could only be solved in one way) and spread it to the entire game. I made a thread about that a couple of months back, which I thought was a bit clever :)

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/742919-Without-freedom-variation-is-useless!