PDA

View Full Version : My View on the Assassin's Creed Series



Bonkorz
03-05-2013, 01:55 AM
(Originally posted on the Steam forums by myself)


Leave now if you don't want to read a very, very long opinion. Yes this is an opinion on the internet. A rare sight to see, correct?


I've been an AC fan since ACII, and have played and beat every main installment of the AC series. However, this series has taken a strange turn by trying to appeal to everyone, rather than its actual fans and those who enjoy games similar to the AC series. This is my two-cents about ACIII and the series in general.

People have been accusing Ubisoft of milking this series since the announcement of AC:B, only a few months after ACII's release. However, ACIV's announcement caused a great deal of controversy, with many people even comparing the series to Call of Duty. However, I'll just say this: AC is NOT like CoD in any way, other than the string of yearly releases and the high number of sales. The difference between CoD series and AC series' yearly releases is that the development team for AC at least tries to innovate and add new things to the sequels (new as in gameplay aspects, not just a few more weapons/maps and a different/continued story, like CoD). However, their plans haven't turned out so great since AC:B.

As for ACIII, it lacked quality because the development team tried to please every type of player out there, instead of focusing on specific player types. Although the series has continued to deliver great soundtracks and arguably the best character animations in each game, the gameplay just doesn't match up to the series' stunning visual and audial design.

The trailers for this series have always been great and impressive (the ACII trailer remains my favorite game trailer of all time), but trailers don't always accurately portray the actual games. For example, in ACIII's trailer, we see Connor running up to the huge line of Redcoats and massacring them in melee combat, then firing off an arrow in midair to take down the Templar. Of course, the closest thing in the game to the trailer's events is the Battle of Bunker Hill. None of this even happens in the game. Actually, this is not possible at all, because the game forces you to die if you get too close the firing lines.

All of the main story missions were more linear than any AC game's main mission (Walk here to watch a cutscene. Okay, now free-run here to watch THIS cutscene! Now get on this horse, run back and forth, and command some Patriots to shoot at Redcoats who will wait 3 minutes while aiming before they shoot! Don't worry!), and most of the side quests were degraded and made irrelevant to the game's story ("Hey, Assassin! Go and kill these 5 random guards walking around the Frontier! I have no idea who these guys are, and neither do you, but whatever!" "Hey, Assassin! Go and deliver these 5 letters to these 5 random guys! I'm not sure why this is relevant to you and your life, or why all of these random guys sound identical and say the same exact thing every time you deliver a letter, but do it anyways!" "Hey Assassin! Go find all this crap and give it to me! I have no idea what I'm going to do with this crap, or why you'd even want to waste your time in order to give them to me, but do it anyways!").

They were overly ambitious (especially with the 3 short years they were given) and tried to add so much into the game (hunting, crafting, Homestead missions, recreated Assassin recruit system, etc.) that almost every new gameplay aspect was below average quality. Instead of trying to put so much into the game, they simply should've added the most important aspects and refined the existing ones that worked.

The hunting mechanic may have been fun for some (it wasn't to me), but even those who enjoyed it must admit that it was ultimately pointless. Here is where a chain of problems begins. The hunting mechanic is pointless because the economy is pointless. The economy is pointless because upgrading weapons is pointless. Upgrading weapons is pointless because this game is TOO **** EASY. The combat is ridiculously easy once players get the hang of the system. This has been a problem since the first AC, but took a huge and very noticeable step in AC:B. It is too forgiving, giving players huge windows of time to counter the guards who get in line for their deaths. In ACIII, enemies are a bit more aggressive and take more specific strategies depending on the types, but its counter system is even more forgiving than before. The game gives even more time to counter and use the human shield technique. The brutal kill animations are what makes the combat so enjoyable, but that doesn't excuse the combat from being so easy. The development finally got the health right in ACIII, but they still haven't fixed the combat. I've found myself fleeing from combat not because I needed to, but because I was bored of fighting and decided to run away just for the hell of it. They added pass-throughs and moving hay-carts, but these additions feel ultimately contrived since fleeing is such a rare incident in the game.

When I learned that hiding in crowds only required two people (rather than the unrealistic groups of random people walking around), I was very excited about this. However, I quickly realized how useless hiding in moving crowds became. It was unreliable and often resulted in guards detecting you.

The stealth is and always has been broken. The addition of corner peeking was nice, as well as mobile hide spots (bushes and tall grass), but it didn't add enough to the stealth factor of the series. Stealth has slowly become more and more irrelevant in this series. The game doesn't even have a stealth mode or cover system, which is essentially a prerequisite for any stealth game. The player cannot hide behind the crates in front of him because they are too short and he can't just crouch and use it as cover. Instead, he is inconveniently forced to find an object that is tall enough to hide behind.

The Homestead missions and recruit missions were decent additions, but most cutscenes were clearly half-assed, resulting in Connor and friends talking to each other while standing completely still with no life-like animations. The recruit missions were poorly introduced into the game. In my first playthrough, I completed all of the liberation side-quests, only for Connor to walk to some random person I've never met before, yet Connor talks to him/her as if they know each other already. This is because the game doesn't require that you actually ever meet your city contact before doing liberation missions, but the final liberation mission for each contact assumes that you already have. This lead to my confusion, and no doubt, many others. Also, the fort liberation missions weren't introduced to players at all, unlike the past two games (Borgia Towers for AC:B and Templar Dens for AC:R). It was very hilarious/ridiculous seeing a teenage Ratonhnhaké:ton raising an American flag in forts many years before the American Revolution even began.

The Tomb missions (replaced by Peg Leg missions), Subject 16 puzzles (Underground Tunnels), crafting (changing from bomb crafting to item crafting) and recruit system returned, but were somehow degraded in quality. The Peg Leg missions, although improved graphically, were painfully short and deprived of actual gameplay compared to past games, and leveling up recruits served little to no purpose.

Leveled up recruits showed no actual improvement aside from adding smoke bombs to their arsenal, and there is absolutely no visual representation of their statistics or health, unlike the past two games. The dev. team attempted to replace the underground (thieves, mercenaries, and courtesans/Romanies) by adding different techniques for the Assassin recruits. Again, this was a nice addition, but ultimately useless, because the recruit system is (and has always been) useless. This goes back to the game being too easy.

The Underground Tunnel missions forced players to run around in the dark, following rats and solve unchallenging puzzles that lacked the mystery of Subject 16's puzzles. It was, in my opinion, an unnecessary and unpleasant addition, as I would rather spend money renovating the tunnels (or simply starting off with the tunnels automatically available) rather than being forced to spend a few hours jogging slowly to open every tunnel entrance in Boston and New York.

However, the worst in my opinion was the crafting. The interface was not user friendly at all (Just like the entire game's UI. Why the hell does the player have to go to a completely different screen just to switch weapons? The weapon menu was fine before, so why change it!?) The crafting was only useful for creating ammo pouches and new weapons. However, the average player should be able to easily beat the game without buying a single upgrade. The crafting screen moved between items slowly and always brought players all the way back to the top the list after an item was selected, which was incredibly annoying when the items players actually needed were at the very bottom. If there is a person who did not find this annoying, I would like that person to teach me their ways of tolerating inefficient things such as ACIII's UI.

Only very few aspects, such as the naval missions, were actually fun and refined. However, the naval missions, as high-quality as they were, did not fit well into ACIII at all. They felt tacky and unneeded, despite the majority opinion that these missions were a surprisingly fun and high-quality addition (especially after the widely despised Tower Defense in AC:R).

Another big problem is the full-synch requirements. I've never liked this, along with the majority others, because it forced players to play the game a certain way. Sure, they were "optional," but throwing red text on the screen that is basically crying "YOU DIDN'T PLAY IT RIGHT" doesn't exactly encourage players to play the game the way they want to play it. Sure, you're doing what the ancestor did, but no one gives a ♥♥♥♥. They want to have fun, not be forced to stab almost every main target when they have so many other options.

ACIII was in no way a bad game, but with the resources that it had, it should have and could have been a much better game, possibly the best game of last year. However, the development team just couldn't live up to their ambitions and that resulted in an unrefined game. I could just go on and on about the game's faults, as well as its nice features (even though I've done A LOT more of the former), but I've already said A LOT already.


Assassin's Creed still remains my favorite game series, and I'm still going to buy ACIV simply to continue the series' convoluted story that I love so much, but I know very well that this series hasn't taken any remarkable steps forward in gameplay. I had high expectations for ACIII, since Ubisoft stated that it was their largest project. However, I am being more careful with my expectations of ACIV, especially because of how ACIII turned out despite the information and gameplay demos provided before its release. Ubisoft's AC development teams have always had large ambitions when creating AC installments, but their ambitions have been acting as their downfall lately. I truly do hope that ACIV will bring a new and more realistic pirate game, opposed to the fantasy-like kraken-filled universe of the typical pirates of Hollywood (I'm looking at you Jack Sparrow). I'd like to see how the true, dark, and gritty world of piracy in the 1700s can mesh with the AC Universe, but as I've said before, I can only hope that this will be a great game, rather than a decent one.

Assassin_M
03-05-2013, 01:58 AM
Can you please post this here too ?
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/756389-Officially-out-of-Black-Flag/page65

Thank you

TheHumanTowel
03-05-2013, 02:30 AM
Agree with practically everything here. Especially the part about Ubi trying to appeal to everyone instead of focusing on the series strengths. They tried to put something in there to appeal to every human on the planet. "Hey people seem to like Tower Defense games, why don't throw that in AC?" "You know what'll make people feel more like an Assassin? Massive Naval Battles."(As well designed as Naval was I still don't think it fit well in AC3 at all. It will fit a lot better in Black Flag probably) They keep adding all these features that have nothing to do with being an assassin and putting tons of time into them while neglecting the core gameplay of the series.

UrDeviant1
03-05-2013, 02:36 AM
Agree with practically everything here. Especially the part about Ubi trying to appeal to everyone instead of focusing on the series strengths. They tried to put something in there to appeal to every human on the planet. "Hey people seem to like Tower Defense games, why don't throw that in AC?" "You know what'll make people feel more like an Assassin? Massive Naval Battles."(As well designed as Naval was I still don't think it fit well in AC3 at all. It will fit a lot better in Black Flag probably) They keep adding all these features that have nothing to do with being an assassin and putting tons of time into them while neglecting the core gameplay of the series.

True. I think If they used core gameplay as a basis for your missions, we'd see a lot less experiments gone wrong with certain features. I respect that they are trying to make each game different, but sometimes less Is more.

bveUSbve
03-05-2013, 10:28 AM
Very well put criticism, I agree practically with all points mentioned.

But the question is: WHY haven't the developers concentrated more on "core" features? WHY have stealth mechanics been neglected since the beginning, and now even the assassinations themselves seem to have been shoved into the background? WHY are they striving to appeal to everyone?

Because in the end what really matters for the ones in charge at Ubisoft are sales numbers. And judging by those of ACIII releasing a sloppy, unfocused (and in several respects even unfinished) mess doesn't result in a commercial failure, but in the biggest success to date.
Is this DESPITE the "deficits" of the game or BECAUSE OF them?

predatorpulse7
03-05-2013, 11:08 AM
But the question is: WHY haven't the developers concentrated more on "core" features? WHY have stealth mechanics been neglected since the beginning, and now even the assassinations themselves seem to have been shoved into the background? WHY are they striving to appeal to everyone?

Because they want to make money and dumbing down is the way to go if you want to do that. In my mind, there hasn't been a "proper" AC game since AC2. Yes, we got all sort of new gadgets to play around and city/assassin managing but looking back at all of these I have to wonder: DO WE NEED THEM? Why do I need to summon assassins to help me when the guy I am controlling is an unstoppable tank? Why do I need to liberate areas,buy shops to make money when there is NOTHING OF USE to buy with said money? I can finish any AC game with the starting weapons. All of the above is unnecessary padding and moving away from the CORE features like you said, which to me are parkouring on rooftops of historical cities and personalized assassinations. Not hanging out in the countryside killing bunnies or doing naval missions(which were fun don't get me wrong), it's ASSASSINATIONS in an URBAN enviroment. If Ubi want to make an open world pirate game, call it something else, not AC but I understand why they do this, AC is their flagship so they will stick this label on a game when they can.



Because in the end what really matters for the ones in charge at Ubisoft are sales numbers. And judging by those of ACIII releasing a sloppy, unfocused (and in several respects even unfinished) mess doesn't result in a commercial failure, but in the biggest success to date.
Is this DESPITE the "deficits" of the game or BECAUSE OF them?

Yes, AC3 is a big mess and I can talk for hours about its faults but the reason why it was a success is because it had great marketing ideas behind it. It had the hype of being the first real sequel(not glorified expansions like ACB or ACR) to the outstanding AC2, with a new Assassin since Ezio's introduction in 2009 and most important of all, it was set in AMURICA!!!! so it was already pandering to a huge number of potential customers with it being set in the American Revolutionary War. For a lot of people AC3 was their first AC game and they bought it because of the setting, which they thought would be like Patriot - The Game.

This phenomenon(of flawed games outselling better precedessors) is nothing new, especially in the modern games industry where games like FIFA or COD basically give fans paintjobs year by year(so no real changes between iterations) yet these games still sell like crazy. An even better example would be Diablo, with Diablo 3 selling 12 million copies(and mind you, this game was released on just ONE platform, not 3 like the above games) based on the growing hype over the years, a hype that existed only because Diablo 2 was a gem of gaming, especially if you like looting. A LOT of people were disappointed once they actually played D3 but hey, Blizzard got their money and that was that. However, if you would ask most Diablo fans(those that played all of them obviously) today what iteration was their favorite, few would pick the third even though, by sales, that was the most succesful.

Bonkorz
03-05-2013, 03:35 PM
It's obvious that this lack of quality was thanks to the higher powers in Ubisoft. However, the basic idea of ACIII (new Assassin, American Revolution, numerical title) alone could've sold as much as it did. All the promises of unique gameplay of many aspects were really what raised the expectations of those who were already fans of the series, and once the game was released, some of those fans disappeared.

The thing I fear isn't that the sales of this series will drop, because I hardly doubt that it will. What I fear is that this series will eventually become a blob of gaming that tries to be the jack of all trades, but fails to even be decent in half of its aspects. I want the AC series to return to the original first two games and focus on the main aspects that make the game so special: stealth, combat, and parkour. Sure, I'm fine with any nice additions to the game, so long as they aren't tacky like the naval combat and bomb crafting. I'd prefer more subtle additions rather than the widely advertised additions that have nothing to do with the core aspects of the series. However, that's just me.

The historical-fiction got a little overboard in ACIII. I didn't like seeing Connor be in all of the big events before and during the American Revolution. Why couldn't he have just been around as these things were happening? It felt like I was playing Forrest Gump the movie, especially when riding with Paul Revere and him screaming poorly given directions when we were supposed to be keeping a low profile. Historical-fiction doesn't mean that the main character HAS to be in as many famous events as possible. I felt that the game lost its historical charm because of this. It would have been nicer to have Connor simply be a bystander of past/current events of his time (like the Great Fire of New York), while only being a part of a few. For me personally, this would keep the historical aspect of the series much more interesting, rather than throwing me into the middle of the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, the Midnight RIde of Paul Revere, the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the Battle of Bunker Hill, etc.

blackleox
03-05-2013, 09:40 PM
I'm with this guy, weather Conner was there or not the events would of happened. This would be teaching the less educated that "oh an assassin helped Paul when the British came marching through town. AC3 was a let down for me. The jumping through the trees was interesting, but i dont feel it was needed nor was the grappling hook spear..... i mean did anyone even use that in ANY fight? And Desmon's story line got very weak in this installment.... might be why they killed him off. I dont have have high hopes for this new one. It just seems like a supped up version of "Sid Meier's Pirate Gold" to me.

bveUSbve
03-06-2013, 09:01 AM
The thing I fear isn't that the sales of this series will drop, because I hardly doubt that it will.
So you expect with certainty that sales will drop with the next installment? I'm not sure of it. Anyway, the important thing to grasp is that Ubisoft management will try everything possible to keep the sales numbers on their current level or push them even higher. And for sure they don't care if in pursuing this goal the game becomes a "mess" in the opinion of long-time fans. It helps (them) that "gaming journalism" on the most popular media is not interested in a really critical evaluation of "AAA" games, because that would put their privileged relationship with big publishers at risk.

On the other hand the management won't object to design decisions *we* would approve of, as long as those are not considered potentially detrimental to commercial success. So it's up to the developers to make the "best" game possible within the boundaries preset by management.


I want the AC series to return to the original first two games and focus on the main aspects that make the game so special: stealth, combat, and parkour. Sure, I'm fine with any nice additions to the game, so long as they aren't tacky like the naval combat and bomb crafting. I'd prefer more subtle additions rather than the widely advertised additions that have nothing to do with the core aspects of the series. However, that's just me.
Exactly, that's just you - and me (and some others) ... I doubt they will return to more "subtlety" after the not so subtle ACIII was such a huge commercial success.
However, several statements given by the artistic director of upcoming ACIV give some hope. Not for more "subtle" action, but for a more focused, polished game, perhaps including improved stealth mechanics and a level-design to facilitate their use.


The historical-fiction got a little overboard in ACIII. I didn't like seeing Connor be in all of the big events before and during the American Revolution. (...)
It would have been nicer to have Connor simply be a bystander of past/current events of his time (like the Great Fire of New York), while only being a part of a few. For me personally, this would keep the historical aspect of the series much more interesting, rather than throwing me into the middle of the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, the Midnight RIde of Paul Revere, the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the Battle of Bunker Hill, etc.
I totally agree with this. And it's a problem of ACIII that even was pointed out by some "professional" reviews.

Farlander1991
03-06-2013, 09:50 AM
I don't agree about the Gump factor in ACIII. It was no more than ACII in that regard.

Maybe this has something to do with me not knowing anything at all about American Revolutionary history before playing AC3 (after AC3 I've looked into it a little bit), but only a handful of moments felt out of place to me:
1. Benjamin Franklin's appearance in Haytham's prologue
2. Midnight Ride with Revere (and only because it was annoying to be on the same horse and get directions from him)
3. Signing of the declaration of independence (and Ben Franklin is there... again... I agree, this is a Gump thing)
4. Battle of Chesapeake Bay
5. Battle of West Point (but that's a DLC, so more forgiveable in that regard).

And that's pretty much it.
Battle of Bunker Hill? Pitcairn DIED in the Battle of Bunker Hill. It only makes sense for it to be there and have events leading up to it. Battle of Monmouth? Well, Lee was present there and Connor got caught up in it only because he was pissed off at the guy after killing his best friend and wanted to find him immediately. Boston Tea Party? Makes perfect sense in the context of Connor's story to me. Plus, I found out that people were dressed up as natives there, so... Connor being there is a nice play on that. So I think the 'Gumpiness' is over-exaggerated. Sure, Connor participated in a lot of historical events and got to know a lot of historical people, but so did Ezio.

bveUSbve
03-06-2013, 10:46 AM
Sure, Connor participated in a lot of historical events and got to know a lot of historical people, but so did Ezio.
My knowledge of American history is as poor as that of Renaissance Italy (though I am European). That makes me "neutral", sort of ... ;)

To me Ezio's involvement in important events of Italian history seemed much more at the side lines. For example he went to assassinate the Borgia Pope but missed him the first time, while on the next try he was "beat" to it by someone else. Which is, I presume, historically correct, but could have been spun towards Ezio being Borgia's murderer if Ubisoft had so desired.

In ACIII it's first of all the sheer number of world-famous events Connor partakes in that is a little questionable. But more importantly: in most cases (or in all cases? not sure...) he is involved as the key enabler to the revolutionaries' victory or as the "sweeper" who prevents them from failing catastrophically. That's inflationary, in my opinion.

A more in-the-background role for Connor would have been more in line with the previous games and less braggy.

Noble6
03-06-2013, 03:04 PM
I agree with everything that OP said. I really hope someone from Ubisoft notices this. These are major flaws in the series but I don't think they have fixed these problems. As long as the same concept sells.... I hate how game developers ruin their games by trying to appeal everyone. For example Dead space games seems to be more and more shooters and less horror games. I'm sure that fans don't want that! Games are less and less unique and only smaller studios try to make something differen't but they have less resources.




The thing I fear isn't that the sales of this series will drop, because I hardly doubt that it will.


Oh I hope so much that they will!
It would show Ubisoft that they can't make the game fun for everyone. In the end nobody thinks it as an awesome game if they don't have any focus. Then they would have to renew the series and make a game which feels fresh and new.

Sushiglutton
03-06-2013, 03:33 PM
A very well formulated and argued post, that I agree completely with. In particular the msissions are simply not up to scratch and makes the game somewhat of a chore to play. When I run around in the world there are a lot of things to appreciate, even though (as you pointed out) some elements are weaker than they should be. The mission design completely failed to play to the games strength though. Let's really hope Ubi has learned some lessons for future games.

Bonkorz
03-07-2013, 04:47 AM
So you expect with certainty that sales will drop with the next installment? I'm not sure of it. Anyway, the important thing to grasp is that Ubisoft management will try everything possible to keep the sales numbers on their current level or push them even higher. And for sure they don't care if in pursuing this goal the game becomes a "mess" in the opinion of long-time fans. It helps (them) that "gaming journalism" on the most popular media is not interested in a really critical evaluation of "AAA" games, because that would put their privileged relationship with big publishers at risk.

On the other hand the management won't object to design decisions *we* would approve of, as long as those are not considered potentially detrimental to commercial success. So it's up to the developers to make the "best" game possible within the boundaries preset by management.

If you read my post more carefully, I said that I don't expect sales to drop. I predict that they will rise with ACIV, but that's only what I think might happen. It seems like this series is too popular at this point for sales to drop, and the pirate theme helps bring in new players. In regards to "gaming journalists", I feel that many of them don't put enough analysis and honesty into their reviews. Only a few of these people (like Adam Sessler for example) do their best to give their honest, analytical reviews and their opinions on how specific games could possibly be improved.

bveUSbve
03-07-2013, 09:17 AM
If you read my post more carefully, I said that I don't expect sales to drop. I predict that they will rise with ACIV, but that's only what I think might happen.
Ok, now you've made clear what you meant. But in the original sentence that was NOT clear - so cut the attitude, will you? :rolleyes:

Bonkorz
03-07-2013, 01:58 PM
There wasn't an attitude. My post clearly said "isn't": "The thing I fear isn't that the sales of this series will drop, because I hardly doubt that it will." You just happened to misread it, and I corrected you so there wouldn't be more misunderstanding.

bveUSbve
03-07-2013, 02:53 PM
You may have noticed that I don't speak English very well. So I have to admit that I cannot be 100% sure of not having understood your original statement wrong. But when translating it into my own language as accurately as possible it would mean rather the opposite of what you have actually meant, and that's because of the second half of the sentence (if I'm not severely mistaken...).

The second half confirms something: you have hardly a doubt that "it will". And the only available subject to be confirmed seems to be the "drop of sales". Or am I totally wrong? :)

Dimension.
03-07-2013, 05:22 PM
I agree with everything to some degree.
I enjoyed AC3, but I can find the most faults with games I enjoy. If I don't like a game at all, I just don't play it and don't bother finding flaws with it.
You're right about the difficulty being the root of many problems. When a game is too easy, any sort of economic system becomes useless. The same problem is encountered in many RPGs when the character becomes overpowered. The difference being that in AC3 you're overpowered from the very start of the game. You never have to work your way up so putting in typical RPG mechanics like crafting makes no sense.

I also agree with other people here saying that Assassins Creed isn't focusing on, you know, assassinations any longer. Why do we need to go around picking flowers, opening locks and playing board games? I know all of these things are optional, but they still take away from the core game. AC1 was repetetive, but I think AC2 solved that nicely with a more varied main story and some interesting puzzles and tombs that all had some connection to the rest of the game.
In AC3 however there are so many useless additions to the game that it's becoming a joke.

Also the full sync has annoyed me since it was introduced to the series, but it's becoming more annoying with each addition. They especially annoyed me during the naval missions. Why do I have to ram into a bunch of boats when I can just shoot at them? Why would I risk the damage to my ship when I don't have to? It makes no sense. Why do I have to destroy ships by exposing powder stores when the ship goes down before those weak areas become visible?
There was also a lot of repetetive tasks that had to be done to get full sync. Why do I have to kill x amount of guards from a ledge? How is that in any way challenging or enjoyable?
It's a problem in a lot of games these days though. People want to feel special. I hate how every game has to have achievements and trophies and in some games you can't turn them off. "Congratulations. You just walked from point A to point B. Here have a trophy."

Veered off at the end there. Just something that annoys me. You already wrote down everything in a better way than I could so I will stop here. :)

Bonkorz
03-08-2013, 01:52 AM
Not really. A person who natively speaks English would easily understand the sentence, assuming they don't misread it.

To put it as simply as possible to prevent any more misunderstanding, this is what I meant:
I am not afraid that sales will drop, because I have a feeling that they will not drop any time soon because the game is too popular at this point. What I am afraid of is that the series will try to do everything, but will not be great in any specific area.


Original:
The thing I fear isn't that the sales of this series will drop, because I hardly doubt that it will. What I fear is that this series will eventually become a blob of gaming that tries to be the jack of all trades, but fails to even be decent in half of its aspects.



I respond under the assumption that you are stating that I had no "other fear" besides the "sales" part of my statement. If this is what you meant, then yes, you are totally wrong, because I had two subjects: the game's sales and the series' focus on gameplay. However, it isn't entirely your fault for misunderstanding. Sometimes I get flowery with my writing, so I apologize if I confused you or anyone else with my wording. If I am wrong in my assumption of what you mean, please correct me.

monster_rambo
03-08-2013, 05:49 AM
I honestly believe in AC jis close to copying COD which is really just put a new paint job to every game. People will buy it regardless of quality. It has gotten so out of hand that I won't even blame the developers fault, I simply blame the consumers because they are stupid enough to buy the same **** each year so this puts little pressure for the producers to change their idea because they think, "gee, we are doing something right because the sales are so high". Simply, put, stop buying games when their quality starts to drop. I say this because I want this series to be saved and not go in the wrong direction.

Enhance89
03-08-2013, 06:18 AM
AC2 is the best Assassin's Creed game to date, and it didn't have half the features AC3 has. The problem is the story line and the main character. I never felt connected to this story line nor to Connor - there isn't much color to him, and given this is a fictional video game protagonist, I expect him to have a lot of layers. He doesn't.

As far as the story line is concerned, it's disjointed and the pieces don't really fit together that well. For example, the first 2-3 hours of the game involving Kenway add little to the overall story. The only real purpose it serves is to make you feel attachment to Kenway, show you where Connor came from, and show you how close the Templars got to opening the temple. And the last part of that is really the only relevant part. It would be less problematic if the gameplay in the Kenway sequences was less numbing, but that is unfortunately not the case. You legitimately have to play this game for 3-4 hours before you start missions that feel relevant, and that's if you completely ignore everything else. And even then, those missions don't promote attachment to the game.

As a quick side-note, I too dislike full sync requirements. Most of the time they're not very difficult, but there are a few that are painful to complete or they don't make sense. I spent 10 minutes completing one naval mission that required me to destroy three ships by firing on their powder stores. It would have taken me five minutes had I played how I wanted to play. And yes, I could avoid the sync requirements, but I like completing a game completely - I'm anal like that. So when I see big red flashing text telling me I've failed to do something the way the game wants, I tediously devote my time to being perfect, and in some ways, it makes the game less fun.

Overall, I completely agree with the OP. I still enjoy AC3, but AC4 should take a page out of AC2's book, not AC3. Cut back on the monotonous side missions, quests and achievements. Make the economy work more for the player like it did in AC2, not where I have to exploit (i.e. farm the same bear location for pelts) over and over again in order to make enough money to afford the things I want. Steady income should be achievable as it was in AC2. Furthermore, hone in on the focus of MAIN story - give Edward Kenway the character depth that's been eluded to in the trailer.

Noble6
03-08-2013, 11:26 AM
Ubisoft should learn from Take-Two...
http://au.gamespot.com/news/take-two-new-gta-every-two-years-would-degrade-series-value-6404967

Bonkorz
03-09-2013, 04:30 PM
I honestly believe in AC jis close to copying COD which is really just put a new paint job to every game. People will buy it regardless of quality. It has gotten so out of hand that I won't even blame the developers fault, I simply blame the consumers because they are stupid enough to buy the same **** each year so this puts little pressure for the producers to change their idea because they think, "gee, we are doing something right because the sales are so high". Simply, put, stop buying games when their quality starts to drop. I say this because I want this series to be saved and not go in the wrong direction.

I believe that the reason why AC isn't becoming like CoD is because the past two games that have been announced (ACIII and ACIV) have been in development at least 2 years before the actual release dates, unlike CoD, which has only around a year of development for each game. AC:B and AC:R only had about a year of development just like the recent string of CoD games, but they felt different because the development teams actually tried to add things to these games to mix it up (of course, some, if not all of these things were pointless). However, these games were rather well fleshed out for the development time they had (they still weren't top quality though), unlike the CoD franchise.

Assassin_M
03-09-2013, 04:31 PM
AC2 is the best Assassin's Creed game to date, and it didn't have half the features AC3 has. The problem is the story line and the main character. I never felt connected to this story line nor to Connor - there isn't much color to him, and given this is a fictional video game protagonist, I expect him to have a lot of layers. He doesn't.

As far as the story line is concerned, it's disjointed and the pieces don't really fit together that well. For example, the first 2-3 hours of the game involving Kenway add little to the overall story. The only real purpose it serves is to make you feel attachment to Kenway, show you where Connor came from, and show you how close the Templars got to opening the temple. And the last part of that is really the only relevant part. It would be less problematic if the gameplay in the Kenway sequences was less numbing, but that is unfortunately not the case. You legitimately have to play this game for 3-4 hours before you start missions that feel relevant, and that's if you completely ignore everything else. And even then, those missions don't promote attachment to the game.

As a quick side-note, I too dislike full sync requirements. Most of the time they're not very difficult, but there are a few that are painful to complete or they don't make sense. I spent 10 minutes completing one naval mission that required me to destroy three ships by firing on their powder stores. It would have taken me five minutes had I played how I wanted to play. And yes, I could avoid the sync requirements, but I like completing a game completely - I'm anal like that. So when I see big red flashing text telling me I've failed to do something the way the game wants, I tediously devote my time to being perfect, and in some ways, it makes the game less fun.

Overall, I completely agree with the OP. I still enjoy AC3, but AC4 should take a page out of AC2's book, not AC3. Cut back on the monotonous side missions, quests and achievements. Make the economy work more for the player like it did in AC2, not where I have to exploit (i.e. farm the same bear location for pelts) over and over again in order to make enough money to afford the things I want. Steady income should be achievable as it was in AC2. Furthermore, hone in on the focus of MAIN story - give Edward Kenway the character depth that's been eluded to in the trailer.
I thought AC II was the worst and I sincerely hope they take NOTHING out of its book, but the Assassination side missions and Glyphs

TangentialShark
03-09-2013, 08:36 PM
I agree with many of the posts here saying that the AC series is just too easy. Literally all you have to do to be a "professional" AC gamer is to know when to press the counter button and which type of counter affects the enemy type your fighting. ACIII spammed me with equipment ranging from trip-wire bombs to rope-darts yet not once during the main story did I feel enticed to use them because of a lack of introduction and the ease with which I could kill a dozen enemies with my hidden blades. The liberation missions were one of the most confusing aspects of the game for me as I was introduced many times to the potential assassin AFTER completing the missions rather than before. This could have been fixed by simply forcing us to interact with the characters before any liberation missions could become available but of course that was not the case and as a result I could not appreciate the success as much. ACIII had a great story, great protagonists(Connor & Haytham), and great setting but it lacked the integrity of good game mechanics to ensure the game would not get stale or repetitive half-way through the story.

Enhance89
03-09-2013, 10:42 PM
The combat is the least bothersome part of the game for me. As an Assassin with expertly honed skills, I expect to be able to lay waste to a bunch of soldiers. And 'Assassin' implies stealth/deception, which means when I kill someone, I expect to do it on my terms in an unexpecting manner. I think the word "Assassin" insinuates a certain level of combat simplicity, as well. It might be too simple, and that's fair. But, I still have fun with it.

Bonkorz
03-10-2013, 11:43 PM
That's exactly the problem that so many people have with the game. There is nothing in the game that proves a challenge. Full-synch requirements tried to add challenge, but only came off as annoying. And just because an individual is a highly trained killer does not mean he's a god. For example, in ACIII, we play as Haytham and massacre dozens-hundreds of Jagers at the beginning of the game, but when you play as Connor with Haytham as an ally, 2 or more Jagers can kill him if left alone.

Just because a game is easy doesn't mean that it's fun. Judging by what you're saying, you enjoy games that allow you to easily kill enemies without a challenge (correct me if I'm wrong). If easy games are your cup of tea, then that's fine by me. However, many people like games that are challenging, or games that at least have the option to be challenging (5 games later and still no difficulty settings. I know they're trying to keep the game "realistic" with the Animus, but come on. We've been jumping from 100-foot-tall buildings into haystacks for several years already. Just give us some **** difficulty settings).

I have never had a harrowing experience with the AC series, unlike some games such as Dark Souls, XCOM, or even Hitman. AC has always lacked that quality. Those games had several events which made you fear being detected/making a mistake (Yes, Dark Souls and XCOM is are from different genres, but my point is still clear, they still punish the player for making mistakes). In those games, being severely outnumbered meant you were severely outnumbered, rather than being surrounded by a bunch of morons who are lining up to die. In those games, making a mistake meant being punished, not being lightly slapped on the hand. The only "fear" in the ACIII is the fear of not having enough enemies around to murder. Again, I'm sure there are people who enjoy this lack of difficulty because they just want to be carefree, but there should at least be an option to make the game more challenging for those who want a challenge.

Xander_Wolf
03-11-2013, 08:56 AM
Bonkorz:

" Another big problem is the full-synch requirements. I've never liked this, along with the majority others, because it forced players to play the game a certain way. Sure, they were "optional," but throwing red text on the screen that is basically crying "YOU DIDN'T PLAY IT RIGHT" doesn't exactly encourage players to play the game the way they want to play it. Sure, you're doing what the ancestor did, but no one gives a ♥♥♥♥. They want to have fun, not be forced to stab almost every main target when they have so many other options. "


I could not agree more. Always hated it & always will.
Why can't they just go back to the AC1 days when it was "go do this" and you just did it as you saw fit?
No stupid, unrealistic, time wasting, frustrating secondary objectives that if you fail to achieve, you don't get the corresponding 100% trophy/achievement.

And AC3 was the worst in the series with this. In every memory, I failed objectives that I never knew about until the game said that I failed them.
All because they where not displayed at the right moment or long enough for the player to read and acknowledge.
Plus you had to notice them in the middle of the action. No wonder your can miss them easily.
It had me pausing every step of the way just to check the objectives to make sure I got them done.

Í'd be happy if they simply got rid of that part of the system and let us play it however we like. You know, just improvise!

Please, UBI, get rid of those stupid secondary objectives. They're not worth the annoyance.

Escappa
03-11-2013, 11:30 AM
Bonkorz:

" Another big problem is the full-synch requirements. I've never liked this, along with the majority others, because it forced players to play the game a certain way. Sure, they were "optional," but throwing red text on the screen that is basically crying "YOU DIDN'T PLAY IT RIGHT" doesn't exactly encourage players to play the game the way they want to play it. Sure, you're doing what the ancestor did, but no one gives a ♥♥♥♥. They want to have fun, not be forced to stab almost every main target when they have so many other options. "

I could not agree more. Always hated it & always will.
Why can't they just go back to the AC1 days when it was "go do this" and you just did it as you saw fit?
No stupid, unrealistic, time wasting, frustrating secondary objectives that if you fail to achieve, you don't get the corresponding 100% trophy/achievement.

And AC3 was the worst in the series with this. In every memory, I failed objectives that I never knew about until the game said that I failed them.
All because they where not displayed at the right moment or long enough for the player to read and acknowledge.
Plus you had to notice them in the middle of the action. No wonder your can miss them easily.
It had me pausing every step of the way just to check the objectives to make sure I got them done.

Í'd be happy if they simply got rid of that part of the system and let us play it however we like. You know, just improvise!

Please, UBI, get rid of those stupid secondary objectives. They're not worth the annoyance.


Agree...but I could accept the "do not get detected" in some missions to add difficulty

MasterAssasin84
03-11-2013, 11:40 AM
Agree...but I could accept the "do not get detected" in some missions to add difficulty

That was my main issue with AC3 the game was smothered with side mission and i felt that i was getting detached from the storyline because of far too many side quests.

Enhance89
03-11-2013, 07:28 PM
Just because a game is easy doesn't mean that it's fun. Judging by what you're saying, you enjoy games that allow you to easily kill enemies without a challenge (correct me if I'm wrong). If easy games are your cup of tea, then that's fine by me. However, many people like games that are challenging, or games that at least have the option to be challenging (5 games later and still no difficulty settings. I know they're trying to keep the game "realistic" with the Animus, but come on. We've been jumping from 100-foot-tall buildings into haystacks for several years already. Just give us some **** difficulty settings).
No, I'm with you - I enjoy games that challenge me, and I think a fault in AC3 (and much of the AC series in general) is the lack of difficulty. I just don't have a big problem with it. I'm on the fence. It's easy, it can be repetitive, etc. But I still have fun with it in AC. It's difficult for me to explain. It's not like Gears of War, where I was dedicated to beating the highest difficult, and I raged a lot while doing it. I just get a different feel with this game, personally, so the combat doesn't irk me as much.

That said, I fully support separate difficulty settings. They could increase enemy reaction time, increase damage done by enemy weapons, increase the number of officer in patrols, reduce the amount of basic enemy soldiers that can be counter-attacked easily, and also reduce the amount of time it takes to be detected when spotted. I think that'd be great. I often find the difficulty setting that provides a challenge but that doesn't make me fail 30 times in a row.

Bonkorz
03-12-2013, 05:41 AM
I think everyone can agree that this game has been around for too long without a difficulty setting. Ubisoft showed off so many things that essentially told players: "Hey, you might want to retreat if this happens!" Never once happened to me, and I'm certain it never once happened to many others.



Regarding full-synch, I don't necessarily dislike the idea itself, just the way that it is implemented. They give you pointless optional objectives that are either boring, tedious, or unreasonable (I just loved having to carefully deal as little damage as possible to get those "shoot powder store" objectives). The missions that ask you do remain undetected or not kill anyone are fine with me, because they are common optional objectives in stealth-based games. The full-synch requirements should make sense and actually be fun, not just some stupid "goal" that forces you to do unnecessary actions. However, I have a different idea for the full-synch objectives if Ubisoft MUST keep it in the series:

I think the full-synch requirements (FSRs) should not appear at all until after the missions are completed. This means that if players fail an FSR, the game won't flash "YOU FAILED TO PLAY THE GAME CORRECTLY" in the middle of the mission. Instead, this happens after the missions are completed. The only time that text should show up during a mission is if a player has fully completed an FSR, just to let the player know that they've done it. That way, players can at least play the way that they want to before they are forced to play a certain way. If a player happens to complete these FSRs during their playthrough of the mission, then the game will automatically count them as completed so that players won't have to replay the mission. If players didn't achieve all FSRs, then the end-mission-menu would display the FSRs that weren't completed, meaning the player must replay a mission to get full-synch (also increasing mission replay value). After all FSRs are completed, then they will never show up again while playing, unless the player looks at the FSRs on the DNA menu. Even after getting full-synch on all missions in AC:B through ACIII, I still find it very difficult to play missions the way I want to, because that annoying red-text STILL keeps on showing up even after I've already gotten all FSRs.

This or just limited the FSRs to not killing anyone other than targets and not being detected.

Again, just an idea.