PDA

View Full Version : Customizable Characters?



monster_rambo
03-11-2013, 10:11 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned but since we are playing as ourselves, I think it would be appropriate to some extent to customize our characters in ways that see fit. Also if they choose to implement subject 16 glyphs/ puzzles in this game because alot of people want it back, do you think it would be Desmond this time that created the puzzles?

Sushiglutton
03-11-2013, 10:27 PM
Since the modern day hero is you that is easy to arrange. Just put on the clothes you want to wear before your playing sesssion :). On a more serious note since the modern part is likely first-person, customization doesn't make a ton of sense so I doubt there will be any.

DavisP92
03-11-2013, 10:48 PM
Full character customization would only work for co-op if they were to implement it. Like creating your assassin, what outfits (assassin outfit) he or she wears, their race, the weapons they can carry, where the weapons are located on your character and what not.

monster_rambo
03-11-2013, 10:56 PM
Since the modern day hero is you that is easy to arrange. Just put on the clothes you want to wear before your playing sesssion :). On a more serious note since the modern part is likely first-person, customization doesn't make a ton of sense so I doubt there will be any.

What makes you think that the modern story is ever in first person? The only time that it has ever been first person was during multiplayer cinematic. Since this is a game where we, the players, are immerse into the single player, there are males and females playing the game so probably there are girls that want a girl character instead of guy character and vice versa. If it was ever implemented, we should be able to customize our faces, height, and girth as well as outfits. There needs to be male and female voiceovers as well if they are allowing this flexibility.

monster_rambo
03-11-2013, 11:00 PM
^ and just to edit, that might only happen if they decide to put more emphasis on the modern story. If they haf-*** it, probably likely, then it will be like you said which is first person and probably not even a voice over from our character. We probably just hear other people talking.

SixKeys
03-12-2013, 12:43 AM
What makes you think that the modern story is ever in first person? The only time that it has ever been first person was during multiplayer cinematic.

Not true. Half of Revelations' single-player campaign (Desmond's Journey) was first-person.

monster_rambo
03-12-2013, 01:03 AM
Not true. Half of Revelations' single-player campaign (Desmond's Journey) was first-person.

Right, that was an error on my part. And, also one reason why it shouldn't be memorable because first person in Assassin's Creed sucks.

Farlander1991
03-12-2013, 01:26 AM
Since this is a game where we, the players, are immerse into the single player, there are males and females playing the game so probably there are girls that want a girl character instead of guy character and vice versa. If it was ever implemented, we should be able to customize our faces, height, and girth as well as outfits. There needs to be male and female voiceovers as well if they are allowing this flexibility.

Which is precisely the reason why modern-day storyline will most likely be first person. There won't be a need to create two character sets, voice acting sets, animation sets (since applying the same animation to models with different skeletal structure may make it look... weird) for what is essentially a small portion of the game.

monster_rambo
03-12-2013, 01:56 AM
Which is precisely the reason why modern-day storyline will most likely be first person. There won't be a need to create two character sets, voice acting sets, animation sets (since applying the same animation to models with different skeletal structure may make it look... weird) for what is essentially a small portion of the game.

Saving money on animation and hiring voice actors while seemingly making it look like they are saving the modern day storyline. Brilliant! They did say on gameinformer that there will be more surprise to the modern day story but is hard to trust anything right now.

Farlander1991
03-12-2013, 02:22 AM
I actually think that it's a rather smart choice on their part. I don't think it's laziness, it's rather practicality. Let's face it, Ubisoft's focus is on the past timeline rather than the modern day, they did not have enough man-hours left to make properly fleshed out modern-day sections, especially for the scope they've set out to do: 2 main plots (war with Templars, saving the world) and 4 subplots (Desmond accepting his heritage, Lucy, Subject 16, Bleeding Effect). Even if you cut it out in half, there would still be not enough focus.

But they can streamline everything.
1. They don't have enough man-hours to create a fully fleshed out character with an arc (and let's face it, in a so story-heavy game like AC we want our main characters to have an arc, especially if we see them from third-person; Desmond's story looks good on paper, but in-game it's not fleshed out enough). But by putting us in first-person in the shoes of the character himself/herself, they don't need to (because WE are the character).
2. They don't have enough man-hours to create vast big levels for fully proper AC-gameplay in the modern day world (let's face it, Desmond's levels in AC3 were really short), so putting it all in one Abstergo facility and having the goal to be exploring the mysteries of the facility (rather than having some kind of external goal like finding an artifact in the world or something like that), streamlines the amount of work that has to be done.
3. What we know that they do have enough man-hours to create, is a system of e-mails, puzzles, secondary conversations with a number of characters and all that stuff. And as far as I understand, all this stuff is going to be the primary way the modern-day storyline is going to be fed to the player.

So, taking all that into account... Honestly, while I don't really have any high expectations, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACIV modern day storyline is going to turn out to be better in quality than Desmond's storyline in all 5 AC games, because instead of going for an ambitious way of telling the modern-day story (and failing due to it, being, well, ambitious, and not enough time to fully implement), they're taking what has worked and streamlining and focusing on it, which gives us a chance of a very high-quality modern day story. I'm not saying that it will be undoubtedly high quality... but I think that the chances are there.

monster_rambo
03-12-2013, 02:48 AM
I actually think that it's a rather smart choice on their part. I don't think it's laziness, it's rather practicality. Let's face it, Ubisoft's focus is on the past timeline rather than the modern day, they did not have enough man-hours left to make properly fleshed out modern-day sections, especially for the scope they've set out to do: 2 main plots (war with Templars, saving the world) and 4 subplots (Desmond accepting his heritage, Lucy, Subject 16, Bleeding Effect). Even if you cut it out in half, there would still be not enough focus.

But they can streamline everything.
1. They don't have enough man-hours to create a fully fleshed out character with an arc (and let's face it, in a so story-heavy game like AC we want our main characters to have an arc, especially if we see them from third-person; Desmond's story looks good on paper, but in-game it's not fleshed out enough). But by putting us in first-person in the shoes of the character himself/herself, they don't need to (because WE are the character).
2. They don't have enough man-hours to create vast big levels for fully proper AC-gameplay in the modern day world (let's face it, Desmond's levels in AC3 were really short), so putting it all in one Abstergo facility and having the goal to be exploring the mysteries of the facility (rather than having some kind of external goal like finding an artifact in the world or something like that), streamlines the amount of work that has to be done.
3. What we know that they do have enough man-hours to create, is a system of e-mails, puzzles, secondary conversations with a number of characters and all that stuff. And as far as I understand, all this stuff is going to be the primary way the modern-day storyline is going to be fed to the player.

So, taking all that into account... Honestly, while I don't really have any high expectations, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACIV modern day storyline is going to turn out to be better in quality than Desmond's storyline in all 5 AC games, because instead of going for an ambitious way of telling the modern-day story (and failing due to it, being, well, ambitious, and not enough time to fully implement), they're taking what has worked and streamlining and focusing on it, which gives us a chance of a very high-quality modern day story. I'm not saying that it will be undoubtedly high quality... but I think that the chances are there.

First of all, your statement about that they don't have enough "man-hours" is all just your own assumption. The AC team is bigger and this game has already been 2 years into development. Based on the size of the team, they can pull it off if they want to but they failed at it in ACIII. Second I disagree with first person being any better seeing how it was done so poorly in ACR Desmond's Journey. Third, secondary conversations and emails are not a good way of bringing out the story, there needs to be more cinematic direction and cutscenes to be more engaging for storytelling. Besides, seeing how there are only a few cutscenes in ACIII, the secondary conversations and emails didn't even make up for the story; in addition, you have to take into account that not everyone wants to play a game and find out what the story is about by reading emails. As well, the modern day stuff that you mentioned (lucy,desmonds heritage, subject 16, bleeding effect) those storylines are closed, all they have left is war with Juno, and modern day assassin vs. templars. Their work is already cut out for them. They can make a better modern day direction and based on what I have read so far, they said they have not forgot about the modern day stories and there is possibly more to it. I don't think cutting corners is the way to do it.

Farlander1991
03-12-2013, 04:11 AM
First of all, your statement about that they don't have enough "man-hours" is all just your own assumption.

Sure it's assumptions. But it's based on everything we've seen so far in previous AC games, so it's not without merit.


Second I disagree with first person being any better seeing how it was done so poorly in ACR Desmond's Journey.

Oh yeah, because clearly Desmond's Journey in ACR is the ONLY way to do first-person segments.


I don't think cutting corners is the way to do it.

It's not about cutting corners, it's about realistic planning to get a high quality product.

While I applaud ambition, ambition has already led to ACIII, Which is not as polished as it could be, and is a very controversial game overall. And so far nothing that the devs of ACIV has said lead me to believe that they're going the ambitious route, it's more of a 'we're going to take less risks and take the things from previous games that worked well and/or resonated with players'. Glyphs and the multiplayer narrative has resonated with a lot of players, so it's only reasonable to believe that they're going to combine that with the way AC1/AC:B (and by AC:B I mean the part when we're in the basement of Monterrigioni) told their narrative.

monster_rambo
03-12-2013, 04:57 AM
It's not about cutting corners, it's about realistic planning to get a high quality product.

While I applaud ambition, ambition has already led to ACIII, Which is not as polished as it could be, and is a very controversial game overall. And so far nothing that the devs of ACIV has said lead me to believe that they're going the ambitious route, it's more of a 'we're going to take less risks and take the things from previous games that worked well and/or resonated with players'. Glyphs and the multiplayer narrative has resonated with a lot of players, so it's only reasonable to believe that they're going to combine that with the way AC1/AC:B (and by AC:B I mean the part when we're in the basement of Monterrigioni) told their narrative.

Desmond's Journey is NOT the only way to do first person segments. You are right. Because the only thing that it can do if they want to make a better first person is to become an FPS or Skyrim. I disagree on Ubisoft having ambition in ACIII. Clearly alot of corners are cut in the game just so they could ship the game on time. I agree that ACB and ACI has to a degree worked well but there needs to be more freedom to move about because this takes place after the Desmond's story so they need to take into an account of the perspective of both the assassin and the templars. You cannot simply eliminate one out of the equation. Although going with ACB and ACI format is taking the "safe route", is still taking a step back. More interactions, drama and cinematic besides a few simple emails and glyphs needs to be in place in order to advance the experience if they want to compete with other games out on the market. And I think for most people, they play AC for the single player...shifting the narrative to multiplayer so I can unlock some Erudito videos is not my really fun in my book to find out more about the story.

guardian_titan
03-12-2013, 05:07 AM
The issue with doing a totally customizable modern day avatar is time and money. The modern day story is typically maybe 2-3 hours of the game in total and that's pushing it for some players. The typical game is anywhere from 30-40 hours although I'm aware some can blast through the game in much shorter time. When it comes down to it, should Ubisoft put in a fair chunk of money on a customizable avatar we only see for a tiny fraction of the game or use that same money to put in additional quests for us to do while playing Edward? People complained about nothing to do at the end of AC3. I know we're getting random quests in AC4, but why not add even more? Variety is the spice of life. I'd rather have 10-20 random quests pop up and no customizable modern day avatar than only 5 random quests and a customizable avatar.

A customizable modern day avatar would result in a variety of skins because, let's face it, people will want a variety of tops, bottoms, shoes, hair, skin, and accessories to choose from. Each item would then have to be skinned and recolorable for more variety resulting in more work for the artists and animators. Then each of those have to be made to be morphable to fit on a morphable avatar if we can chose something like height or weight. People get angry now just because Connor's hood bugged out and didn't go back up at the end of the game prior to it being fixed. Imagine if we got customizable avatars and some selectable elements didn't morph well to someone's avatar. And of course, they'd have to do animations. People would get pissed if their avatar's hands clipped through their bodies while walking or their head clipped into their shoulder. On top of that, people will want to select voices so Ubisoft would have to pay several actors to record the same lines rather than a single actor. If Ubisoft did a really basic customization feature, people would just complain that it's too basic for a game released in 2013.

As much as I want a customizable avatar (I'm female so would want to play one that resembles me), I'd much rather Ubisoft put that money toward additional quests for me to do on Edward who I'd spend the majority of my time on. If we do get customizable avatars, I hope it isn't at the expense of another feature that would've been far better for the life and enjoyability of the game. AC4 is out in October barring any major setbacks. There's only so long before they have to start finalizing features and cutting what couldn't be completed.

So with customization, if it's too extensive, people would whine about the custom avatars ruining other game features while if it's too basic, people will whine it's too archaic for the times. Ultimately, Ubisoft can't win with such a feature so it's easier to err on the side of caution and either do first person (which I loathe) and no avatar talking or let us pick between premade avatars with no customizing at all. Personally, first person makes me nauseous so I'm really hoping that isn't the route they go. I barely finished Desmond's Journey in Revelations. I never finished Secret Archive. That's the only DLC I didn't finish and I own it all.

Farlander1991
03-12-2013, 05:07 AM
You are right. Because the only thing that it can do if they want to make a better first person is to become an FPS or Skyrim.

Or they could go first person adventure game route. Or some other routes, there are possibilities beyond FPS and RPGs.


I disagree on Ubisoft having ambition in ACIII. Clearly alot of corners are cut in the game just so they could ship the game on time.

Yes, they did indeed cut corners, but that's BECAUSE of the ambition and the fact that they wanted to do much more than they could handle, not because they didn't have it.


More interactions, drama and cinematic besides a few simple emails and glyphs needs to be in place in order to advance the experience if they want to compete with other games out on the market.

No AC game has EVER been marketed with a focus on its modern day story. What is going to be the focus of the game and what will participate in the competition on the market (and what most of the players will essentially buy it for), is the open-world pirate adventure experience.

monster_rambo
03-12-2013, 05:25 AM
No AC game has EVER been marketed with a focus on its modern day story. What is going to be the focus of the game and what will participate in the competition on the market (and what most of the players will essentially buy it for), is the open-world pirate adventure experience.

And this is why AC games will always fail in one or more aspects because they try too much but they restrain themselves by having a short and fix deadline. Yes, there are a majority of people playing for the historical and pirate like experience but there are also a number of people that got hooked to the modern story and demand a better experience. They could easily add better interactions and gameplay to the modern story without being too complex (mirror's edge comes to mind). And since when did people somehow know for certainty that is going to be first person? Nothing is revealed yet.

Farlander1991
03-12-2013, 05:39 AM
And since when did people somehow know for certainty that is going to be first person?

While this might indeed not be the case, it's still a logical (and more probable than third-person modern day gameplay) assumption to make.

mattduck69
03-12-2013, 05:40 AM
Sorry if this has been said but, why are the templars putting someone in the animus for though? is there an actual reason?

monster_rambo
03-12-2013, 05:57 AM
Sorry if this has been said but, why are the templars putting someone in the animus for though? is there an actual reason?

Not exactly sure. I don't think that we will get a definitive answer right away at the beginning of ACIV because we are starting out as a low level employee. It could possibly have some connection with another POE, Eve's lineage, solution to combat or aid Juno? I think I read somewhere that Desmond's body was taken by Abstergo, his dad's memories are probably going to be used, and his memories synched to some cloud thing. Maybe there is going to be a connection.

pirate1802
03-12-2013, 09:15 AM
More interactions, drama and cinematic besides a few simple emails and glyphs needs to be in place in order to advance the experience if they want to compete with other games out on the market.

Respectfully, compete which games out there? As far as I'm aware of, Ubisoft always markets ACs for its historical aspect and till now there is not a single game doing what AC is doing, and even if there are, their number is sure to be miniscule. So there is no competition in AC's strength area anyway. I know there are many fans love the modern storyline and that is completely fine, but let's face it: AC is what it is because of the historical storyline and that's where Ubisoft's thrust is. So improving the modern day storyline will not magically make AC compete with other modern stealth games out there which are frankly already far far ahead of AC. An awesome modern day AC IV will not win Splinter Cell and GTA fans over to AC, its the sad truth.

helloSmurfz
03-12-2013, 10:00 AM
Why have a customizable character for the modern day part of the game, when we could maybe customize Edward, like more varieties of armor ( if it is making a return ) and dyes / clothes.
Maybe even a few hair styles, if you have seen pictures and the trailers, Edwards hair is tied up similar to Connors, or it is down, maybe we will get some customization of Edward.

Sushiglutton
03-12-2013, 10:10 AM
I actually think that it's a rather smart choice on their part. I don't think it's laziness, it's rather practicality. Let's face it, Ubisoft's focus is on the past timeline rather than the modern day, they did not have enough man-hours left to make properly fleshed out modern-day sections, especially for the scope they've set out to do: 2 main plots (war with Templars, saving the world) and 4 subplots (Desmond accepting his heritage, Lucy, Subject 16, Bleeding Effect). Even if you cut it out in half, there would still be not enough focus.

But they can streamline everything.
1. They don't have enough man-hours to create a fully fleshed out character with an arc (and let's face it, in a so story-heavy game like AC we want our main characters to have an arc, especially if we see them from third-person; Desmond's story looks good on paper, but in-game it's not fleshed out enough). But by putting us in first-person in the shoes of the character himself/herself, they don't need to (because WE are the character).
2. They don't have enough man-hours to create vast big levels for fully proper AC-gameplay in the modern day world (let's face it, Desmond's levels in AC3 were really short), so putting it all in one Abstergo facility and having the goal to be exploring the mysteries of the facility (rather than having some kind of external goal like finding an artifact in the world or something like that), streamlines the amount of work that has to be done.
3. What we know that they do have enough man-hours to create, is a system of e-mails, puzzles, secondary conversations with a number of characters and all that stuff. And as far as I understand, all this stuff is going to be the primary way the modern-day storyline is going to be fed to the player.

So, taking all that into account... Honestly, while I don't really have any high expectations, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACIV modern day storyline is going to turn out to be better in quality than Desmond's storyline in all 5 AC games, because instead of going for an ambitious way of telling the modern-day story (and failing due to it, being, well, ambitious, and not enough time to fully implement), they're taking what has worked and streamlining and focusing on it, which gives us a chance of a very high-quality modern day story. I'm not saying that it will be undoubtedly high quality... but I think that the chances are there.

Exactly! In a franchise that struggles with over-ambition, the modern day part seems like the most obvious things to scale back a little. I also like the idea to have a more brainy modern day part so it is distinct from the historical one. In AC3 Desmond was just a gimped Connor. It would be better if the modern part had a different focus like say glyph-type puzzles etc.

pirate1802
03-12-2013, 10:13 AM
Exactly! In a franchise that struggles with over-ambition, the modern day part seems like the most obvious things to scale back a little. I also like the idea to have a more brainy modern day part so it is distinct from the historical one. In AC3 Desmond was just a gimped Connor. It would be better if the modern part had a different focus like say glyph-type puzzles etc.

Yeah this. Better have a fundamentally different modern day part than a reskined historical part which AC3 was. As a result of which, modern day combat looked extremely hilarious and nonsensical. I.. don't think the developers intended that. :p

MasterAssasin84
03-12-2013, 11:55 AM
Full character customization would only work for co-op if they were to implement it. Like creating your assassin, what outfits (assassin outfit) he or she wears, their race, the weapons they can carry, where the weapons are located on your character and what not.

Did ubisoft say that co-op was something that would be implemented this time around ?

SixKeys
03-12-2013, 12:51 PM
Exactly! In a franchise that struggles with over-ambition, the modern day part seems like the most obvious things to scale back a little. I also like the idea to have a more brainy modern day part so it is distinct from the historical one. In AC3 Desmond was just a gimped Connor. It would be better if the modern part had a different focus like say glyph-type puzzles etc.

To me it feels like ACR was a prototype for this type of experiment. The modern day (aka Desmond) segments were all first-person and puzzle-based, and also completely optional, while the historical Ezio stuff was the main attraction. Darby McDevitt who wrote ACR has apparently been working on AC4 since 2011, likely starting on the script just after most of the work on ACR was finished. Could this mean they were sort of testing the waters with ACR? If so, I'm not sure it'll hold up in AC4 considering most players hated Desmond's Journey.

I do agree the concept sounds fair, they need to bring back the glyph-like mysteries and conspiracies somehow. If that's going to be in the modern day segments, fine. I just hope that whatever they do with the modern day stuff they will put effort and long-term thought into it, not just throwing out intriguing cliffhangers and then abandoning them unresolved next year.