PDA

View Full Version : AC3 is the best in the series..



the_brok
03-14-2013, 01:41 AM
I`m a veteran AC player (saying this, because some people say that the only fans who liked AC3 are the new ones) got the first one on february 2008 and loved it, then was a tiny bit disappointed with AC2 (Loved most of it, but felt the story was just dragged along with some very boring missions and lack of replayability), loved ACB and ACR, but AC3 just takes the cake. this is the best in the series. best Protagonist, best setting and awesome story.

Just wanted to say this, because I got AC3 a few days ago and only finished it yesterday. I`m poor, so anyways, thank you, Ubisoft for the pinnacle of the franchise. AC3. I heard AC4 is on the way. looking forward to it

Aphex_Tim
03-14-2013, 06:59 AM
Let me buy you a beer!

NvmberFiveUA
03-14-2013, 07:26 AM
I agree.

Assassin_M
03-14-2013, 07:29 AM
Although I wouldn't praise it as the second coming of Jesus, I agree that it`s the best in the series...

pirate1802
03-14-2013, 07:30 AM
Let me buy you a beer!

^^

raytrek79
03-14-2013, 08:22 AM
I'd say Brotherhood is my favorite, Ezio is the most charismatic Assassin, he has humor and he is suave. Roma is a great city, there are good Tomb Raider missions, which are my favorite feature of AC. The lack of Tomb Raiding and lack of challenging climbs in 3 let me down. But I do love all the games, 3 has things that trump the others but when it comes to over-all I go with Brotherhood. I just want them to keep pumping them out so I'm looking forward to 4, I don't think it should be called 4 though, it is a different Assassin but it is basically the same era as 3.

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 08:25 AM
Good for you I suppose, although I think the exact opposite.

pirate1802
03-14-2013, 08:29 AM
It is a different Assassin but it is basically the same era as 3.

Nah. So what if its only 40 years ago. Golden Age Caribbean is very different than Colonial America.

raytrek79
03-14-2013, 08:42 AM
Nah. So what if its only 40 years ago. Golden Age Caribbean is very different than Colonial America.
Yeah but what I have seen, the hand muskets are not far removed from 3. There are a lot of differences from 2 to Revelations, and more time, come to think of it; the Janissary had hand muskets. Ezio had a gun way before they were common, I'd like more of that kind of thing, an Assassin having that slight technological advantage, from an Apple or from collecting Codex. Or at least how Connor had the rope-dart, uncommon weapons.

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 08:46 AM
Yeah but what I have seen, the hand muskets are not far removed from 3. There are a lot of differences from 2 to Revelations, and more time, come to think of it; the Janissary had hand muskets. Ezio had a gun way before they were common, I'd like more of that kind of thing, an Assassin having that slight technological advantage, from an Apple or from collecting Codex. Or at least how Connor had the rope-dart, uncommon weapons.
Well every game doesn't need an Leonardo di Caprio(yes, I said that). And might I remind you Alta´r the most badass and awesome assassin ever had all those weapons even before Ezio. Regardless, if it's any comfort to you, Ropedart is back.

Sushiglutton
03-14-2013, 10:40 AM
(...) this is the best in the series. best Protagonist, best setting and awesome story.(...)

Can't help but to notice that you didn't mention any gameplay related qualities to argue AC3 superiority. This is in line with my theory that people who thought AC3 was great are mainly story oriented gamers. Those who were disapointed are mainly gameplay oriented. This is a broad generalisation, but one I think for the most part is correct.

MasterAssasin84
03-14-2013, 10:44 AM
Good for you I suppose, although I think the exact opposite.



I disagree with AC2 being boring IMO its the best one in the series followed by 3

Assassin_M
03-14-2013, 10:47 AM
Can't help but to notice that you didn't mention any gameplay related qualities to argue AC3 superiority. This is in line with my theory that people who thought AC3 were great are mainly story oriented gamers. Those who were disapointed are mainly gameplay oriented. This is a broad generalisation, but one I think for the most part is correct.
Come on lets be honest here...who the hell brings Gameplay qualities or mission design when arguing AC III superiority, eh ? Whether or not he/she prefers gameplay or story, he`d/she`d be just diggin himself/herself into a hole.

emperior
03-14-2013, 10:53 AM
AC3 gameplay is far better than older ones.
At least this time enemies didn't attack at turn.

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 10:54 AM
I disagree with AC2 being boring IMO its the best one in the series followed by 3
Where the hell did AC2 come from?

Assassin_M
03-14-2013, 10:54 AM
Aaaaand this turns into an argument in 5...

Sushiglutton
03-14-2013, 11:03 AM
Come on lets be honest here...who the hell brings Gameplay qualities or mission design when arguing AC III superiority, eh ? Whether or not he/she prefers gameplay or story, he`d/she`d be just diggin himself/herself into a hole.

Not sure I get your logic :p. You are saying that even if a gamer was gameplay oriented he still wouldn't mention those aspects because he knows they sucked? That makes no sense to me.




AC3 gameplay is far better than older ones.
At least this time enemies didn't attack at turn.

I agree. I think all three core pillars were the best they have ever been (they are still weaker than the competition though). But the mission design is so restricted and hand-holdy that it kills a lot of the fun of playing imo. And for that reason I think that more gameplay oriented gamers tend to feel very disapointed in AC3.

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 11:05 AM
the mission design in is so restricted and hand-holdy that it kills a lot of the fun of playing imo. And for that reason I think that more gameplay oriented gamers tend to feel very disapointed in AC3.
*raises hand*

Sushiglutton
03-14-2013, 11:12 AM
*raises hand*

I had a feeling you felt that way :p!

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 11:13 AM
I had a feeling you felt that way :p!
Well yeah, I want games to be games, let hollywood do movies.

shobhit7777777
03-14-2013, 11:15 AM
Can't help but to notice that you didn't mention any gameplay related qualities to argue AC3 superiority. This is in line with my theory that people who thought AC3 were great are mainly story oriented gamers. Those who were disapointed are mainly gameplay oriented. This is a broad generalisation, but one I think for the most part is correct.

I am inclined to agree with you

The quality of the gameplay is simply unacceptable.

The bar has been set extremely low and this acceptance by the "narrative" fans is plowing the gameplay into a state absolute staleness.

WHY?!?!?!?!??!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 11:17 AM
I am inclined to agree with you

The quality of the gameplay is simply unacceptable.

The bar has been set extremely low and this acceptance by the "narrative" fans is plowing the gameplay into a state absolute staleness.

WHY?!?!?!?!??!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Ploughing Nilfgaardians, no doubt they're working for Emhyr. Always trying to weaken the North.
"Cinematic fans" that care for only about a bunch of cutscenes even if the story itself is horrible and gameplay stale and broken.

And Sushi, I love stories but I hated the "story" of AC3, which was about putting Connor in every event.

ArabianFrost
03-14-2013, 11:32 AM
Ploughing Nilfgaardians, no doubt they're working for Emhyr. Always trying to weaken the North.
"Cinematic fans" that care for only about a bunch of cutscenes even if the story itself is horrible and gameplay stale and broken.

And Sushi, I love stories but I hated the "story" of AC3, which was about putting Connor in every event.

I am pretty sure I would have liked AC3 more if I just watched it in the form of wakthroughs. That's sad.

shobhit7777777
03-14-2013, 11:49 AM
Ploughing Nilfgaardians, no doubt they're working for Emhyr. Always trying to weaken the North.
"Cinematic fans" that care for only about a bunch of cutscenes even if the story itself is horrible and gameplay stale and broken.

And Sushi, I love stories but I hated the "story" of AC3, which was about putting Connor in every event.

+100

Jokes apart...I don't have anything against the cinematic lovers....I can fully understand why people would go for AC for the narrative (However ****ty it may be) but personally, I start getting annoyed when the gameplay starts suffering.....I'm not sure if the blame lies with the overly story oriented direction...but at this point Ima vent at anything.

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 11:51 AM
+100

Jokes apart...I don't have anything against the cinematic lovers....I can fully understand why people would go for AC for the narrative (However ****ty it may be) but personally, I start getting annoyed when the gameplay starts suffering.....I'm not sure if the blame lies with the overly story oriented direction...but at this point Ima vent at anything.
Story? Nah Story wasn't the problem. The pandering to new people by making cinematic 'wow' scenes and all the being in centre of every event..riding on the horse with Paul, defending Concord..or Lexington whatever it was is what I see the problem was, story wasn't great either but that didn't really "ruin" the game IMO.

Dejan507
03-14-2013, 12:57 PM
What ruined AC3 for me the most is the broken stealth system.. I just still can't believe they published a game with so many mistakes..
If it weren't for that, it may be my best AC game aswell..

RinoTheBouncer
03-14-2013, 02:58 PM
It could've been the best in the series had they made a properly directed ending.
I think AC series have got us used to perfection so we find really hard to accept something mediocre.

shobhit7777777
03-14-2013, 03:11 PM
It could've been the best in the series had they made a properly directed ending.
I think AC series have got us used to perfection so we find really hard to accept something mediocre.

No

There is no AC game that even come close to perfection.

bveUSbve
03-14-2013, 03:13 PM
What ruined AC3 for me the most is the broken stealth system.. I just still can't believe they published a game with so many mistakes..
If it weren't for that, it may be my best AC game aswell..
Yeah, if it weren't for the "ambitious" but amateurish story(-telling), lack of real assassinations in favor of slaughtering redcoats, Connor's boring voice actor, the frustrating parkour mechanics (even more frustrating than in previous installments), "stealth" being more broken than ever, lack of puzzles and lack of extended platforming-missions, missing ambient music (though it's debatable if that's not a good thing due to Mr. Balfe being a just "ok" composer), unspectacular/boring cities, horrific UI, primitive/incompletely implemented side quests, silly/fun-killing full sync requirements, unnecessary and annoying restrictions (let me run inside buildings!), not to forget the completely unacceptable "conclusion" of the "trilogy" -- if it weren't for all those little things, it indeed might have been the best AC game ever. ;)


I agree. I think all three core pillars were the best they have ever been (they are still weaker than the competition though).
I can't believe that you think the free-running of ACIII to be "the best" in the series? In my experience it definitively is not. I'm replaying 'Brotherhood' at the moment, and there I feel significantly more in control of Ezio's movements than I did of Connor's in ACIII. (That's not to say platforming/controls in 'Brotherhood' are perfect, far from it!).

----

ACIII in my opinion is not a bad game, but it's not really good either. All but 'Revelations' were "better" (imo).

ReverseDoddo
03-14-2013, 03:17 PM
haha ac3 best? your joking? ac 2 and brotherhood are the best :)

RinoTheBouncer
03-14-2013, 03:18 PM
No

There is no AC game that even come close to perfection.

Actually AC:Revelations and AC2 have gone way above it.
The simplest evidence is that they made 3 adventures of Ezio.

pirate1802
03-14-2013, 03:21 PM
haha ac3 best? your joking? ac 2 and brotherhood are the best :)

I thought AC2 was the best but in my books Brotherhood was the worst. :|

Sushiglutton
03-14-2013, 03:50 PM
I can't believe that you think the free-running of ACIII to be "the best" in the series? In my experience it definitively is not. I'm replaying 'Brotherhood' at the moment, and there I feel significantly more in control of Ezio's movements than I did of Connor's in ACIII. (That's not to say platforming/controls in 'Brotherhood' are perfect, far from it!).

I haven't played any older AC since I finished AC3, so I may be misstaken. I admit that Connor more often ran up walls I didn't want him to. I think there were some improvements to compensate though. I like how Connor automatically avoids crowd, small trees. I was never a fan of the crowd shoving mechanic in older ACs. I also like the vault and the slide, even though I would prefer if they were more actively controlled by the player.

To me it's not a huge difference (as far as I remember), but AC3 has a slight advantage in my book.

Megas_Doux
03-14-2013, 04:16 PM
haha ac3 best? your joking? ac 2 and brotherhood are the best :)

In regards of ACB, I feel this:

1 The city to be rather dull, truth be told. It was a boring version of AC2┤s cities.Had my favorite landmarks, though.
2 Really weak, linear and cartoonish story full of, again; weak, linear and cartoonish antagonists. My very least liked templar crew in the series! A shame that a great strategist and fighter like Cesare Borgia was reduced to a spoiled little brat yealing "GUARDS" all the time...
3 Good side content on the other hand. Da Vinci┤s mission were very good.

And to the OP, despite some heavy flaws in my book like restricting mission design and lack of ambient music, AC3 is my favorite one in the series too.


All the previous stuff about the "historic" part of those games. The modern side, weak in AC3 though...

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 04:17 PM
The simplest evidence is that they made 3 adventures of Ezio.
That would be because a lot of casuals who like character development thrown at their face lived Lulzio and so they kept stretching his story. I love Revelations, but it was stretched a lot due to Brotherhood which is the worst AC IMO, followed by AC3.

pirate1802
03-14-2013, 04:35 PM
That would be because a lot of casuals who like character development thrown at their face lived Lulzio and so they kept stretching his story. I love Revelations, but it was stretched a lot due to Brotherhood which is the worst AC IMO, followed by AC3.

I still think Revelations should have been the proper sequel of 2 rather Brotherhood..

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 04:39 PM
I still think Revelations should have been the proper sequel of 2 rather Brotherhood..
Yes it should, Brotherhood made him into a typical "good guy" robin hood hero. Rome was bland(yes, I said it.). Story was a sack of ****, Cesare was as stereotypical as a bad guy can get, last few sequences are like 5 minutes long that involve Cesare shouting "GUARDS!" repeatedly while limping away. Although there was enough to do other than main story which was a nice thing.

pirate1802
03-14-2013, 04:45 PM
Rome was bland(yes, I said it.).

I feel teh same. :)

Bastiaen
03-14-2013, 05:05 PM
Amen brother. It's good to see some AC3 love on these forums again. I don't normally rank my AC games, since I view them as part of a complete whole (franchise) rather than single units. As such I view AC as the best franchise out there...

Gil_217
03-14-2013, 05:26 PM
For me, AC3 is nowhere near my favorite AC game ever. I like the game and all but as far as being the best, just no.

My rank:

1 - AC2
2 - AC1
3 - ACB
4 - AC3
5 - ACR

shobhit7777777
03-14-2013, 05:32 PM
Actually AC:Revelations and AC2 have gone way above it.
The simplest evidence is that they made 3 adventures of Ezio.

Are AC2 and Rev better than AC3, Yes...absolutely IMO

Are they perfect?

No

stingray10
03-14-2013, 05:34 PM
Hahaha. It is the biggest failure in the franchise so far. There are just so many reasons why that it would take too long.

ProletariatPleb
03-14-2013, 05:38 PM
Hahaha. It is the biggest failure in the franchise so far. There are just so many reasons why that it would take too long.
http://i.imgur.com/KAosZ.gif

hoodrat94
03-14-2013, 05:50 PM
It's awesome that you liked the game,too bad that I can't say the same for myself. AC3 was not assassin's creed to me, more like battlefield 1775!
An assassin's creed game more focused on combat! Like seriously wtf!
Whatever floats your boat man! For me it was just dissapointment, and yes I am an AC veteran, switched to PC version since ACB because of better visuals, but it seems like that was a bad idea!

bveUSbve
03-15-2013, 08:59 AM
I haven't played any older AC since I finished AC3, so I may be misstaken. I admit that Connor more often ran up walls I didn't want him to.
We already discussed the problems and possible refinements of "one-button-free-running". As of now, for me the problems outweigh any advantages of this "streamlining".


I think there were some improvements to compensate though.
And that's the point where I have to disagree: There may be improvements - though I think many of them are half-baked in their current state -, but they concern minor matters and thus can't really compensate for the issues that plague the very core of free-running.

Apart from unintended context-/environment-related actions (wall-running, entering haystacks) my main gripe is that even during "normal" free-running - or climbing - the single movements are considerably more erratic than previously. Previously free-running was widely considered "too easy", due to its "automatic" nature. Now the automatisms have become even more predominant, it seems. When it "works", you just feel even more detached from whatever the protagonist currently is doing. When it "fails" - e.g. jumping into an entirely different direction than you wanted -, it's plain annoying.


I like how Connor automatically avoids crowd, small trees. I was never a fan of the crowd shoving mechanic in older ACs. I also like the vault and the slide, even though I would prefer if they were more actively controlled by the player.
Yes, these are "nice" little features ...


To me it's not a huge difference (as far as I remember), but AC3 has a slight advantage in my book.
... but due to my issues with the core of running mechanics for me ACIII is a clear step backwards from former AC standards.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 09:05 AM
I love how some of the posts are either making fun of the OP or correcting his opinion like "AC III the best ? No AC II is the best" (not referring to those who clearly made their statements in a subjective sense)

Does that make some of you sleep warm and tight at night ?

I`d love to see how EVERYONE would attack someone who says "AC II is not the best"

Which actually happened and no one said a god damm thing....but if someone who says "AC III is not the best" and gets attacked....wooooow...woooow....his Opinion, maaaaan...he hates AC III...his opinion....OK ? His opinion...

roostersrule2
03-15-2013, 09:09 AM
I love how some of the posts are either making fun of the OP or correcting his opinion like "AC III the best ? No AC II is the best" (not referring to those who clearly made their statements in a subjective sense)

Does that make some of you sleep warm and tight at night ?

I`d love to see how EVERYONE would attack someone who says "AC II is not the best"

Which actually happened and no one said a god damm thing....but if someone who says "AC III is not the best" and gets attacked....wooooow...woooow....his Opinion, maaaaan...he hates AC III...his opinion....OK ? His opinion...You kidding right? You say AC II isn't the best all the time, it ends up in an argument, your point=Invalid.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 09:10 AM
You kidding right? You say AC II isn't the best all the time, it ends up in an argument, your point=Invalid.
you just validated my point, that`s exactly what I said -__-

roostersrule2
03-15-2013, 09:12 AM
you just validated my point, that`s exactly what I said -__-Oh yea I did hahaha, I have to read things better.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 09:14 AM
Oh yea I did hahaha, I have to read things better.
I had a feeling you misread xD

Or were being sarcastic :p

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 09:16 AM
Apart from the rather dull cities, I thought that AC3 had the potential to be the best AC3 with the brilliant new mechanics they put in and the frontier that could have provided great vertically tactical advantage, but noooooooooooooooooo, we'll just cram in 3 hours of cinematics and hold the gamer's hand throughout the whole story, because the gamers can't think for themselves. Story-wise I really liked the moral ambiguity the game offered and really appreciated the father-son background, but I do believe that Connor should have been given more time in the main story to develop and mature, but nooooooooooooooooooooooo let's cram hours of templar missions for you. Why Ubisoft, why?

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 09:41 AM
but nooooooooooooooooooooooo let's cram hours of templar missions for you. Why Ubisoft, why?

The reason is, the respect we have for Haytham is only because we have seen him first hand, we've lived him. Say you didn't play as Haytham and only knew him scantly and then he appears and starts sermonizing, you wouldn't believe him one bit would you? because all Templars lie and manipulate. Its only because we saw firsthand his good and noble qualities that we can believe that what he is saying isn't 100% lie. Those missions also showed the other side of the wall showed that they are not infact much different than the Assassins, that there can exist decent people among the Templars. It added to the ambiguity which you liked. Without those missions, its safe to say Haytham Kenway the awesomeness that we know wouldn't have existed. he would have been an average villain who speaks big words but nothing beyond it.

I fully agree that Connor needed more time. Just 7 out of 12 sequences as a full assassin isn't enough time. But the solution lies in extending the Conor parts, maybe add a couple of sequences and not cutting off the Haytham part. Infact I thought it was a brilliant decision to play as Haytham in the beginning.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 10:47 AM
The reason is, the respect we have for Haytham is only because we have seen him first hand, we've lived him. Say you didn't play as Haytham and only knew him scantly and then he appears and starts sermonizing, you wouldn't believe him one bit would you? because all Templars lie and manipulate. Its only because we saw firsthand his good and noble qualities that we can believe that what he is saying isn't 100% lie. Those missions also showed the other side of the wall showed that they are not infact much different than the Assassins, that there can exist decent people among the Templars. It added to the ambiguity which you liked. Without those missions, its safe to say Haytham Kenway the awesomeness that we know wouldn't have existed. he would have been an average villain who speaks big words but nothing beyond it.

I fully agree that Connor needed more time. Just 7 out of 12 sequences as a full assassin isn't enough time. But the solution lies in extending the Conor parts, maybe add a couple of sequences and not cutting off the Haytham part. Infact I thought it was a brilliant decision to play as Haytham in the beginning.

See, I liked playing as Haytham as well, but if given the choice to have a full Connor game or the mission split in AC3, I would have picked a full, Haytham-less game in a heartbeat. It honestly felt like it compromised Connor's character which is why I was not appealed to it. Anyway, the father-son missions and speeches at the end of "assassinations" were a sufficient enough view of the templar side.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 10:51 AM
See, I liked playing as Haytham as well, but if given the choice to have a full Connor game or the mission split in AC3, I would have picked a full, Haytham-less game in a heartbeat. It honestly felt like it compromised Connor's character which is why I was not appealed to it. Anyway, the father-son missions and speeches at the end of "assassinations" were a sufficient enough view of the templar side.
I doubt you`d have liked Haytham as much without the Prologue sequences.

It was not Haytham`s intrusion, but rather the lack of more Connor...How about the same number of Haytham sequences AND more Connor sequences ? say....11. And 3 for Haytham...14 sequences...

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 10:54 AM
See, I liked playing as Haytham as well, but if given the choice to have a full Connor game or the mission split in AC3, I would have picked a full, Haytham-less game in a heartbeat. It honestly felt like it compromised Connor's character which is why I was not appealed to it. Anyway, the father-son missions and speeches at the end of "assassinations" were a sufficient enough view of the templar side.

Without the Haytham buildup the father-son camaraderie would have felt empty. It would have seemed like appearing from thin air. You wouldn't have enjoyed it so much if you didn't know Haytham well. You would have been scratching your head as to where this father suddenly came from. And also, like I said: There is a difference between telling and showing. Telling is what we got from Haytham's dialogs to Connor, but the real thing is showing. Because even the AC1 Templars appeared wise and all noble in their death speeches, yet non of us revere them as many do with Haytham. Thats the same difference, the diference between telling and showing. Its an important distinction.


I doubt you`d have liked Haytham as much without the Prologue sequences.

It was not Haytham`s intrusion, but rather the lack of more Connor...How about the same number of Haytham sequences AND more Connor sequences ? say....11. And 3 for Haytham...14 sequences...

Exactly! Without the prologue Haytham would have been yet another high-mouthed evil guy like AC1's. He'd say lofty things for sure, but you would have no way of knowing whether he is lying or not that is, until you see him in action.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 11:59 AM
I doubt you`d have liked Haytham as much without the Prologue sequences.

It was not Haytham`s intrusion, but rather the lack of more Connor...How about the same number of Haytham sequences AND more Connor sequences ? say....11. And 3 for Haytham...14 sequences...


Well, Ubisoft devs have stated that they don't like the game to extend more than the current length(20hours), so simply adding more sequences probably wasn't an option, which is bullocks considering that an extra 2 hours or 3 wouldn't hurt the game, but then again they would feel like fillers, so then again, again, maybe adding sequences isn't much of an option.

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 12:01 PM
Well, Ubisoft devs have stated that they don't like the game to extend more than the current length(20hours), so simply adding more sequences probably wasn't an option, which is bullocks considering that an extra 2 hours or 3 wouldn't hurt the game, but then again they would feel like fillers, so then again, again, maybe adding sequences isn't much of an option.

Not really, there was a lot of "six months later" gaps. Extra sequences could have been fit there..

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 12:12 PM
Without the Haytham buildup the father-son camaraderie would have felt empty. It would have seemed like appearing from thin air. You wouldn't have enjoyed it so much if you didn't know Haytham well. You would have been scratching your head as to where this father suddenly came from. And also, like I said: There is a difference between telling and showing. Telling is what we got from Haytham's dialogs to Connor, but the real thing is showing. Because even the AC1 Templars appeared wise and all noble in their death speeches, yet non of us revere them as many do with Haytham. Thats the same difference, the diference between telling and showing. Its an important distinction.



Exactly! Without the prologue Haytham would have been yet another high-mouthed evil guy like AC1's. He'd say lofty things for sure, but you would have no way of knowing whether he is lying or not that is, until you see him in action.


Lying about what? Haytham's actions eventually seemed to be not noble after all. All of the good deeds he has done were for the benefit of the templars, so this might have affected the good guy figure he was trying to portray. What's even worse, is that they darkened his once merciful image to that crazy murderous guy, so the build up in the prologue went to waste, as Haytham degraded to ruthless templar, showing the hypocrisy he possesses.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 12:16 PM
Not really, there was a lot of "six months later" gaps. Extra sequences could have been fit there..

Again, how could have the story progressed through these times? There is a chance that if that was to happen, then it would just feel like a filler, to make the game longer, without an effect to how the main story progresses.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 12:21 PM
as Haytham degraded to ruthless templar, showing the hypocrisy he possesses.
Read the Novel, I guess

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 12:28 PM
Read the Novel, I guess

I haven't read it, but I know for sure that he was a much better character there, with a much more emotional relationship with Connor. Thing is, since they bothered to include Haytham in the game, they could have at least made him as compelling as in the novels. Seriously, he criticises the bulldog for ruthless murdering, then goes on to kill an informant for no reason when he meets up with Connor. Not only did they sacrifice Connor's playtime for Haytham, but they also didn't develop Haytham quite well in the game. They ridiculously massacred both of their potential.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 12:35 PM
I haven't read it, but I know for sure that he was a much better character there, with a much more emotional relationship with Connor. Thing is, since they bothered to include Haytham in the game, they could have at least made him as compelling as in the novels. Seriously, he criticises the bulldog for ruthless murdering, then goes on to kill an informant for no reason when he meets up with Connor. Not only did they sacrifice Connor's playtime for Haytham, but they also didn't develop Haytham quite well in the game. They ridiculously massacred both of their potential.
Just read the Novel....Everything is in the game. the novel just makes them clearer...;)

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 12:48 PM
Lying about what?

Lying about the Templar Creed's motivations and objectives. We would have a harder time believing him had we not seen things from his point of view.


Haytham's actions eventually seemed to be not noble after all.

And the Assassin's seemed?


All of the good deeds he has done were for the benefit of the templars, so this might have affected the good guy figure he was trying to portray.

You could just as muck say all the good deeds Connor did was for the benefit of his Order or his village so he is just as much selfish as Haytham. Same for Ezio, Altair and any Assassin. If devotion to the Creed is considered a good trait then why should devotion to the Templar Order be looked down as selfish? Also he was never portrayed as a good guy, more as a grey guy.


What's even worse, is that they darkened his once merciful image to that crazy murderous guy, so the build up in the prologue went to waste, as Haytham degraded to ruthless templar, showing the hypocrisy he possesses.

Remember how he threatened to cut off his ship captain's head for merely insulting him? Or the moment where he almost inserted his blade in the captain's throat for not following his orders and risking his ship? Yes, merciful indeed. Haytham was always a ruthless man. In the beginning, and in the end. Maybe we ignored that because he was the protagonist that tie and not the enemy.


Again, how could have the story progressed through these times? There is a chance that if that was to happen, then it would just feel like a filler, to make the game longer, without an effect to how the main story progresses.

You are saying this because we reside in a universe where those sequences don't exist. Naval warfare, hunting, freaking Homestead, the whole Connor's adolescent period may seem like a filler too. Brotherhood was filled with fillers, they stretched 3 sequences worth of story to eight. It It depends on the writer's skills. If he is skillful enough he can put in fillers and make them seem like an integral part of the story.

For example there's a "six months later" before he returns to his village a last time. There could have been a sequence there where Bluecoats were evacuating his village and he arrives to fight them off. Just an example. There was even a scene in the story trailer showing him fighting bluecoats.

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 12:50 PM
then goes on to kill an informant for no reason when he meets up with Connor.

:D They person in your profile pic was notorious for doing that.. :rolleyes:

Like I said, he was always ruthless and trigger-happy. Its not something that magicaly appears at the middle of the game. He criticized the Bulldog because he was killing civilians. And I'm not aware they ever showed Haytham killing civvies later, either.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 12:52 PM
Kill an informant for no reason when he meets up with
Are you perhaps forgetting that neither side is "good" or "bad"

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 12:59 PM
Are you perhaps forgetting that neither side is "good" or "bad"
It's not about good or bad, it's about Haytham criticising the bulldog for unnecessary murder, then doing it with the informant when he was with Connor. This isn't about good or bad, it's being being slightly hypocritical, considering Connor says the informant didn't need to die.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 01:00 PM
It's not about good or bad, it's about Haytham criticising the bulldog for unnecessary murder, then doing it with the informant when he was with Connor. This isn't about good or bad, it's being being slightly hypocritical, considering Connor says the informant didn't need to die.
What about Altair ?

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 01:01 PM
It's not about good or bad, it's about Haytham criticising the bulldog for unnecessary murder, then doing it with the informant when he was with Connor. This isn't about good or bad, it's being being slightly hypocritical, considering Connor says the informant didn't need to die.

Haytham criticizes Bulldog because he went after civilians. That informant was a soldier/guard. Assassins consider soldiers free game. Why aren't they hypocritical and Haytham is?

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:01 PM
:D They person in your profile pic was notorious for doing that.. :rolleyes:

Like I said, he was always ruthless and trigger-happy. Its not something that magicaly appears at the middle of the game. He criticized the Bulldog because he was killing civilians. And I'm not aware they ever showed Haytham killing civvies later, either.

In Connor's words, the informant need not die, so it may have been an unnecessary kill.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 01:03 PM
In Connor's words, the informant need not die, so it may have been an unnecessary kill.
Keyword being may....how do you know the informants Altair killed had to be killed then ?

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:03 PM
:D They person in your profile pic was notorious for doing that.. :rolleyes:

Like I said, he was always ruthless and trigger-happy. Its not something that magicaly appears at the middle of the game. He criticized the Bulldog because he was killing civilians. And I'm not aware they ever showed Haytham killing civvies later, either.

In Connor's words, the informant need not die, so it may have been an unnecessary kill.

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 01:03 PM
In Connor's words, the informant need not die, so it may have been an unnecessary kill.

can be said about all those poor informants of AC1. Can you guarantee he will not run off and inform his masters? Killing that informant may seem harsh and ruthless, but it was a prudent decision.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:04 PM
In Connor's words, the informant need not die, so it may have been an unnecessary kill.

May I remind you who started the Boston massacre that ended the lives of many innocent citizens?

Eternal Reward
03-15-2013, 01:05 PM
You mean that one game about Forrest Gump in the American Revolution?

Eternal Reward
03-15-2013, 01:06 PM
May I remind you who started the Boston massacre that ended the lives of many innocent citizens?

Well, actually the "massacre" was hugely overblown it was like three people, but yes he did, and yes he did.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:06 PM
Just read the Novel....Everything is in the game. the novel just makes them clearer...;)

I do want to, but **** kindle doesn't recognize Egypt as a country and I can't find any PDFs of the novel anywhere.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 01:07 PM
I do want to, but **** kindle doesn't recognize Egypt as a country and I can't find any PDFs of the novel anywhere.
That`s just damm racist D:

Oh well...Unlucky for you I guess...in time perhaps someone would post the story on the wiki...

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 01:07 PM
May I remind you who started the Boston massacre that ended the lives of many innocent citizens?

May I remind you of Ezio's glorious deeds in Cappadocia? xD If Haytham is a hypocrite then all Assassins are worse.

Sushiglutton
03-15-2013, 01:11 PM
And that's the point where I have to disagree: There may be improvements - though I think many of them are half-baked in their current state -, but they concern minor matters and thus can't really compensate for the issues that plague the very core of free-running.

Apart from unintended context-/environment-related actions (wall-running, entering haystacks) my main gripe is that even during "normal" free-running - or climbing - the single movements are considerably more erratic than previously. Previously free-running was widely considered "too easy", due to its "automatic" nature. Now the automatisms have become even more predominant, it seems. When it "works", you just feel even more detached from whatever the protagonist currently is doing. When it "fails" - e.g. jumping into an entirely different direction than you wanted -, it's plain annoying.

Thing is for me that for the most part AC doesn't really require that much precision. When exploring running up the wrong wall or jumping to the wrong beam is not that much of an issue. However the new features add a little extra when goofing around. In stealth the new controls can be annoying, but for the most part you are moving so slowly that it's not a problem. In chase sequences it is an issue, but they are so rare.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I was probably wrong :). It's just that I play so sloppy that I tend to repress the issues. But if the missions require more precision the new system will become a bigger issue, so I hope they do something about it.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:15 PM
Lying about the Templar Creed's motivations and objectives. We would have a harder time believing him had we not seen things from his point of view.



And the Assassin's seemed?



You could just as muck say all the good deeds Connor did was for the benefit of his Order or his village so he is just as much selfish as Haytham. Same for Ezio, Altair and any Assassin. If devotion to the Creed is considered a good trait then why should devotion to the Templar Order be looked down as selfish? Also he was never portrayed as a good guy, more as a grey guy.



Remember how he threatened to cut off his ship captain's head for merely insulting him? Or the moment where he almost inserted his blade in the captain's throat for not following his orders and risking his ship? Yes, merciful indeed. Haytham was always a ruthless man. In the beginning, and in the end. Maybe we ignored that because he was the protagonist that tie and not the enemy.



You are saying this because we reside in a universe where those sequences don't exist. Naval warfare, hunting, freaking Homestead, the whole Connor's adolescent period may seem like a filler too. Brotherhood was filled with fillers, they stretched 3 sequences worth of story to eight. It It depends on the writer's skills. If he is skillful enough he can put in fillers and make them seem like an integral part of the story.

For example there's a "six months later" before he returns to his village a last time. There could have been a sequence there where Bluecoats were evacuating his village and he arrives to fight them off. Just an example. There was even a scene in the story trailer showing him fighting bluecoats.

If an assassin goes to free a bunch of villagers, then there is far greater chance they are doing it for the sake of the people's freedom, but if templars do it, it's probably because they want to enslave these people eventually. I never said the assassins were all goodies, but at the end, the freedom of the people is their main objective and if they do so, it's because they lean on humanity and want its freedom, but the templars don't. As for Connor, then that can be argued. One might say he fought for the freedom of colonists, regardless of its benefit on his people in the benedict arnold missions. On the other hand, all the earlier stuff, he did for his people, so I am leaning towards the idea that he wants freedom for everyone, but he has his people as his priority.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:18 PM
That`s just damm racist D:

Oh well...Unlucky for you I guess...in time perhaps someone would post the story on the wiki...

I won't read any summaries. If it ain't the novel then I ain't reading it, so I'll wait for an online PDF.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:20 PM
May I remind you of Ezio's glorious deeds in Cappadocia? xD If Haytham is a hypocrite then all Assassins are worse.

Just a second there, Ezio's actions in Cappadocia were unintentional, while Haytham went out straight forward and started the massacre. But let's not go back and forth with this, because it would lead us no where. Just remember that assassins condone these actions, while Templars don't.

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 01:24 PM
If an assassin goes to free a bunch of villagers, then there is far greater chance they are doing it for the sake of the people's freedom, but if templars do it, it's probably because they want to enslave these people eventually.

There is a subtle difference between controlling and enslaving someone. The government controls us, to some extent. That doesn't mean they enslaved us. Same with the Templars. They aren't enslaving anyone, anymore than what their government is already doing. (note: Talking about the Colonial Templars and not Abstergo)


I never said the assassins were all goodies, but at the end, the freedom of the people is their main objective and if they do so, it's because they lean on humanity and want its freedom, but the templars don't.

Don't see how this automatically makes Assassins better than Templars. Control isn't an inherently despicable goal.


As for Connor, then that can be argued. One might say he fought for the freedom of colonists, regardless of its benefit on his people in the benedict arnold missions. On the other hand, all the earlier stuff, he did for his people, so I am leaning towards the idea that he wants freedom for everyone, but he has his people as his priority.

Even if he fought for the Colonists he did it because he believed his people would have a better future with the Colonists. His musings in the sequence-inbetweens make it clear. His goals are, at the end of the day, as selfish as Haytham's. Both fought for the colonists for their own agendas.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 01:24 PM
Just a second there, Ezio's actions in Cappadocia were unintentional, while Haytham went out straight forward and started the massacre. But let's not go back and forth with this, because it would lead us no where. Just remember that assassins condone these actions, while Templars don't.
So...you`re basically saying Ezio was an Idiot, because he did not know that blowing up a storage of gunpowder in a closed space would hurt anyone ? Or are you ignoring the fact that he DID know when the turkish woman told him "If you do that, you`ll panic the entire city" and then he replies "Si, I`m counting on it"

how about when Ezio starts the rebellion in front of the arsenal in Constantinople and 10s of people die ? did he not know that Guards wont shoot to kill ?:rolleyes:

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 01:26 PM
._. you're floating around with the pic the greatest assassin ever even he understood that Templars and Assassins share the same goal only different means, he tried to understand them as well and learned obviously. Why are you being so one-sided...

Gil_217
03-15-2013, 01:27 PM
Just a second there, Ezio's actions in Cappadocia were unintentional.

The hell? I hope you're joking.

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 01:29 PM
Just a second there, Ezio's actions in Cappadocia were unintentional

Hardly. He intended to use the smoke to close in on Paleolegos. Now if he didn't know that blowing up crates of gunpowder in an enclosed cave full of people would lead to massive casualties then I think its safe to say he was a monumental idiot.


while Haytham went out straight forward and started the massacre.

Same can be said for Haytham isn't it? He had his own goal in mind, whatever it was, and used the commotion to fulfil it. Same as Ezio.


Just remember that assassins condone these actions, while Templars don't.

So that means Ezio is a 1000 times bigger hypocrite, because his teachings specifically forbids him to do so, yet he went ahead and did it anyway! xD

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 01:30 PM
how about when Ezio starts the rebellion in front of the arsenal in Constantinople and 10s of people die ? did he not know that Guards wont shoot to kill ?:rolleyes:

LOL that too. Yusuf even calls Ezio out there. :p

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:33 PM
The hell? I hope you're joking.

He didn't seek to kill the people, but rather find a distraction to reach the templar, right?

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:34 PM
LOL that too. Yusuf even calls Ezio out there. :p

But you'd get full synch if no more than 10 die, so there's always that.

Gil_217
03-15-2013, 01:34 PM
He didn't seek to kill the people, but rather find a distraction to reach the templar, right?

For God's sake now, how does that make it any better?

You and a lot of people argue against the Templars because the means do not justify the ends, yet you defend Ezio's actions in Capadoccia.

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 01:35 PM
But you'd get full synch if no more than 10 die, so there's always that.

Still people die. He knew what would happen, exactly like Haytham at Boston. And he used civilians for his own aim again same as Haytham.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 01:36 PM
But you'd get full synch if no more than 10 die, so there's always that.
Oh come on now...really ?

Just walk out of the Arsenal after the mission and look at all the dead bodies...hell...the Boston massacre had only 3 people killed...that arsenal had a dozen..

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 01:36 PM
He didn't seek to kill the people, but rather find a distraction to reach the templar, right?

haytham didn't actively seek out and kill civilians either.

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 01:37 PM
I think I`m just going to link the Assassin/Templar thread...

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:37 PM
._. you're floating around with the pic the greatest assassin ever even he understood that Templars and Assassins share the same goal only different means, he tried to understand them as well and learned obviously. Why are you being so one-sided...

Sorry......? Aren't we arguing about the means and not the ends?

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:40 PM
Oh come on now...really ?

Just walk out of the Arsenal after the mission and look at all the dead bodies...hell...the Boston massacre had only 3 people killed...that arsenal had a dozen..

Well, **** Ezio, I won't be defending him any more. Also, maybe it's just there for providing a proper atmosphere.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 01:42 PM
Well, **** Ezio, I won't be defending him any more. Also, maybe it's just there for providing a proper atmosphere.
Then you are left with.....nothing?

Gil_217
03-15-2013, 01:42 PM
Hilarious that the main thing most people criticize about the Templars is the famous "means do not justify the ends" yet most of them defend some very questionable acts the Assassins do to reach their objectives like Ezio's actions in ACR. It's the exact same thing but incredibly only the Assassins can get away with it.

Hypocrites.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 01:43 PM
Hilarious that the main thing most people criticize about the Templars is the famous "means do not justify the ends" yet most of them defend some very questionable acts the Assassins do to reach their objectives like Ezio's actions in ACR. It's the exact same thing but incredibly only the Assassins can get away with it.

Hypocrites.
Haha yeah.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:44 PM
For God's sake now, how does that make it any better?

You and a lot of people argue against the Templars because the means do not justify the ends, yet you defend Ezio's actions in Capadoccia.

All I remember is that I saw people coughing from smoke. If people did die then bummer, but the general idea is that assassins DO NOT CONDONE the murdering of innocents rather than disregard it, whether that is obvious or not. It's not like that happened much in anything other than revelations?

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 01:45 PM
All I remember is that I saw people coughing from smoke. If people did die then bummer, but the general idea is that assassins CONDONE the murdering of innocents rather than disregard it, whether that is obvious or not. It's not like that happened much in anything other than revelations?
Altair killing Informants ? Ezio killing Dante ? (Who has the brain of a child)

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 01:45 PM
Hilarious that the main thing most people criticize about the Templars is the famous "means do not justify the ends" yet most of them defend some very questionable acts the Assassins do to reach their objectives like Ezio's actions in ACR. It's the exact same thing but incredibly only the Assassins can get away with it.

Hypocrites.

Exactly. Because the Assassins are the "good guys".

Also, Dante Moro. :rolleyes:

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 01:49 PM
All I remember is that I saw people coughing from smoke. If people did die then bummer, but the general idea is that assassins CONDONE the murdering of innocents rather than disregard it, whether that is obvious or not. It's not like that happened much in anything other than revelations?
Lol Ezio suffered ailments himself because of that smoke.



Ezio killing Dante ? (Who has the brain of a child)
http://devilmaycry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DmC-DMC3-Dante-642x361.jpg

Farlander1991
03-15-2013, 01:50 PM
Ezio in ACR was in a very '**** all this crap' state. He was tired, and didn't really care about Assassin tenants by that point anyway. So I don't think his questionable actions in ACR can really be justified from an Assassin point of view. Nor should they be.

Gil_217
03-15-2013, 01:51 PM
Don't get me wrong, I welcome the inclusion of these acts very much, thank God they included them and made the protagonist do these kind of actions. It makes the whole Assassin/Templar conflict much more grey and therefore a thousand times more interesting and it actually adds to the protagonist. I love it. Keep it this way.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 01:51 PM
Ezio in ACR was in a very '**** all this crap' state. He was tired, and didn't really care about Assassin tenants by that point anyway. So I don't think his questionable actions in ACR can really be justified from an Assassin point of view. Nor should they be.
Which tenants are we talking about exactly? Those from AC1?

Assassin_M
03-15-2013, 01:52 PM
Ezio in ACR was in a very '**** all this crap' state. He was tired, and didn't really care about Assassin tenants by that point anyway. So I don't think his questionable actions in ACR can really be justified from an Assassin point of view. Nor should they be.
Again, killing Dante ? Altair killing Informants ?

Because obviously all this Assassin love is just ridiculous as hell...how far are you guys willing to go actually to defend the Assassins ? My god xD

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:55 PM
Altair killing Informants ? Ezio killing Dante ? (Who has the brain of a child)

I only played a few hour of Alta´r and all informant missions had me beat the living informations out of them, but not till they die. As for Moro, my memory is a bit hazy about him, but wasn't he the one that challenged Ezio? I remember fighting him once in the ring and another time normally with weapons? I think I read somewhere that he felt sorry for Dante or soemething along the lines, not sure though.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 01:56 PM
I only played a few hour of Alta´r and all informant missions had me beat the living informations out of them, but not till they die.
We always killed them after we got the information.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:58 PM
Lol Ezio suffered ailments himself because of that smoke.



http://devilmaycry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DmC-DMC3-Dante-642x361.jpg

As they say here in Egypt, "betedek mana3a"(improves the immunity)

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 01:59 PM
As they say here in Egypt, "betedek mana3a"(improves the immunity)
Yes well his immunity 'improved' so much that he died.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 01:59 PM
We always killed them after we got the information.

Oh...... awkward. Were they templar informants? :P

Gil_217
03-15-2013, 02:00 PM
We always killed them after we got the information.

With them dramatically pleading for their lives only to receive a stab that trespassed their flesh and instantly killed them.

Just to complete what you said.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 02:00 PM
Yes well his immunity 'improved' so much that he died.

At least he died with a better immunal system.

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 02:03 PM
Yes well his immunity 'improved' so much that he died.

lmfao

Farlander1991
03-15-2013, 02:04 PM
Which tenants are we talking about exactly? Those from AC1?

I guess. I mean mostly the 'stay the blade from the innocent', because Ezio doesn't really care about that in AC:R at all, with the attack on arsenal and Cappadocia thing.


Again, killing Dante ? Altair killing Informants ?

What the hell killing Dante has to do with anything? As far as Ezio was concerned, he served Silvio (plus, all the information about Dante's past we get is from Shaun's video encyclopedia information, it's not like Ezio actually KNEW it), tried to kill him once, and was part of the Templar Order.

And the informants are in a very questionable area when it comes to 'innocence' in terms of Assassins vs. Templar war, since they're trying to push forward the Templar cause. And there's a danger of them warning the Templars. Pragmatism, just like Haytham's pragmatic in AC3. You're the one who acts all Connor-ish/Assassin-ish with questions like that :p

Also, most guards are more innocent than the informants, because they're just trying to uphold the law and don't have anything to do with the Templars anyway. And yet the games have no qualms against us killing them.


Because obviously all this Assassin love is just ridiculous as hell...how far are you guys willing to go actually to defend the Assassins ? My god xD

I'm not defending the Assassins. Like Shaun says, they kill people. It's what they DO. And it's not like they don't know the irony.

Plus, all I said in that first post is that Ezio didn't care about the tenants in AC:R, how is that defending anyway?

Dosenwabe
03-15-2013, 02:05 PM
I`m a veteran AC player (saying this, because some people say that the only fans who liked AC3 are the new ones) got the first one on february 2008 and loved it, then was a tiny bit disappointed with AC2 (Loved most of it, but felt the story was just dragged along with some very boring missions and lack of replayability), loved ACB and ACR, but AC3 just takes the cake. this is the best in the series. best Protagonist, best setting and awesome story. Just wanted to say this, because I got AC3 a few days ago and only finished it yesterday. I`m poor, so anyways, thank you, Ubisoft for the pinnacle of the franchise. AC3. I heard AC4 is on the way. looking forward to it I totally agree. AC3 was more into historical events then the previous games. But I'm not looking forward to AC4.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 02:06 PM
With them dramatically pleading for their lives only to receive a stab that trespassed their flesh and instantly killed them.

Just to complete what you said.

*throws smoke bomb and disappears"

But really, both factions are equally idiotic, but the way I see it, assassins GENERALLY handle things better, with a better approach to peace. Not always, but generally.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 02:12 PM
I totally agree. AC3 was more into historical events then the previous games.
That was the problem. The setting is supposed to serve as a BACKDROP, not the main focus.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 02:16 PM
That was the problem. The setting is supposed to serve as a BACKDROP, not the main focus.

You mean you didn't like Yves holding your hand through the "fabulous" AC movie about the American revolution?

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 02:20 PM
You mean you didn't like Yves holding your hand through the "fabulous" AC movie about the American revolution?
Yeah, I didn't like it at all. I see ACB and AC3 as the worst AC games.

Sushiglutton
03-15-2013, 02:25 PM
Yeah, I didn't like it at all. I see ACB and AC3 as the worst AC games.

Was AC:B really that hand holdy? It added a lot of great sandbox elements, but maybe the story missions were as bad as AC3? The way I recall it there was a lot more play built around core mechanics in AC:B than it was in AC3.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 02:28 PM
That was the problem. The setting is supposed to serve as a BACKDROP, not the main focus.


Yeah, I didn't like it at all. I see ACB and AC3 as the worst AC games.

ACB was hand-holdey, but it had stealth, so I can't rant much about gameplay.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 02:32 PM
Was AC:B really that hand holdy? It added a lot of great sandbox elements, but maybe the story missions were as bad as AC3? The way I recall it there was a lot more play built around core mechanics in AC:B than it was in AC3.
It was somewhat but I dislike it cause of the story and bland city.
Added a lot of gameplay elements tho.

Dosenwabe
03-15-2013, 02:34 PM
That was the problem. The setting is supposed to serve as a BACKDROP, not the main focus. Well I play the games mainly for historical reasons, so I love it that way and I liked how the story jumped from event to event. It should be always like that, making history the main focus.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 02:41 PM
Well I play the games mainly for historical reasons, so I love it that way and I liked how the story jumped from event to event. It should be always like that, making history the main focus.
Well then I guess you're out of luck cause only AC3 did that and well plenty of people dislike it because of them shoving the prot into events which makes 0 sense and kills any sense of "hidden" elements in history.

pirate1802
03-15-2013, 02:46 PM
Well then I guess you're out of luck cause only AC3 did that and well plenty of people dislike it because of them shoving the prot into events which makes 0 sense and kills any sense of "hidden" elements in history.

If they were so hell bent on showcasing the Revolution as the central theme they should have just went along with a British/Colonial Assassin. The plot would have felt more natural IMO.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 02:49 PM
If they were so hell bent on showcasing the Revolution as the central theme they should have just went along with a British/Colonial Assassin. The plot would have felt more natural IMO.
Yeah, well their decision I liked the characters of Connor and Haytham immensely but the story and overall feel of the game just didn't cut it. Giving the reins of their top franchise to someone new was very...foolish.

bveUSbve
03-15-2013, 02:59 PM
Was AC:B really that hand holdy? It added a lot of great sandbox elements, but maybe the story missions were as bad as AC3? The way I recall it there was a lot more play built around core mechanics in AC:B than it was in AC3.
It introduced the "Full Sync" concept. But it was mostly not as bad as it is in ACIII (imo).

The story may have been weak and the antagonists one dimensionally evil. But I liked Rome very much and the gameplay was easily the best in the series (imo). Of course the "War Machines" missions, though being quite fun (imo), tended to be a bit over-the-top ... :)

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 04:40 PM
Yeah, well their decision I liked the characters of Connor and Haytham immensely but the story and overall feel of the game just didn't cut it. Giving the reins of their top franchise to someone new was very...foolish.

What? The guys that made AC3 were mostly AC2 veterans, so they weren't by any means "new", but they were certainly foolish. Now the actual new guys in the series are the ones are making the game better, such as the glorious people aiming to make AC4 non-linear.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 04:46 PM
What? The guys that made AC3 were mostly AC2 veterans, so they weren't by any means "new", but they were certainly foolish. Now the actual new guys in the series are the ones are making the game better, such as the glorious people aiming to make AC4 non-linear.
Uhh...Alex Hutchinson was never on AC2, the previous game he worked on was Spore...guess what happened to it.

Farlander1991
03-15-2013, 05:18 PM
Uhh...Alex Hutchinson was never on AC2, the previous game he worked on was Spore...guess what happened to it.

Spore was a cluster**** of a development. The project had like a dozen of producers each pulling the project in a different direction.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 07:09 PM
Uhh...Alex Hutchinson was never on AC2, the previous game he worked on was Spore...guess what happened to it.
Work on*Assassin's Creed III*began in January 2010 (almost immediately after the release ofAssassin's Creed II) by a senior team of Ubisoft developers.[14]*The title has been in development for two and a half years and has the longest development cycle since the first*Assassin's Creed.
^straight from wikipedia, so they are definitely AC veterans. Maybe Patrice did make a difference?

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 07:26 PM
Work on*Assassin's Creed III*began in January 2010 (almost immediately after the release ofAssassin's Creed II) by a senior team of Ubisoft developers.[14]*The title has been in development for two and a half years and has the longest development cycle since the first*Assassin's Creed.
^straight from wikipedia, so they are definitely AC veterans. Maybe Patrice did make a difference?
Are you blind? I said Hutchinson was never on AC2 didn't say nobody from AC2 was on the team, he had just joined the company and the previous game he did was Spore.

ArabianFrost
03-15-2013, 08:04 PM
Are you blind? I said Hutchinson was never on AC2 didn't say nobody from AC2 was on the team, he had just joined the company and the previous game he did was Spore.

Then why did you mention him when I said the AC3 devs were mainly AC2 vets?

pacmanate
03-15-2013, 08:05 PM
Then why did you mention him when I said the AC3 devs were mainly AC2 vets?

God knows, you did say mainly not "all".

shobhit7777777
03-15-2013, 08:24 PM
You mean that one game about Forrest Gump in the American Revolution?


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7191/6926405345_11bf72a1c0.jpg



That was really good....I LOL'd IRL...very rare.

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 08:31 PM
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7191/6926405345_11bf72a1c0.jpg



That was really good....I LOL'd IRL...very rare.
As did I.

shobhit7777777
03-15-2013, 08:33 PM
As did I.

*raises glass*

ProletariatPleb
03-15-2013, 08:33 PM
Then why did you mention him when I said the AC3 devs were mainly AC2 vets?
What the hell's that supposed to mean dammit? I was saying something and you interrupted me with "Hurrr AC3 team was mainly AC2 devs" when I was talking about just one person

AssassinGame1
03-15-2013, 08:58 PM
I think AC3 is second best in the series the, it had a wide variety of thing to do but the glitches and lags messed it up (AC2 1st best)

iSoTryHard
03-16-2013, 01:13 PM
I do prefer AC 2 over anything. I have finished it 4 or 5 times (currently going through a 6th) and it was brilliant. I didnt like the AC 3 combat system and I would like to see them go back to the Brotherhood combat system. (updated stuff), AC 3 was good story wise and everything else was good expect for the combat system, not playing as connor for a long time and that connor was a bit flawed himself