PDA

View Full Version : Do you think ACR set a bad precedent for future protagonists?



LoyalACFan
05-07-2013, 10:53 PM
Contrary to many people's opinions, I actually quite enjoyed Revelations (minus the goofball parachute chase near the end) but I'm kind of worried now that I won't feel satisfied with future protagonists if I don't get to see their ENTIRE life. We know what happened to Altair and Ezio from pretty much birth to death; if a future character is left hanging, even if the story was perfectly well-crafted, I don't think I'll feel satisfied with it until I know how their life story ends. With Edward it isn't so much of a problem since we have the Forsaken novel, but it's definitely bothering me about Connor. IMO if we don't get to see the ultimate result of his struggles, he'll never feel like a "true" hero of the AC series like Alty or Ezio.

she-assassin
05-08-2013, 12:21 AM
Actually, it was much better when I didn't know Altair's whole story. I really didn't like the plot points introduced in Revelations, although I loved reading the Codex pages in AC2. I guess I would feel different if there was a sequel to AC1 released before AC2. The fact that ACR had just a few short missions with Altair in which he was voiced by a different voice actor didn't help either.

dxsxhxcx
05-08-2013, 12:26 AM
Actually, it was much better when I didn't know Altair's whole story. I really didn't like the plot points introduced in Revelations, although I loved reading the Codex pages in AC2. I guess I would feel different if there was a sequel to AC1 released before AC2. The fact that ACR had just a few short missions with Altair in which he was voiced by a different voice actor didn't help either.


(in case you didn't do that yet) you should read the book The Secret Crusade, it describes all the events (involving Altair) in ACR and more.. it's a good read (and IMO much better than what they did in the game) :)

Assassin_M
05-08-2013, 12:31 AM
Hey....you did not hear ?? we got more of Ezio because people loved Ezio....

she-assassin
05-08-2013, 12:31 AM
(in case you didn't do that yet) you should read the book The Secret Crusade, it describes all the events (involving Altair) in ACR and more.. it's a good read (and IMO much better than what they did in the game) :)
Yep. I guess I should read it. But then again, after the first two games I created certain headcanons that are really difficult to suppress. I'm clearly biased. :p

Bashilir
05-08-2013, 02:05 AM
With Connor, I want to see a Hero's death. The opponent(whoever it may be) AND Connor to die. I don't know, I feel like it should be different from the peaceful deaths the characters have had so far. To represent Connor's struggles and never having peace for too long.

dxsxhxcx
05-08-2013, 02:12 AM
With Connor, I want to see a Hero's death. The opponent(whoever it may be) AND Connor to die. I don't know, I feel like it should be different from the peaceful deaths the characters have had so far. To represent Connor's struggles and never having peace for too long.

I doubt we'll heard of Connor again anytime soon, otherwise we would've had a new game about him instead of Edward.

Megas_Doux
05-08-2013, 02:14 AM
Contrary to many people's opinions, I actually quite enjoyed Revelations (minus the goofball parachute chase near the end) but I'm kind of worried now that I won't feel satisfied with future protagonists if I don't get to see their ENTIRE life. We know what happened to Altair and Ezio from pretty much birth to death; if a future character is left hanging, even if the story was perfectly well-crafted, I don't think I'll feel satisfied with it until I know how their life story ends. With Edward it isn't so much of a problem since we have the Forsaken novel, but it's definitely bothering me about Connor. IMO if we don't get to see the ultimate result of his struggles, he'll never feel like a "true" hero of the AC series like Alty or Ezio.

I pretty much agree with you, I now believe that Ezio could have been "ok" with two instead of three games.......However I really enjoyed that meeting moment of Ezio and Altair, even though I felt his "missions" were rushed...

Bashilir
05-08-2013, 02:15 AM
I doubt we'll heard of Connor again anytime soon, otherwise we would've had a new game about him instead of Edward.

But wasn't AC4 started by team after Revelations or something? So, it's not like they would know how Connor would be received. They just need to complete an entire character's story in one game. The Ezio Trilogy just.. no. His story could've been summed up in Brotherhood.

Assassin_M
05-08-2013, 02:16 AM
I doubt we'll heard of Connor again anytime soon, otherwise we would've had a new game about him instead of Edward.
Like everyone keeps saying a 100 times, Connor not starring in his game`s sequel does not mean it`ll take a long time before we see him again

dxsxhxcx
05-08-2013, 02:19 AM
Like everyone keeps saying a 100 times, Connor not starring in his game`s sequel does not mean it`ll take a long time before we see him again

well, I was talking about a proper sequel (like we had with Ezio) and not only "guest appearance" in a game..



I pretty much agree with you, I now believe that Ezio could have been "ok" with two instead of three games.......However I really enjoyed that meeting moment of Ezio and Altair, even though I felt his "missions" were rushed.

IMO ACR could've been a much better game if instead of release ACB in the next year, they had used this time to develop ACR and release it in 2011...

Legendz54
05-08-2013, 02:22 AM
They could go back to Connor in the french revolution after Edward. Not getting my hopes up because that decision has probably been made already.

Megas_Doux
05-08-2013, 02:22 AM
I terms of Connor, given the fact he is my favorite assassin, cant say I do not want to "play" with him again, but I I prefer having new ancestors and settings with every game. That iswhy I like releases with a minimum of two years in between.....Besides I think some "mystery" is needed.

But visiting their tombs and knowing "something" of their outcome, might combine the best of both worlds.

I-Like-Pie45
05-08-2013, 02:30 AM
With Connor's story arc, I'd be satisfied if we got a movie or comic that tied everything up.

Multiple games for everyone is only going to further saturate an already supersaturated solution of games.

LoyalACFan
05-08-2013, 04:37 AM
Like everyone keeps saying a 100 times, Connor not starring in his game`s sequel does not mean it`ll take a long time before we see him again

But his reception was pretty abysmal. He has plenty of fans here (me included) but the general public wasn't so kind. He's trailing Altair and Ezio by FAR in Ubi's Facebook poll, which is a wildly different story than popularity polls on these forums. I wouldn't be surprised if he never got a sequel.

twenty_glyphs
05-08-2013, 02:47 PM
I do think that Revelations hurt by setting up the expectation that we would see entire life story arcs of protagonists in the series. I don't expect to see ancestors' full life stories, but now many fans expect that from the series simply because it happened with Ezio and they're going to get upset when it doesn't happen for Connor, Edward, etc. I think they did a decent job of stretching out Ezio's story, but I don't want to see that happen with every ancestor. There was nothing wrong with only living a few months of Altaïr's life in AC1. Now, the Codex pages in AC2 did a great job of growing his character and giving us a glimpse of the rest of his life. I wouldn't mind seeing them expand on ancestors' lives with something similar in the future.

I don't even want to see huge chunks of ancestors' lives every time. I liked Ezio's arc in AC2 and seeing him from a teenager through his 40s, but they shouldn't do that every time out. I felt like Connor's story tried to be a little too epic and covered so much of his life that I got numb to it. It seems like a good idea that they're just starting out with Edward as an adult and telling the story of the most interesting part of his life, with the most interesting character development. They should try to tell stories about interesting parts of ancestors' lives, not always tell the epic of their life from childhood to late adulthood.

LoyalACFan
05-08-2013, 03:42 PM
I felt like Connor's story tried to be a little too epic and covered so much of his life that I got numb to it.

:confused: Connor's story covered the same amount of time AC2 did. AC2 was age 17-40, AC3 was only age 5-27. 23 years each.

dxsxhxcx
05-08-2013, 03:50 PM
I do think that Revelations hurt by setting up the expectation that we would see entire life story arcs of protagonists in the series. I don't expect to see ancestors' full life stories, but now many fans expect that from the series simply because it happened with Ezio and they're going to get upset when it doesn't happen for Connor, Edward, etc. I think they did a decent job of stretching out Ezio's story, but I don't want to see that happen with every ancestor. There was nothing wrong with only living a few months of Altaïr's life in AC1. Now, the Codex pages in AC2 did a great job of growing his character and giving us a glimpse of the rest of his life. I wouldn't mind seeing them expand on ancestors' lives with something similar in the future.



IMO the only problem with it is that it would be too good to be true if all the ancestors we control had wrote some sort of Codex that will end up in the hands of the next ancestor we play conveniently showing us more of the previous ancestor story...

montagemik
05-08-2013, 05:08 PM
Like everyone keeps saying a 100 times, Connor not starring in his game`s sequel does not mean it`ll take a long time before we see him again



From what i've heard so far - WE have No guarantee the next game following Black Flag will be AC 5 & not just another AC-4 "**"
I'm Still not convinced AC4-BF is the entire or main AC-4 game ............
Perhaps it has a subtitle as it's Abstergo at the helm or maybe it's an actual prequel to the main AC-4 game following William's group & the assassin's story .

Connor / Haytham or any other character can be re-visited at any point in their lives within the AC saga - Direct succession throughout the series like Ezio trilogy can actually detract from the Assassin character .
Over saturation can lead to the perception of less mystery & more meh meh meh.

Altair's story took a break before final conclusion was depicted in the series.
Ubisoft could well do the same with Connor / Edward or even the earlier life of Haytham.

I don't so much think Ezio trilogy / AC-R set a bad precedent - but i do think it was originally intended to be an expanded Ezio DUO story & not a trilogy.
(possibly over extended to bridge the AC-3 Development timeframe )

twenty_glyphs
05-08-2013, 05:43 PM
:confused: Connor's story covered the same amount of time AC2 did. AC2 was age 17-40, AC3 was only age 5-27. 23 years each.

Yeah, and after that had just happened in the last numbered installment, I got numb to going through that much of someone's life again. I also found Haytham's role and Connor's childhood to be more tedious and took too long to get moving, whereas Ezio's story had things happening right away. I think because Ezio's story started when he was almost an adult, it never really even felt like the time span was that great to me. It felt more like revisiting him at different episodes in his life once you hit Venice, and the only real measure of passing time was the year changing when the sequence started.


IMO the only problem with it is that it would be too good to be true if all the ancestors we control had wrote some sort of Codex that will end up in the hands of the next ancestor we play conveniently showing us more of the previous ancestor story...

Yeah, I'm just saying it would be cool if there was something that served the same purpose as the Codex. And it doesn't always have to be the next ancestor, it could be 2-3 games down the line where a new ancestor can discover new details about a former protagonist's life from an older time that's relevant to their story. There could be many other ways to tell those mini-stories than just a diary that person kept.

hoodrat94
05-08-2013, 06:03 PM
I think AC3 set a bad precedent! two of my friend bought ac3, one of them was not a fan and the other guy was. AC3 comes out, and both of them played it. So i asked the ac fan what did he think of ac3 and his reply was " Man after 6-7 months of hype when i get some sh!t like this, it makes me angry!" he sold his game next day. The non-ac fan was so happy he pre ordered black flag limited edition for ps3! So that kinda tell me, AC3 was sort of meant for newcomer and dissapointed a lot of old fans! i cant speak for everyone, some of the old fans were quite happy with ac3 but i was not one of them. No more preorders from! not that ubi cares, but still!
And yes i did enjoy revelations more than ac3.

montagemik
05-08-2013, 06:23 PM
I think AC3 set a bad precedent! two of my friend bought ac3, one of them was not a fan and the other guy was. AC3 comes out, and both of them played it. So i asked the ac fan what did he think of ac3 and his reply was " Man after 6-7 months of hype when i get some sh!t like this, it makes me angry!" he sold his game next day. The non-ac fan was so happy he pre ordered black flag limited edition for ps3! So that kinda tell me, AC3 was sort of meant for newcomer and dissapointed a lot of old fans! i cant speak for everyone, some of the old fans were quite happy with ac3 but i was not one of them. No more preorders from! not that ubi cares, but still!
And yes i did enjoy revelations more than ac3.

All it tells me is your friend has no patience ............HE chose to believe the 6-7 months of HYPE - HE chose to ditch the game before even playing the whole thing .............
Wonder if he throws away Xmas gifts he doesn't like too :rolleyes:

STDlyMcStudpants
05-08-2013, 06:33 PM
I think AC3 set a bad precedent! two of my friend bought ac3, one of them was not a fan and the other guy was. AC3 comes out, and both of them played it. So i asked the ac fan what did he think of ac3 and his reply was " Man after 6-7 months of hype when i get some sh!t like this, it makes me angry!" he sold his game next day. The non-ac fan was so happy he pre ordered black flag limited edition for ps3! So that kinda tell me, AC3 was sort of meant for newcomer and dissapointed a lot of old fans! i cant speak for everyone, some of the old fans were quite happy with ac3 but i was not one of them. No more preorders from! not that ubi cares, but still!
And yes i did enjoy revelations more than ac3.

I always say, your view on Assassins Creed depends greatly on where you start.
Assassins Creed Revelations was The first Game I played and finished...Assassins Creed 1 was the 2nd game I played (didnt finish) Then I played and finished Assassins Creed 3..then Played and finished Assassins Creed Brotherhood..then finish Assassins Creed 1 and Finally played and Finished Assassins Creed 2

And Assassins Creed 3 is my favorite in the series...I got to judge the series is a whole..not many do..most just remember their first experience with the game..I can see at the time it came out, that Yes Assassins Creed 2 was absolutely amazing and you didnt get that huge transition over the years like you did from AC 1 to AC 2..and for that reason people remember AC 2 as this monster perfect game....
But I had that same experience when I went from Revelations and AC 1 to AC 3....and your friend had that experience from nothing to AC 3..and that can make all of the difference....our experience wasnt ruined by being stuck on a transition that happened 3 years ago...

STDlyMcStudpants
05-08-2013, 06:40 PM
As far as not knowing how story ends with the assassin. From what I have heard from reviewers and people that get inside scoops for game development in ubi, etc...We are SUPPOSED to be Getting 3 games from the Kenway family.
It has been confirmed that Ezio Trilogy will never happen again with another assassin..they want to keep the assassin fresh...good thing 2 games dont count as a trilogy ;)
Either we will meet a new member of the family or we will play as Connor and Edward (if we dont see his ending in this game) for one last time in 2014.
Unless Assassins Creed 10 is some giant monster ending game where we play a 2 hour story of every assassin :D

hoodrat94
05-08-2013, 06:41 PM
All it tells me is your friend has no patience ............HE chose to believe the 6-7 months of HYPE - HE chose to ditch the game before even playing the whole thing .............
Wonder if he throws away Xmas gifts he doesn't like too :rolleyes:

Did i even say that he didn't play the whole thing? where did you get that idea?
He has a platinum on that game just like all the other ac, which i dont even have! (played 3 rev on pc - thats why)
He sold the game a day after i spoke to hi about it.

guardian_titan
05-08-2013, 07:09 PM
I was doing some research into possible scenarios for Connor and found 2 that are more likely than the French Revolution and neither require Connor to leave North America.

The first is the Northwest Indian War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War
http://nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/northwest-indian-war/
Why? This occurred from 1785-1795. The war also led to a treaty in 1794 that allowed Mohawks (and thus Connor) to own land. Connor has a reason to participate in this war, especially if Davenport got taken out from under him by the government. Maybe the government held Davenport over Connor's head and told him to help them and he'd get Davenport back. Refuse and they'd sell it to the highest bidder after kicking the homesteaders off of it. This may explain why Connor's lounging around in the woods in (roughly) 1788 for TOKW rather than in Davenport. He could be depressed over events in the war or considering how he wanted to proceed. Possibly he was grappling with siding with the natives or helping the Americans in the war. Due to his reaction to Washington in TOKW, seems he harbors no ill will toward the man who seems to have a habit or torching native land.
This war also tends to be neglected in history books or relegated to a simple paragraph that doesn't even name the war. Although officially, it has no name and is known by a variety of other names. It'd be a great thing for Ubisoft to cover in a Connor sequel because it is such a little known war with a massive implication for Connor. I know when I was in school, this war was never covered. I very much doubt it was covered beyond a 5 minute mention in a class lecture in other schools. I also doubt it was covered in any classrooms outside of the United States.

The second is the War of 1812.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812
Why? This war was from 1812-1815 which is relevant to Davenport. This war also saw the Mohawks side against the American government. It also affected trade which is something Connor took part in during AC3. It's not unlikely Connor took to it more regularly after the war to help build the new United States. So having Thomas Jefferson impose embargos and the like would step on his toes along with his people fighting against the Americans. It's mentioned in the AC3 database that Davenport vanished in the early 1800s. The War of 1812 and the natives losing explains why. Connor either sided with his people and lost everything or he sided with the Americans and still lost everything. It's possible Connor died while trying to protect Davenport or died afterward after going suicidal over losing everything (except the kid that was Desmond's ancestor obviously).

The French Revolution was 1789-1799. If Connor took part, it'd either be after the Northwest Indian War or he'd have to ignore the Northwest Indian War to go run across the ocean to help a nation he'd really have no reason to help. Beyond Lafayette, Connor has little reason to be in France prior to 1795. Connor's not the type to just abandon his people or his home. France would have to wait since he'd only be there to help a friend. The French Revolution was also pretty bloody with the beheading of various nobles. Lafayette was lucky in that he only got banished. The American Revolution, by contrast, was a walk in the park. Americans didn't cross the ocean and behead King George and the members of Parliament. Most of what I remember of Americans doing to the British was tarring and feathering them beyond humiliating and/or intimidating them in various other fashions. If the Assassins and Templars were participating in the French Revolution, it would be a good war to show the grey area regarding violence between the two groups. Both groups likely resulted in a lot of bloodshed trying to influence the French Revolution their way.

Food for thought: New Orleans was nearly entirely destroyed by a fire in March 1788. So Connor would not only be in a conflict between his people and Lafayette but also helping his fellow assassin, Aveline. She likely lost everything as well, that is if she didn't die in the fire. Maybe Connor was thinking about Aveline's predicament (or perhaps death) in TOKW.

Looking at history, it's kind of easy to see how Connor's life could've gone. No matter how you look at it, Achilles saying that real life isn't a fairy tale and there are no happy endings eludes to Connor's life falling to pieces. Unfortunately, Connor can't have a happy ending no matter how you look at it. Regardless of where he goes, he'd be ostracized. But compared to Altair and Ezio who both got to die of old age, Connor likely died violently much like Edward and Haytham. Seems to be a trend with the Kenways. :p I'd bet Connor's grandson likely ended up dying in the American Civil War.

Suppose it begs the question if we really want to know what happens to Connor for the closure or if we'd rather have our fingers in our ears going la la la la believing he got a happy ending. Given what I've seen in my research regarding the above wars, Connor would likely die violently before the age of 60 ... which is again another Kenway trend. For the males anyway. :p

STDlyMcStudpants
05-08-2013, 10:15 PM
I was doing some research into possible scenarios for Connor and found 2 that are more likely than the French Revolution and neither require Connor to leave North America.

The first is the Northwest Indian War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War
http://nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/northwest-indian-war/
Why? This occurred from 1785-1795. The war also led to a treaty in 1794 that allowed Mohawks (and thus Connor) to own land. Connor has a reason to participate in this war, especially if Davenport got taken out from under him by the government. Maybe the government held Davenport over Connor's head and told him to help them and he'd get Davenport back. Refuse and they'd sell it to the highest bidder after kicking the homesteaders off of it. This may explain why Connor's lounging around in the woods in (roughly) 1788 for TOKW rather than in Davenport. He could be depressed over events in the war or considering how he wanted to proceed. Possibly he was grappling with siding with the natives or helping the Americans in the war. Due to his reaction to Washington in TOKW, seems he harbors no ill will toward the man who seems to have a habit or torching native land.
This war also tends to be neglected in history books or relegated to a simple paragraph that doesn't even name the war. Although officially, it has no name and is known by a variety of other names. It'd be a great thing for Ubisoft to cover in a Connor sequel because it is such a little known war with a massive implication for Connor. I know when I was in school, this war was never covered. I very much doubt it was covered beyond a 5 minute mention in a class lecture in other schools. I also doubt it was covered in any classrooms outside of the United States.

The second is the War of 1812.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812
Why? This war was from 1812-1815 which is relevant to Davenport. This war also saw the Mohawks side against the American government. It also affected trade which is something Connor took part in during AC3. It's not unlikely Connor took to it more regularly after the war to help build the new United States. So having Thomas Jefferson impose embargos and the like would step on his toes along with his people fighting against the Americans. It's mentioned in the AC3 database that Davenport vanished in the early 1800s. The War of 1812 and the natives losing explains why. Connor either sided with his people and lost everything or he sided with the Americans and still lost everything. It's possible Connor died while trying to protect Davenport or died afterward after going suicidal over losing everything (except the kid that was Desmond's ancestor obviously).

The French Revolution was 1789-1799. If Connor took part, it'd either be after the Northwest Indian War or he'd have to ignore the Northwest Indian War to go run across the ocean to help a nation he'd really have no reason to help. Beyond Lafayette, Connor has little reason to be in France prior to 1795. Connor's not the type to just abandon his people or his home. France would have to wait since he'd only be there to help a friend. The French Revolution was also pretty bloody with the beheading of various nobles. Lafayette was lucky in that he only got banished. The American Revolution, by contrast, was a walk in the park. Americans didn't cross the ocean and behead King George and the members of Parliament. Most of what I remember of Americans doing to the British was tarring and feathering them beyond humiliating and/or intimidating them in various other fashions. If the Assassins and Templars were participating in the French Revolution, it would be a good war to show the grey area regarding violence between the two groups. Both groups likely resulted in a lot of bloodshed trying to influence the French Revolution their way.

Food for thought: New Orleans was nearly entirely destroyed by a fire in March 1788. So Connor would not only be in a conflict between his people and Lafayette but also helping his fellow assassin, Aveline. She likely lost everything as well, that is if she didn't die in the fire. Maybe Connor was thinking about Aveline's predicament (or perhaps death) in TOKW.

Looking at history, it's kind of easy to see how Connor's life could've gone. No matter how you look at it, Achilles saying that real life isn't a fairy tale and there are no happy endings eludes to Connor's life falling to pieces. Unfortunately, Connor can't have a happy ending no matter how you look at it. Regardless of where he goes, he'd be ostracized. But compared to Altair and Ezio who both got to die of old age, Connor likely died violently much like Edward and Haytham. Seems to be a trend with the Kenways. :p I'd bet Connor's grandson likely ended up dying in the American Civil War.

Suppose it begs the question if we really want to know what happens to Connor for the closure or if we'd rather have our fingers in our ears going la la la la believing he got a happy ending. Given what I've seen in my research regarding the above wars, Connor would likely die violently before the age of 60 ... which is again another Kenway trend. For the males anyway. :p

Id actually love that..but i think its too late...something like that would almost guarantee a Connor trilogy...I have a hunch the next AC with be ACR like where we travel and mirror the life of edward and connor..possible adam and eve too..it would be nice to see AC remember its own history and continue with the main story

pacmanate
05-08-2013, 10:26 PM
I think AC3 set a bad precedent! two of my friend bought ac3, one of them was not a fan and the other guy was. AC3 comes out, and both of them played it. So i asked the ac fan what did he think of ac3 and his reply was " Man after 6-7 months of hype when i get some sh!t like this, it makes me angry!" he sold his game next day. The non-ac fan was so happy he pre ordered black flag limited edition for ps3! So that kinda tell me, AC3 was sort of meant for newcomer and dissapointed a lot of old fans! i cant speak for everyone, some of the old fans were quite happy with ac3 but i was not one of them. No more preorders from! not that ubi cares, but still!
And yes i did enjoy revelations more than ac3.


Actually that backs up my point, it was OVER HYPED. Your AC fan friend fell into the trap a lot of us did, it was hyped to be an amazing leap, and it wasn't. That non AC fan would be happy, because he knew practically nothing, and heres the thing, AC3 was not a bad game, it was just not what it was made out to be.

AssassinHMS
05-08-2013, 10:48 PM
Actually that backs up my point, it was OVER HYPED. Your AC fan friend fell into the trap a lot of us did, it was hyped to be an amazing leap, and it wasn't. That non AC fan would be happy, because he knew practically nothing, and heres the thing, AC3 was not a bad game, it was just not what it was made out to be.

Hype was the least of AC3's problems. AC3 wasn't a bad game but it was an awful Assassin's Creed game.

Rugterwyper32
05-08-2013, 11:04 PM
Northwest Indian War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War
http://nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/northwest-indian-war/
Why? This occurred from 1785-1795. The war also led to a treaty in 1794 that allowed Mohawks (and thus Connor) to own land. Connor has a reason to participate in this war, especially if Davenport got taken out from under him by the government. Maybe the government held Davenport over Connor's head and told him to help them and he'd get Davenport back. Refuse and they'd sell it to the highest bidder after kicking the homesteaders off of it. This may explain why Connor's lounging around in the woods in (roughly) 1788 for TOKW rather than in Davenport. He could be depressed over events in the war or considering how he wanted to proceed. Possibly he was grappling with siding with the natives or helping the Americans in the war. Due to his reaction to Washington in TOKW, seems he harbors no ill will toward the man who seems to have a habit or torching native land.
This war also tends to be neglected in history books or relegated to a simple paragraph that doesn't even name the war. Although officially, it has no name and is known by a variety of other names. It'd be a great thing for Ubisoft to cover in a Connor sequel because it is such a little known war with a massive implication for Connor. I know when I was in school, this war was never covered. I very much doubt it was covered beyond a 5 minute mention in a class lecture in other schools. I also doubt it was covered in any classrooms outside of the United States.
===
Food for thought: New Orleans was nearly entirely destroyed by a fire in March 1788. So Connor would not only be in a conflict between his people and Lafayette but also helping his fellow assassin, Aveline. She likely lost everything as well, that is if she didn't die in the fire. Maybe Connor was thinking about Aveline's predicament (or perhaps death) in TOKW.

Looking at history, it's kind of easy to see how Connor's life could've gone. No matter how you look at it, Achilles saying that real life isn't a fairy tale and there are no happy endings eludes to Connor's life falling to pieces. Unfortunately, Connor can't have a happy ending no matter how you look at it. Regardless of where he goes, he'd be ostracized. But compared to Altair and Ezio who both got to die of old age, Connor likely died violently much like Edward and Haytham. Seems to be a trend with the Kenways. :p I'd bet Connor's grandson likely ended up dying in the American Civil War.

Suppose it begs the question if we really want to know what happens to Connor for the closure or if we'd rather have our fingers in our ears going la la la la believing he got a happy ending. Given what I've seen in my research regarding the above wars, Connor would likely die violently before the age of 60 ... which is again another Kenway trend. For the males anyway. :p

Kept the parts that I'm interested in discussing here. First, we have that which was something I was actually thinking of earlier. And then you mentioned this, and your idea works perfectly. Connor being at crossroads would be very interesting: On one hand, having to protect his people; on the other hand, protecting the Davenport homestead; and finally, protecting the Brotherhood and hunting down Templars and finding out what they're planning on doing. It would make for a very interesting situation, I think. Make the map one big Frontier that adds the cities as part of it rather than separate areas, and I think we could have something great. Detroit and Philadelphia as main cities, have Pittsburgh as a smaller village in-between, and the homestead around the area. Lots of forts around, considering it could cover the Ohio-Pennsylvania area.
I think that it does have potential. And then end up looking from the eyes of Connor's son and witness Connor's death. I do believe there'd be something great there if done well.

Megas_Doux
05-09-2013, 01:13 AM
Hype was the least of AC3's problems. AC3 wasn't a bad game but it was an awful Assassin's Creed game.

No!

AC3 had much more "AC like" elements than ACB for instance, like a very soli story, with very good antagonists.....

LoyalACFan
05-09-2013, 01:15 AM
I was doing some research into possible scenarios for Connor and found 2 that are more likely than the French Revolution and neither require Connor to leave North America.

The first is the Northwest Indian War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War
http://nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/northwest-indian-war/
Why? This occurred from 1785-1795. The war also led to a treaty in 1794 that allowed Mohawks (and thus Connor) to own land. Connor has a reason to participate in this war, especially if Davenport got taken out from under him by the government. Maybe the government held Davenport over Connor's head and told him to help them and he'd get Davenport back. Refuse and they'd sell it to the highest bidder after kicking the homesteaders off of it. This may explain why Connor's lounging around in the woods in (roughly) 1788 for TOKW rather than in Davenport. He could be depressed over events in the war or considering how he wanted to proceed. Possibly he was grappling with siding with the natives or helping the Americans in the war. Due to his reaction to Washington in TOKW, seems he harbors no ill will toward the man who seems to have a habit or torching native land.
This war also tends to be neglected in history books or relegated to a simple paragraph that doesn't even name the war. Although officially, it has no name and is known by a variety of other names. It'd be a great thing for Ubisoft to cover in a Connor sequel because it is such a little known war with a massive implication for Connor. I know when I was in school, this war was never covered. I very much doubt it was covered beyond a 5 minute mention in a class lecture in other schools. I also doubt it was covered in any classrooms outside of the United States.

The second is the War of 1812.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812
Why? This war was from 1812-1815 which is relevant to Davenport. This war also saw the Mohawks side against the American government. It also affected trade which is something Connor took part in during AC3. It's not unlikely Connor took to it more regularly after the war to help build the new United States. So having Thomas Jefferson impose embargos and the like would step on his toes along with his people fighting against the Americans. It's mentioned in the AC3 database that Davenport vanished in the early 1800s. The War of 1812 and the natives losing explains why. Connor either sided with his people and lost everything or he sided with the Americans and still lost everything. It's possible Connor died while trying to protect Davenport or died afterward after going suicidal over losing everything (except the kid that was Desmond's ancestor obviously).

The French Revolution was 1789-1799. If Connor took part, it'd either be after the Northwest Indian War or he'd have to ignore the Northwest Indian War to go run across the ocean to help a nation he'd really have no reason to help. Beyond Lafayette, Connor has little reason to be in France prior to 1795. Connor's not the type to just abandon his people or his home. France would have to wait since he'd only be there to help a friend. The French Revolution was also pretty bloody with the beheading of various nobles. Lafayette was lucky in that he only got banished. The American Revolution, by contrast, was a walk in the park. Americans didn't cross the ocean and behead King George and the members of Parliament. Most of what I remember of Americans doing to the British was tarring and feathering them beyond humiliating and/or intimidating them in various other fashions. If the Assassins and Templars were participating in the French Revolution, it would be a good war to show the grey area regarding violence between the two groups. Both groups likely resulted in a lot of bloodshed trying to influence the French Revolution their way.

Food for thought: New Orleans was nearly entirely destroyed by a fire in March 1788. So Connor would not only be in a conflict between his people and Lafayette but also helping his fellow assassin, Aveline. She likely lost everything as well, that is if she didn't die in the fire. Maybe Connor was thinking about Aveline's predicament (or perhaps death) in TOKW.

Looking at history, it's kind of easy to see how Connor's life could've gone. No matter how you look at it, Achilles saying that real life isn't a fairy tale and there are no happy endings eludes to Connor's life falling to pieces. Unfortunately, Connor can't have a happy ending no matter how you look at it. Regardless of where he goes, he'd be ostracized. But compared to Altair and Ezio who both got to die of old age, Connor likely died violently much like Edward and Haytham. Seems to be a trend with the Kenways. :p I'd bet Connor's grandson likely ended up dying in the American Civil War.

Suppose it begs the question if we really want to know what happens to Connor for the closure or if we'd rather have our fingers in our ears going la la la la believing he got a happy ending. Given what I've seen in my research regarding the above wars, Connor would likely die violently before the age of 60 ... which is again another Kenway trend. For the males anyway. :p

I think he'd be too old for the War of 1812 (he'd be 60 by the end of it) but the Northwest Indian war sounds perfect.

AssassinHMS
05-09-2013, 10:12 AM
No!

AC3 had much more "AC like" elements than ACB for instance, like a very soli story, with very good antagonists.....

Face it. The story was the only aspect in AC3 that had something to do with the franchise. I could write a huge essay on how AC3 was an awfull AC game, about how it despises everything AC stands for, why it turned this franchise into a cheap *****, etc...
So save me some time and stop denying the obvious, stop protecting AC3 as if it was your child and treat it as it is, as a stain in the series. Be rational and help improve this franchise by pointing what's wrong with it (AC3 is the materialization of all those things that are killing the franchise).

lothario-da-be
05-09-2013, 10:30 AM
Face it. The story was the only aspect in AC3 that had something to do with the franchise. I could write a huge essay on how AC3 was an awfull AC game, about how it despises everything AC stands for, why it turned this franchise into a cheap *****, etc...
So save me some time and stop denying the obvious, stop protecting AC3 as if it was your child and treat it as it is, as a stain in the series. Be rational and help improve this franchise by pointing what's wrong with it (AC3 is the materialization of all those things that are killing the franchise).
And i could write a huge essay on how ac3 was an Awesome game.You can say what you want about its flaws, but its still a very good game with much innovation.

AssassinHMS
05-09-2013, 10:51 AM
And i could write a huge essay on how ac3 was an Awesome game.You can say what you want about its flaws, but its still a very good game with much innovation.

I stated it wasn't a bad game since, like you said, it innovated and acomplished a few things, however while it inovated by bringing naval batles and whatnot, it completely forgot the core aspects (navigation, stealth and combat). AC3 wasn't just a change of skin for the franchise, it was a change of heart. The assassin's creed we knew wasn't there (stealth, freedom, mysteries, conspiracies, atmosphere, assassinations...) AC3 is the creation of people who are whiling to forget and destroy the AC franchise just to appeal to everyone, just to increase the sales. I attack the game to attack the devs, to expose what's wrong with the franchise.

Megas_Doux
05-09-2013, 12:09 PM
I (navigation, stealth and combat).

Navigation????

Connor has, and by far the most realistic movement mechanics in the series........

Stealth?????

Hidding behing columns, staking zones, silently killis with the bare hands, etc etc. However I can give you the point of its not very good implementation.


And combat???????

Eziosīs trilogy ruined the original idea of ACīs combat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Medicine, huge and bulky armors -mostly on ACB and ACR-.I have tried to literally die on ACB, and failed..........AC3 is a point back to its roots, no armor, no medicines.

twenty_glyphs
05-09-2013, 02:42 PM
Navigation????

Connor has, and by far the most realistic movement mechanics in the series........

Good luck controlling those mechanics to direct Connor in the direction you want to move. They also removed movement control we previously had in the series, and navigation became even more mindless. Navigation was not perfect before, but it was more fun with more control over the character before AC3.


Stealth?????

Hidding behing columns, staking zones, silently killis with the bare hands, etc etc. However I can give you the point of its not very good implementation.

So what's the point of all these new mechanics if they're not implemented well? AC3 has by far the worst "stealth" of the series. The AI for stealth is essentially broken. They even completely ruined the hiding in the crowd mechanic. It's nearly impossible to do that now because of the way they redid crowds. It's not a challenging system, but a system where you'll suddenly be detected with no idea what you did wrong. And 20 guards will magically swarm your current location when you're detected. If I didn't know better, I'd say the game is actively trying to discourage stealth and promote combat.


And combat???????

Eziosīs trilogy ruined the original idea of ACīs combat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Medicine, huge and bulky armors -mostly on ACB and ACR-.I have tried to literally die on ACB, and failed..........AC3 is a point back to its roots, no armor, no medicines.

I'm glad AC3's combat had no armor or medicine, but it wasn't a fun system for me. It's like a poor man's Batman: Arkham Asylum combat, not implemented nearly as well as the original. I didn't like the rhythm of combat they ended up with, or the enemies that could only be beaten with a certain button combination. Combat has never been AC's strong point, but AC3's seemed to annoy me the most.

AssassinHMS
05-09-2013, 07:14 PM
Good luck controlling those mechanics to direct Connor in the direction you want to move. They also removed movement control we previously had in the series, and navigation became even more mindless. Navigation was not perfect before, but it was more fun with more control over the character before AC3.



So what's the point of all these new mechanics if they're not implemented well? AC3 has by far the worst "stealth" of the series. The AI for stealth is essentially broken. They even completely ruined the hiding in the crowd mechanic. It's nearly impossible to do that now because of the way they redid crowds. It's not a challenging system, but a system where you'll suddenly be detected with no idea what you did wrong. And 20 guards will magically swarm your current location when you're detected. If I didn't know better, I'd say the game is actively trying to discourage stealth and promote combat.



I'm glad AC3's combat had no armor or medicine, but it wasn't a fun system for me. It's like a poor man's Batman: Arkham Asylum combat, not implemented nearly as well as the original. I didn't like the rhythm of combat they ended up with, or the enemies that could only be beaten with a certain button combination. Combat has never been AC's strong point, but AC3's seemed to annoy me the most.

Well said! Not to mention all the other problems AC3 had. And all of this could have been avoided if the devs had just respected the franchise instead of thinking only about boosting the sales. They lied about the game's features, they wasted their time trying to please everyone with naval battles, with a cinematic experience filled with action and explosions and they reached their goal: 12 million copies sold and in the process they killed the franchise.
They're no better than mercenaries.

Assassin_M
05-09-2013, 07:25 PM
I find the words "admit it" and "face it" rather annoying...just as it is annoying to convince someone that AC III is the best game ever...

Hello ?? grow up ? Opinions ?

AssassinHMS
05-09-2013, 08:11 PM
I find the words "admit it" and "face it" rather annoying...just as it is annoying to convince someone that AC III is the best game ever...

Hello ?? grow up ? Opinions ?

We need to face and accept facts in order to grow up and form better opinions. I understand what you're saying, but notice that I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm simply stating facts in order to defend my point of view. If I was talking about things that are simply a matter of taste and I said "face it" or "admit it" I agree that it would be annoying.

Assassin_M
05-09-2013, 08:16 PM
We need to face and accept facts in order to grow up and form better opinions. I understand what you're saying, but notice that I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm simply stating facts in order to defend my point of view. If I was talking about things that are simply a matter of taste and I said "face it" or "admit it" I agree that it would be annoying.
Not really, the "facts" you point out are not facts at all..like here


Face it. The story was the only aspect in AC3 that had something to do with the franchise.
how is this a fact ?? It`s false beyond anything..
and here


stop protecting AC3 as if it was your child and treat it as it is, as a stain in the series.
You`re defending your point of view, i.e talking about it as a fact, and then go on to tell him to grow up and stop defending HIS point of view, which admittedly, he`s also talking about it as fact and you actually tell him to look at the game as a stain in the series......what ?? are you sure you`re the rational one here ??

AssassinHMS
05-09-2013, 08:47 PM
how is this a fact ?? It`s false beyond anything..

Very well then. Tell me what else did you find in AC3 that goes back to AC's roots, that you can say "Now this is what Assassin's Creed stands for!"
The stealth? The gameplay? The naval battles?



You`re defending your point of view, i.e talking about it as a fact, and then go on to tell him to grow up and stop defending HIS point of view, which admittedly, he`s also talking about it as fact and you actually tell him to look at the game as a stain in the series......what ?? are you sure you`re the rational one here ??

Hey, wait a minute, I stated the fact (AC3 has nothing to do with what the franchise begun with, aside from the story) the rest are obviously only statements, not facts. I look at AC3 as a stain in the franchise but I didn't say it was a fact. I thought he was an AC3 fanboy for some reasons that don't matter right now so I wanted him to come to his sences and understand why I said AC3 was an awful assassin's creed game.

Assassin_M
05-09-2013, 08:57 PM
Very well then. Tell me what else did you find in AC3 that goes back to AC's roots, that you can say "Now this is what Assassin's Creed stands for!"
The stealth? The gameplay? The naval battles?
Yes stealth, Yes gameplay (I can still run, climb, kill, jump, ride and exlpore), Free running, Assassination, parkour and combat...all pillars still there....some badly implemented.




Hey, wait a minute, I stated the fact (AC3 has nothing to do with what the franchise begun with, aside from the story)
like I pointed out...false


the rest are obviously only statements, not facts. I look at AC3 as a stain in the franchise
No problem there, BUT...you tell him that a rational view is for him to do so as well in "face it"


but I didn't say it was a fact.
Telling him to view it as "stain on the franchise" is not saying it as fact ?


I thought he was an AC3 fanboy for some reasons that don't matter right now so I wanted him to come to his sences and understand why I said AC3 was an awful assassin's creed game.
That`s clearly not what you said..your views are all welcome, but I do not appreciate the speaking of facts on both sides....and telling someone to share your views, because they`re rational...

Step by step...

AssassinHMS
05-09-2013, 09:15 PM
Yes stealth, Yes gameplay (I can still run, climb, kill, jump, ride and exlpore), Free running, Assassination, parkour and combat...all pillars still there....some badly implemented.

So you're saying a guy in a wheelchair resembles a healthy guy who practices athletics just because both of them have legs...some badly implemented. I don't think so.



Telling him to view it as "stain on the franchise" is not saying it as fact ?

No. I can tell you to view a wall next to you as red even if it isn't and even if I know it is blue or green... not that this means that's what I meant when I told him that.


That`s clearly not what you said..your views are all welcome, but I do not appreciate the speaking of facts on both sides....and telling someone to share your views, because they`re rational..

?? Okay...

Assassin_M
05-09-2013, 09:20 PM
So you're saying a guy in a wheelchair resembles a healthy guy who practices athletics just because both of them have legs...some badly implemented. I don't think so.
Terrible...TERRIBLE comparison..



No. I can tell you to view a wall next to you as red even if it isn't and even if I know it is blue or green... not that this means that's what I meant when I told him that.
gibberish that doesn't make any sense...or maybe I need to work on my English comprehension




?? Okay...
and with that, I`m done...you seem...I dunno...confused a bit ? or trying to sound smart ?? all in all...Your "facts" are false, your opinions are awesome...good for you and you need some work done. Ever since you signed up here, you and I had some close calls, because of this same thing...I came to this conclusion right now....I don't like you too much and face it...your facts are false and your comparisons are crap

kthxbye

Will_Lucky
05-09-2013, 09:31 PM
But his reception was pretty abysmal. He has plenty of fans here (me included) but the general public wasn't so kind. He's trailing Altair and Ezio by FAR in Ubi's Facebook poll, which is a wildly different story than popularity polls on these forums. I wouldn't be surprised if he never got a sequel.

Pretty much, core fanbase love him. But the casuals, the people who outnumber the core by a very very large amount literally tend to hate him outright. It may not be profitable to release an Assassins Creed game again with Connor on the front cover. Best to hope for is a book, or even a Vita game where the core would go out of there way to buy it. But a full sequel on consoles in my opinion remains very unlikely.

Assassin_M
05-09-2013, 09:35 PM
But his reception was pretty abysmal. He has plenty of fans here (me included) but the general public wasn't so kind. He's trailing Altair and Ezio by FAR in Ubi's Facebook poll, which is a wildly different story than popularity polls on these forums. I wouldn't be surprised if he never got a sequel.
He won awards and got nominated for awards....people choosing their favorite character on a poll does not suggest that people dislike him. it simply says that their favorite is Ezio...not Connor...a more accurate poll would be "did you dislike Connor ?" and I haven't seen that yet....anywhere but here I mean

some points to talk about, though is the number of people who viewed both VA`s podcasts by Loomer and co....Noah watts has 60,000 while Roger Smith has 40,000

not saying this is a very accurate measure....i`m just sayin` generally..

AssassinHMS
05-09-2013, 10:10 PM
Terrible...TERRIBLE comparison..

Not really... I could explain it better but I don't have time for that.



Ever since you signed up here, you and I had some close calls, because of this same thing...I came to this conclusion right now....I don't like you too much and face it...your facts are false and your comparisons are crap

Whether you like me or not is indifferent to me, otherwise I would have simply agreed with your statements and complemented Connor. Admit whatever you like, deny that my facts are right, deny that my comparisons are good but you're just proving Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Assassin_M
05-09-2013, 10:13 PM
you`re just proving Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Another conclusion I came to just now..i`m sorry, brain..I know I promised not to reply to him and lower my IQ any further, but I MUST tell him this conclusion...

you`re 5

AssassinHMS
05-09-2013, 10:54 PM
Another conclusion I came to just now..i`m sorry, brain..I know I promised not to reply to him and lower my IQ any further, but I MUST tell him this conclusion...

you`re 5

Ah... 5 stars for me. Okay then, just because you were able to recognize that, I deign to grant you half a star. Use it wisely...

ArabianFrost
05-09-2013, 11:24 PM
Well, they spoiled the fanbase with the Ezio trilogy. Not only is the general fanbase more keen on sequels, but also the devs may have a problem with choosing new protagonists or not. You heard Hutchinson. The devs want to make a new character with every game, but the fan reaction may change that, so they also may have decision-making problems with how the future of the series goes and whether or not they want to create a complete story in every game, or parcel it over different games. This confusion if existent can damage the series and the satisfaction provided by the plot. You no longer know if this is it or there's more and you, as the consumer, become frustrated with the ending of your character.

Megas_Doux
05-10-2013, 01:35 AM
Good luck controlling those mechanics to direct Connor in the direction YOU WANT to move. They also removed movement control we previously had in the series, and navigation became even more mindless. Navigation was not perfect before, but it was more fun with more control over the character before AC3.

'm glad AC3's combat had no armor or medicine, but it wasn't a fun system for me. It's like a poor man's Batman: Arkham Asylum combat, not implemented nearly as well as the original. I didn't like the rhythm of combat they ended up with, or the enemies that could only be beaten with a certain button combination. Combat has never been AC's strong point, but AC3's seemed to ANNOY ME the most.

Those two things are the key, I did not have ANY problems controlling Connor; neither during navigation, nor during combat....... And to me, AC3īs combat blow Ezioīs trilogy out of the water. Again, to me.....

In terms of detection, guards during Ezioīs trilogy, mostly in ACB, are utter stupid and give up on you so easily. At least they persist in AC3, but again, it seems that you like things even easier.....

hoodrat94
05-10-2013, 02:56 AM
Well, they spoiled the fanbase with the Ezio trilogy. Not only is the general fanbase more keen on sequels, but also the devs may have a problem with choosing new protagonists or not. You heard Hutchinson. The devs want to make a new character with every game, but the fan reaction may change that, so they also may have decision-making problems with how the future of the series goes and whether or not they want to create a complete story in every game, or parcel it over different games. This confusion if existent can damage the series and the satisfaction provided by the plot. You no longer know if this is it or there's more and you, as the consumer, become frustrated with the ending of your character.

I still can't believe how on Gods green earth Hutchinson became the creative director on ac3?
His previous game was army of two! ARMY OF TWO????

SixKeys
05-10-2013, 03:11 AM
In terms of detection, guards during Ezioīs trilogy, mostly in ACB, are utter stupid and give up on you so easily. At least they persist in AC3, but again, it seems that you like things even easier.....

I love how you blame ACB even for things it didn't introduce. There is NO difference between the guards' AI in AC2 and ACB. If anything, the ACB guards detect you just a tiny bit faster than AC2's guards, so they actually upgraded them just a tad. But as for stupidity? They're exactly the same as in AC2.

Megas_Doux
05-10-2013, 03:17 AM
I love how you blame ACB even for things it didn't introduce. There is NO difference between the guards' AI in AC2 and ACB. If anything, the ACB guards detect you just a tiny bit faster than AC2's guards, so they actually upgraded them just a tad. But as for stupidity? They're exactly the same as in AC2.

Indeed!

AC2 are as stupid and coward as the ones on ACB! At least the AC3 guys try to catch you and not run away.

Rugterwyper32
05-10-2013, 03:30 AM
I love how you blame ACB even for things it didn't introduce. There is NO difference between the guards' AI in AC2 and ACB. If anything, the ACB guards detect you just a tiny bit faster than AC2's guards, so they actually upgraded them just a tad. But as for stupidity? They're exactly the same as in AC2.

Personally, this is one of the changes I hated the most out of AC2. Of all things they could have done, they toned down the AI for chases. And it's when they first started cutting off post-assassination chases and the few that were there were so pathetic they might as well not have even been there. They had elements that could have made chases even better, but they go and... tone it down. What the hell, man? That just doesn't work, I'd say.
I'm still hoping that the devs of AC4 have looked at AC1 as much as they claim and bring that element back. Yes, there's the feeling of being an Assassin in AC1, but I think that people don't give enough credit to being hunted down after taking down a target and having AI that actually is stubborn and hunts you down. It really added a feeling of tension and a motivation for you to be stealthy and to blend in. Not only are you overpowered in later games, the AI (at least in the Ezio trilogy) gives up way too easily. In AC3 the AI might be overly paranoid, but at least it tries to be intimidating (and even though the game is still easy, it's at least not as pathetically easy).

Assassin_M
05-10-2013, 03:37 AM
Personally, this is one of the changes I hated the most out of AC2. Of all things they could have done, they toned down the AI for chases. And it's when they first started cutting off post-assassination chases and the few that were there were so pathetic they might as well not have even been there. They had elements that could have made chases even better, but they go and... tone it down. What the hell, man? That just doesn't work, I'd say.
I'm still hoping that the devs of AC4 have looked at AC1 as much as they claim and bring that element back. Yes, there's the feeling of being an Assassin in AC1, but I think that people don't give enough credit to being hunted down after taking down a target and having AI that actually is stubborn and hunts you down. It really added a feeling of tension and a motivation for you to be stealthy and to blend in. Not only are you overpowered in later games, the AI (at least in the Ezio trilogy) gives up way too easily. In AC3 the AI might be overly paranoid, but at least it tries to be intimidating (and even though the game is still easy, it's at least not as pathetically easy).
All i hear is contradictions...not from you, but from people who call the persistence of the AI in AC III annoying...they say, AC is too easy, but complain about the guard`s persistence..they say it`s too easy, but complain when hiding spot markers are removed from the map..they complain it`s too easy, but then drool over AC II and ACB...like....how ?? the AI in AC III is ridiculous, no questions asked....in SOME AREAS...its persistence is pretty friggin realistic alright ?? if that`s annoying to you, then maybe you`re playing the wrong type of game..

what`s ridiculous is that the AI is psychic...it can see behind walls sometimes and it`s unpredictable...it`s not...normal...that needs work, but persistence ?? HELL NO...if they lessen the persistence in AC IV, then I kinda know the individuals who MAY be messing this franchise up...

Rugterwyper32
05-10-2013, 03:41 AM
All i hear is contradictions...not from you, but from people who call the persistence of the AI in AC III annoying...they say, AC is too easy, but complain about the guard`s persistence..they say it`s too easy, but complain when hiding spot markers are removed from the map..they complain it`s too easy, but then drool over AC II and ACB...like....how ?? the AI in AC III is ridiculous, no questions asked....in SOME AREAS...its persistence is pretty friggin realistic alright ?? if that`s annoying to you, then maybe you`re playing the wrong type of game..

what`s ridiculous is that the AI is psychic...it can see behind walls sometimes and it`s unpredictable...it`s not...normal...that needs work, but persistence ?? HELL NO...if they lessen the persistence in AC IV, then I kinda know the individuals who MAY be messing this franchise up...

That's more or less what I meant. I like the persistence. I dislike the paranoid/psychic AI. I meant paranoid mainly remembering my experiences while messing around in New York where they would chase you if you started running around Broadway or if they somehow feel that there's a presence close by if you're behind them in a church entrance. That part gets annoying, though I like the persistence and the fact that they actually chase you.

Spider_Sith9
05-10-2013, 01:30 PM
Well, they spoiled the fanbase with the Ezio trilogy. Not only is the general fanbase more keen on sequels, but also the devs may have a problem with choosing new protagonists or not. You heard Hutchinson. The devs want to make a new character with every game, but the fan reaction may change that, so they also may have decision-making problems with how the future of the series goes and whether or not they want to create a complete story in every game, or parcel it over different games. This confusion if existent can damage the series and the satisfaction provided by the plot. You no longer know if this is it or there's more and you, as the consumer, become frustrated with the ending of your character.

Why not make one long AC game each time? I wouldn't mind a 40-50 hour AC game.

SixKeys
05-10-2013, 10:40 PM
That's more or less what I meant. I like the persistence. I dislike the paranoid/psychic AI. I meant paranoid mainly remembering my experiences while messing around in New York where they would chase you if you started running around Broadway or if they somehow feel that there's a presence close by if you're behind them in a church entrance. That part gets annoying, though I like the persistence and the fact that they actually chase you.

^^ This. I don't mind that the guards are persistent, what I hate is their telepathic hivemind and the fact that hiding spots aren't marked on the mini-map anymore. They should be able to combine the best of both worlds: the persistent guards from AC1 and AC3 with the ease of finding a blend or hiding spot from AC2/ACB. And tone down the guards' psychic abilities to where they can only detect you from reasonable distances in their line of sight. Even with all the faults of the old detection system and stupid AI, I would have liked AC3 better if it was more like in previous games because it would have made stealth and exploration fun.