PDA

View Full Version : ACIV UNDERWATER gameplay!



Raibuscus
08-05-2013, 06:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o6YL9p-TuCY

It is freaking awesome

DomdudeDaGreat
08-05-2013, 06:05 PM
I just pissed myself.

Even if nobody would survive without diving equipment at that depth

Raibuscus
08-05-2013, 06:12 PM
I just pissed myself.

Even if nobody would survive without diving equipment at that depth

Seems we'll be able to get under these barrels to get some air, I guess it's going to be like in Pirates of the Caribbean 1 where Jack and Will get under this boat and go underwater with it xD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C88qI9tgS9c

DomdudeDaGreat
08-05-2013, 06:35 PM
The pressure would still kill him xD

Black_Widow9
08-06-2013, 04:28 AM
The pressure would still kill him xD
Not necessarily. :p
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/nigeria-shipwreck-idUSL5N0EO20320130612

Raibuscus
08-06-2013, 05:04 AM
Not necessarily. :p
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/nigeria-shipwreck-idUSL5N0EO20320130612

Wow that guy has some balls...

I would've drowned of passing out after I saw the fish eating my mates...

Just thinking about it makes me feel sick :/

Ubi-Cali
08-06-2013, 01:47 PM
Wow that guy has some balls...

I would've drowned of passing out after I saw the fish eating my mates...

Just thinking about it makes me feel sick :/

Indeed, that is intense.

Just a quick word that this thread was moved to General Discussion since this is single player related (as opposed to multiplayer).

ctuagent15
08-06-2013, 01:59 PM
This was already posted yesterday http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/784685-Underwater-Gameplay-along-with-interview

Raibuscus
08-06-2013, 02:04 PM
This was already posted yesterday http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/784685-Underwater-Gameplay-along-with-interview

This was posted yesterday aswell, 2 minutes after the first guy and this one was on the multiplayer part so I couldn't see that it was already posted.

ctuagent15
08-06-2013, 02:36 PM
Sorry didn't look at the date you posted it, thought it was posted today

adventurewomen
08-06-2013, 02:39 PM
I love it, the underwater gameplay reminds me of TR: Underworld! :D

Wolfmeister1010
08-06-2013, 02:39 PM
Seems we'll be able to get under these barrels to get some air, I guess it's going to be like in Pirates of the Caribbean 1 where Jack and Will get under this boat and go underwater with it xD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C88qI9tgS9c

That always confused me! Can someone explain how they did that?

MadJC1986
08-06-2013, 07:06 PM
The pressure would still kill him xD

Nope, look at this guy! Without special diving equipment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d_nN-VgK3M

Sushiglutton
08-06-2013, 08:12 PM
I'm a sucker for underwater in games. It just insta-creates a special mood/atmosphere. These short glimpses look good to me. Will turn off the annoying markers though.

Raibuscus
08-06-2013, 08:23 PM
That always confused me! Can someone explain how they did that?

If you take a bucket and you go with it underwater and you stick your head in it you'll be able to breathe for a while, I think. They did the same with the boat which is freaking awesome.

Wolfmeister1010
08-06-2013, 08:26 PM
If you take a bucket and you go with it underwater and you stick your head in it you'll be able to breathe for a while, I think. They did the same with the boat which is freaking awesome.

But wouldn't the bucket fill up with water from the opening around the neck?

Jexx21
08-06-2013, 08:27 PM
It only works if there's enough weight to counteract the amount of air.

Wolfmeister1010
08-06-2013, 08:28 PM
It only works if there's enough weight to counteract the amount of air.

Are you talking to me?

poptartz20
08-06-2013, 08:47 PM
oohh wow... It looks good! Umm... this game is shaping up quite well and it's not even done yet.

lothario-da-be
08-06-2013, 08:50 PM
That looked pretty good, and the harpooning too, i am excited for this!

Assassin_M
08-06-2013, 08:57 PM
Nope, look at this guy! Without special diving equipment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d_nN-VgK3M
http://gyazo.com/9a05d604db92808d6fabb3d8aef75798.png
http://gyazo.com/f267c8d65fc3437eb0f0d9f93263b338.png

Animus saving :O

AssassinKen2011
08-08-2013, 09:22 AM
^ :O

pirate1802
08-08-2013, 10:47 AM
^^ :O

lothario-da-be
08-08-2013, 10:47 AM
Another proof that Assassins and Templars are real.

simplychalky
08-08-2013, 10:56 AM
Looks great the more I see the more I want.

Crouching.Tiger
08-08-2013, 05:26 PM
If you take a bucket and you go with it underwater and you stick your head in it you'll be able to breathe for a while, I think. They did the same with the boat which is freaking awesome.

But of course two men wouldn't be enough to hold down the boat, they would just float to the surface (diving bells, for example, generally have to be weighed down with extra weights, otherwise, they would probably just tilt, fill with water and sink). That scene is a reference to the pirate adventure/comedy film "The Crimson Pirate" (which, not incidentally, inspired the original Pirates of the Carribean ride), where the main characters (played by Burt Lancaster, among others) pull the same trick.

Escappa
08-09-2013, 12:50 AM
Not necessarily. :p
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/nigeria-shipwreck-idUSL5N0EO20320130612

Why does he have to ruin such an incredible story with that "god"-nonsense? :p

Jexx21
08-09-2013, 12:52 AM
Because people have their own beliefs.

Escappa
08-09-2013, 01:00 AM
Because people have their own beliefs.

Yeah I know, but it's such a shame, it is holding humanity back :/

ArabianFrost
08-09-2013, 01:09 AM
Yeah I know, but it's such a shame, it is holding humanity back :/

*cough* The Islamic Golden Age*cough*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Humanity likes to stick the failures of its incompetent to religious reasons at times.


Humans are instinctively offensive. If they don't fight about Religion they fight about politics. If they don't fight about politics they fight about nationalism. It's rather lazy and pathetic to stick your problems on religion. These religions you diss co-existed peacefully with development. Human incompetence should be your coat hanger for problems.

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 01:24 AM
*cough* The Islamic Golden Age*cough*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Humanity likes to stick the failures of its incompetent to religious reasons at times.


Humans are instinctively offensive. If they don't fight about Religion they fight about politics. If they don't fight about politics they fight about nationalism. It's rather lazy and pathetic to stick your problems on religion. These religions you diss co-existed peacefully with development. Human incompetence should be your coat hanger for problems.
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/760/085/applause-gif-tumblr-47_original.gif?1363040789

Escappa
08-09-2013, 01:52 AM
*cough* The Islamic Golden Age*cough*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Humanity likes to stick the failures of its incompetent to religious reasons at times.


Humans are instinctively offensive. If they don't fight about Religion they fight about politics. If they don't fight about politics they fight about nationalism. It's rather lazy and pathetic to stick your problems on religion. These religions you diss co-existed peacefully with development. Human incompetence should be your coat hanger for problems.

You're 100% correct of course, I don't say religion is the reason for all the worlds problems, I just think that religion brings more bad than good. For instance when George Bush said that invading Iraq was god's will or the countless fights/wars over which religion is right. In USA there was a guy who got fired when his boss found out he didn't belive in god.
I do NOT use religion as a coat hanger for ALL my problems, only when I think it is an important part of the problem. Take the man who survived in the boat for example. He didn't know why the area he was in didn't flood, and he thought it was an act of god. Wouldn't it be better if they found out the real reason behind why that area wasn't filled with water instead of thank a myth? Maybe they would discover something they didn't allready knew, and use it to improve safety on boats?
I do agree with you; human incompetence is the source of problems, but I think that in THIS case religion was that incompetence.
And yes the religions did co-exist peacefully once, but that time is over. I think it would be better to let go of the past. People kill because of religion (not every one of course, but some do). Because of religion there is places where abortion and same-sex-marrige is illegal, even if you don't share the same beliefs as the once who forbidd it.

Jexx21
08-09-2013, 01:56 AM
Uh.

...

Why not just you know.. tell people violence is wrong.. rather than their religion.

BandicootBeav
08-09-2013, 02:02 AM
*cough* The Islamic Golden Age*cough*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Humanity likes to stick the failures of its incompetent to religious reasons at times.


Humans are instinctively offensive. If they don't fight about Religion they fight about politics. If they don't fight about politics they fight about nationalism. It's rather lazy and pathetic to stick your problems on religion. These religions you diss co-existed peacefully with development. Human incompetence should be your coat hanger for problems.


But religion has held back humanity at times, the study of medicine for example. For nearly 900 years or so medicine was practiced on the studies on 1 roman doctor who dissected animals like monkeys and pigs and well assumed humans were the same. Obviously we have different anatomies to animals but because of the church doctors etc couldnt study human bodies because of the whole rising at judgement day thing. It was only to men grave robbing could they find out how our bodies truely work and of course they would of been punished if caught. As religion was law. Not trying to hate on you or religion but i thought it would be worth mentioning.

On topic, cant wait to come face to face with great whites! Gonna be just like Far Cry 3 where my heart would be racing when it came to hunting the bull sharks!

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 02:03 AM
instead of thank a myth?
Because **** everyone else...My beliefs are fact, right?

Escappa
08-09-2013, 02:05 AM
Uh.

...

Why not just you know.. tell people violence is wrong.. rather than their religion.

Because in some cases the religion is the only reason for the violence. KKK is an example, they are a christian organisation. Telling them to stop with their hate/violence against black people would be telling them to let go of their beliefs, which they won't. Without religion they wouldn't have a reason to hate other people.

Escappa
08-09-2013, 02:07 AM
Because **** everyone else...My beliefs are fact, right?

To belive something isn't fact. Fact is fact. But depending on what someone belive, "proof" can mean different things ;)

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 02:10 AM
Because in some cases the religion is the only reason for the violence. KKK is an example, they are a christian organisation. Telling them to stop with their hate/violence against black people would be telling them to let go of their beliefs, which they won't. Without religion they wouldn't have a reason to hate other people.
Because the KKK is the reason for all the violence...because Al-Qaeda is the cause of all violence..

You are hanging all the crap on Religion, mate..which simply isn't true..

It should be noted that not all I state below concerns Atheism, but rather simply the possibility and reality of secular violence vs religious violence.

World Wars I and II claimed more than 80 million casualties, along side the Civil war, Vietnam war, Korean War, Russian war with Afghanistan (nonreligious wars) they claimed more casualties than all the religious wars caused by any or all religions combined.

Incidents of secular authorities targeting religious groups and committing atrocities include the Pol Pot regime.
Deaths under Pol Pot stacked up to 2-5 million. He targeted all major religious groups, western culture and capitalism. He banned all religion under penalty of death and caused the death of millions.

Consider these counts of murder by governments.

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse

Consider after 1917 the Russian Revolution and when Marxist Atheism attempted to eradicate religion and the 61 million deaths caused in the next 40 years according to Professor Rudolph Rummel in his book 'Death by Government'

Consider that McCarthyism and the blacklists that followed (the ruthless and unreasonable pursuit of all people thought to be communists where people lost their jobs and careers were ruined) the actions of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are no different than the religious inquisitions.

Also consider the research of Robert Pape a political scientist who specializes in suicide terrorism.

Pape compiled the first complete database of every documented suicide bombing from 1980-2003. He argues that the news reports about suicide attacks are profoundly misleading.

Pape says
"There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions"

After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, he concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion.

Consider the statements of David Jack Eller an anthropologist of culture, violence, and religion who himself is an atheist.
"As we have insisted previously, religion is not inherently and irredeemably violent; it certainly is not the essence and source of all violence"

"Religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identical. Violence is one phenomenon in human (and natural existence), religion is another, and it is inevitable that the two would become intertwined. Religion is complex and modular, and violence is one of the modules - not universal, but recurring. As a conceptual and behavioral module, violence is by no means exclusive to religion. There are plenty of other groups, institutions, interests, and ideologies to promote violence. Violence is, therefore, neither essential to nor exclusive to religion. Nor is religious violence all alike... And virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary"

"When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is the "cause" of the trouble or that the parties are "fighting about religion". Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the groups than an actual point of contention between them"

Don't we glorify people such as soldiers and mercenaries who kill and are killed for the causes of nationalism, liberty, democracy, our way of life? When people do the very same for what is supposedly a religious cause we demonize them and label them as fanatical, irrational, barbaric, violent, evil. When the same actions are done in the name of our way of life we deem them patriots and heroes. When the issue concerns religion it is the opposite, the moral value shouldn't be so completely divided over such a single characteristic.
My only reason in stating this is to say that far more terrible things and far more losses have been incurred to secular nonreligious causes and even our "good ideals" than religion has ever caused.

I am not trying to say Atheism or secularism is violent or evil... I am saying it is unfair and simplistic to attribute violence and evil to the religion and also attribute much greater moral value to Atheistic ideals and Secular.

Any union of a common belief of people can be caustic when it is threatened, or decides to offend, it takes an offense to create a defense, any group of people can be called a religion, it means belief, bonded by the same thoughts, desires, outcome, it is unfair to attribute evil or violence to anything other than evil or violence, evil and violence does not need a name, they are named.

Over mate..you just repeat all the crap you hear..this entire argument had NO place here whatsoever..not in this thread and not in this forum. If you wanna diss Religion like a blind fool so badly find yourself a nice little Anti-Religion forum and stay there

Escappa
08-09-2013, 02:27 AM
Because the KKK is the reason for all the violence...because Al-Qaeda is the cause of all violence..

You are hanging all the crap on Religion, mate..which simply isn't true..

It should be noted that not all I state below concerns Atheism, but rather simply the possibility and reality of secular violence vs religious violence.

World Wars I and II claimed more than 80 million casualties, along side the Civil war, Vietnam war, Korean War, Russian war with Afghanistan (nonreligious wars) they claimed more casualties than all the religious wars caused by any or all religions combined.

Incidents of secular authorities targeting religious groups and committing atrocities include the Pol Pot regime.
Deaths under Pol Pot stacked up to 2-5 million. He targeted all major religious groups, western culture and capitalism. He banned all religion under penalty of death and caused the death of millions.

Consider these counts of murder by governments.

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse

Consider after 1917 the Russian Revolution and when Marxist Atheism attempted to eradicate religion and the 61 million deaths caused in the next 40 years according to Professor Rudolph Rummel in his book 'Death by Government'

Consider that McCarthyism and the blacklists that followed (the ruthless and unreasonable pursuit of all people thought to be communists where people lost their jobs and careers were ruined) the actions of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are no different than the religious inquisitions.

Also consider the research of Robert Pape a political scientist who specializes in suicide terrorism.

Pape compiled the first complete database of every documented suicide bombing from 1980-2003. He argues that the news reports about suicide attacks are profoundly misleading.

Pape says
"There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions"

After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, he concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion.

Consider the statements of David Jack Eller an anthropologist of culture, violence, and religion who himself is an atheist.
"As we have insisted previously, religion is not inherently and irredeemably violent; it certainly is not the essence and source of all violence"

"Religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identical. Violence is one phenomenon in human (and natural existence), religion is another, and it is inevitable that the two would become intertwined. Religion is complex and modular, and violence is one of the modules - not universal, but recurring. As a conceptual and behavioral module, violence is by no means exclusive to religion. There are plenty of other groups, institutions, interests, and ideologies to promote violence. Violence is, therefore, neither essential to nor exclusive to religion. Nor is religious violence all alike... And virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary"

"When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is the "cause" of the trouble or that the parties are "fighting about religion". Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the groups than an actual point of contention between them"

Don't we glorify people such as soldiers and mercenaries who kill and are killed for the causes of nationalism, liberty, democracy, our way of life? When people do the very same for what is supposedly a religious cause we demonize them and label them as fanatical, irrational, barbaric, violent, evil. When the same actions are done in the name of our way of life we deem them patriots and heroes. When the issue concerns religion it is the opposite, the moral value shouldn't be so completely divided over such a single characteristic.
My only reason in stating this is to say that far more terrible things and far more losses have been incurred to secular nonreligious causes and even our "good ideals" than religion has ever caused.

I am not trying to say Atheism or secularism is violent or evil... I am saying it is unfair and simplistic to attribute violence and evil to the religion and also attribute much greater moral value to Atheistic ideals and Secular.

Any union of a common belief of people can be caustic when it is threatened, or decides to offend, it takes an offense to create a defense, any group of people can be called a religion, it means belief, bonded by the same thoughts, desires, outcome, it is unfair to attribute evil or violence to anything other than evil or violence, evil and violence does not need a name, they are named.

Over mate..you just repeat all the crap you hear..

Good points

BUT, I just want to make one thing clear, I do NOT think every murder or death is religions fault. And I agree with you that KKK is the reason for the violence. It's like: Fire is the reason for fire, and to put out a fire you can cut the access to oxygen. So if KKK is the fire, religion is the oxygen. It isn't responsible for what the KKK does or will do, but it can be removed to prevent them for doing it.
You seem to belive that I blaim everything on religion, but I don't. I know there is a lot of nonreligious wars, but that doesn't mean there isn't religious wars either. And I am just pointing out what I think is problems from a religious perspective. But I do of course think a lot about what is wrong with other things, where religion isn't relevant at all. But since we were talking about religion I chose to say what I think about religion, what I think about nonreligious ideals isn't relevant in this context so I left thoe thoughts out :p

(And I'm against patriotism so I do not see soldiers as heroes not even the soldiers from my own country, and when they are sent back home in coffins I do not solute them, because they chose to be a part of a stupid war instead of trying to do something to help people, and violence is NEVER a solution, so they have to suit themeselves)

BandicootBeav
08-09-2013, 02:29 AM
You bring up good points M. To me those numbers are horrific. Its disgusting that people are killed because they believe in something different. The jews that were sensesly killed because of 1 mans hatred is pure evil. Queen Mary I of England burns protestents ( bad spelling ) because they are not catholic. Religion isnt to blame its the people who abuse saying its ok its gods will to kill even though it states in the bible though shall not kill. Plus every human believes their opinion and beliefs and views are always 100% right. And if they are in a position of power it gets abused to stupid proportions. I hate all violence and i dont support it in any form. i dont support the army or the "heroes" that go off to kill people. Killing to me is killing, but then again some people do deserve it.

I am not religious myself but i dont hate religion or have a problem with it. We have free will for a reason!

ArabianFrost
08-09-2013, 02:30 AM
You're 100% correct of course, I don't say religion is the reason for all the worlds problems, I just think that religion brings more bad than good. For instance when George Bush said that invading Iraq was god's will or the countless fights/wars over which religion is right. In USA there was a guy who got fired when his boss found out he didn't belive in god.
I do NOT use religion as a coat hanger for ALL my problems, only when I think it is an important part of the problem. Take the man who survived in the boat for example. He didn't know why the area he was in didn't flood, and he thought it was an act of god. Wouldn't it be better if they found out the real reason behind why that area wasn't filled with water instead of thank a myth? Maybe they would discover something they didn't allready knew, and use it to improve safety on boats?
I do agree with you; human incompetence is the source of problems, but I think that in THIS case religion was that incompetence.
And yes the religions did co-exist peacefully once, but that time is over. I think it would be better to let go of the past. People kill because of religion (not every one of course, but some do). Because of religion there is places where abortion and same-sex-marrige is illegal, even if you don't share the same beliefs as the once who forbidd it.

Bush could have said that he wanted to fight the war because it threatens security without any mention of religion and he still would have done it. It's a filthy game of politics. We all know GWB doesn't really care whether or not God chose him to start a damn war.


You're saying that NORMAL, SANE, RELIGIOUS people would just thank God after a crisis and not investigate? People are thankful for their deity, but they also aren't moronic. No one says "uhhhhhh God saved the day, no need to have any sort of serious investigation about a clear human error."

Let go of the past? This isn't a set of beliefs people pull off to enjoy their selves back then. It's not just spiritual rituals for people. It's not that gross over-simplification.


Let me give you some perspective.

You are 1 in more than 7000000000 people. Your intelligence can't get you off a planet the size of a walnut compared to the sun and you barely even understand 10% of the ocean you live near. Our intelligence is beyond petty. We can't even fully comprehend our own planet. You see where I'm going? This isn't about the past, present or future to religious people. We cannot comprehend this world. Trying to comprehend it on your own then declaring that, you, with your puny mind can fathom it more than anyone is absolutely and utterly delusional. These religious people believe that an entity is the only explanation. That for whatever reason we have been lain on this earth, we have a purpose far bigger and greater than us. It's the same entity that gave accurate account of the past and gave accurate predictions kf the future while at the same time offering never before known facts about life. It's bot something you may understand, but it's a way to cope with life and its meaning. It's the only hope we cling on to. Heavenly justice for all. Our lives, everything about them can have a meaning, an effect. We may not fully understand God, but we can't trust the ways of humans as well. Trust me, why one would join a certain religion is far from purely spiritual. It's a way of reasoning.

Take out religion and what do you have?

You'll have the country's culture left. I don't know if you know this, but I'd like you to check Arabic culture before Islam. A damn mess. Girls were buried alive, women had no social equality and were treated as pawns while violence and tribal wars were as common as sand. Human nature and culture breed these values, religion was just an instrument to justify what's unjustifiable both in real life and the religion. Again, my point resurfaces. You remove religion abd you have another 1000 reasons to fight for.



Btw, in Islam it's legal to abort a fetus until 4 months (?) Or before when its heart beats. About forcing beliefs, it's downright wrong.

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 02:39 AM
Good points
I doubt you read all of them...judging by your response below.


BUT, I just want to make one thing clear, I do NOT think every murder or death is religions fault.
This is clearly contradicted with the phrase "it`s holding humanity back" and what comes next..


And I agree with you that KKK is the reason for the violence. It's like: Fire is the reason for fire, and to put out a fire you can cut the access to oxygen. So if KKK is the fire, religion is the oxygen.
This whole thing is addressed above. Violence and Religion ARE NOT mutually exclusive. they don`t need each other, certainly they`re compatible (ANYTHING is compatible with violence), but your comparison of fire and Oxygen just shows that either you did not bother to read all of my post or you lack comprehension skills. Fire needs Oxygen...does Religion need violence?? Nope...violence sneaks into anything. that just disproves what you`re saying.


It isn't responsible for what the KKK does or will do, but it can be removed to prevent them for doing it.
If the KKK has beliefs that are shared by others who are peaceful, then the problem isn't in the belief, it`s in violence...how about we prevent violence?? remove it altogether instead of blaming beliefs THAT CAN be peaceful??


You seem to belive that I blaim everything on religion, but I don't.
Nah, you do..


I know there is a lot of nonreligious wars, but that doesn't mean there isn't religious wars either.
I didn't say there wasn't Religious wars, mate..pay attention...you`re the one here claiming that religion "is holding humanity back"


And I am just pointing out what I think is problems from a religious perspective.
*AN IRRELIGIOUS perspective..which has no place in a gaming forum whatsoever.


But since we were talking about religion I chose to say what I think about religion
We weren't...you`re the one who needlessly brought it up and shoved your beliefs on everyone in a game thread


what I think about nonreligious ideals isn't relevant in this context so I left thoe thoughts out :p
"why thank a myth"....clearly you left those out yeah

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 02:40 AM
You bring up good points M. To me those numbers are horrific. Its disgusting that people are killed because they believe in something different. The jews that were sensesly killed because of 1 mans hatred is pure evil. Queen Mary I of England burns protestents ( bad spelling ) because they are not catholic. Religion isnt to blame its the people who abuse saying its ok its gods will to kill even though it states in the bible though shall not kill. Plus every human believes their opinion and beliefs and views are always 100% right. And if they are in a position of power it gets abused to stupid proportions. I hate all violence and i dont support it in any form. i dont support the army or the "heroes" that go off to kill people. Killing to me is killing, but then again some people do deserve it.

I am not religious myself but i dont hate religion or have a problem with it. We have free will for a reason!
This. Thank you

Escappa
08-09-2013, 02:43 AM
Bush could have said that he wanted to fight the war because it threatens security without any mention of religion and he still would have done it. It's a filthy game of politics. We all know GWB doesn't really care whether or not God chose him to start a damn war.


You're saying that NORMAL, SANE, RELIGIOUS people would just thank God after a crisis and not investigate? People are thankful for their deity, but they also aren't moronic. No one says "uhhhhhh God saved the day, no need to have any sort of serious investigation about a clear human error."

Let go of the past? This isn't a set of beliefs people pull off to enjoy their selves back then. It's not just spiritual rituals for people. It's not that gross over-simplification.


Let me give you some perspective.

You are 1 in more than 7000000000 people. Your intelligence can't get you off a planet the size of a walnut compared to the sun and you barely even understand 10% of the ocean you live near. Our intelligence is beyond petty. We can't even fully comprehend our own planet. You see where I'm going? This isn't about the past, present or future to religious people. We cannot comprehend this world. Trying to comprehend it on your own then declaring that, you, with your puny mind can fathom it more than anyone is absolutely and utterly delusional. These religious people believe that an entity is the only explanation. That for whatever reason we have been lain on this earth, we have a purpose far bigger and greater than us. It's the same entity that gave accurate account of the past and gave accurate predictions kf the future while at the same time offering never before known facts about life. It's bot something you may understand, but it's a way to cope with life and its meaning. It's the only hope we cling on to. Heavenly justice for all. Our lives, everything about them can have a meaning, an effect. We may not fully understand God, but we can't trust the ways of humans as well. Trust me, why one would join a certain religion is far from purely spiritual. It's a way of reasoning.

Take out religion and what do you have?

You'll have the country's culture left. I don't know if you know this, but I'd like you to check Arabic culture before Islam. A damn mess. Girls were buried alive, women had no social equality and were treated as pawns while violence and tribal wars were as common as sand. Human nature and culture breed these values, religion was just an instrument to justify what's unjustifiable both in real life and the religion. Again, my point resurfaces. You remove religion abd you have another 1000 reasons to fight for.



Btw, in Islam it's legal to abort a fetus until 4 months (?) Or before when its heart beats. About forcing beliefs, it's downright wrong.

touché, you are of course right. And I do agree with you. And I do see myself (and everything else in the world) as the most unimportant things in an infinite universe, because that is what we are. There is no meaning of life, we do not have purpose, or a life after this for that matter, so nothing matters at all! So excuse me for saying what I belive, in 100 no one will even remember this, and since this is the internet I don't think anyone will remember it in two hours ;)

Escappa
08-09-2013, 02:50 AM
I did read it all, but maybe I misunderstood some of it since english isn't my first language :p



If the KKK has beliefs that are shared by others who are peaceful, then the problem isn't in the belief, it`s in violence...how about we prevent violence?? remove it altogether instead of blaming beliefs THAT CAN be peaceful??
Tell me, how would you remove the violence and keep the belief at the same time?



I didn't say there wasn't Religious wars, mate..pay attention...you`re the one here claiming that religion "is holding humanity back"
Yes I do claim that it is holding it back, but I didn't say it was the only thing holding it back



However, you are right. Not a discussion for a gaming-forum, pardon me.

BandicootBeav
08-09-2013, 02:52 AM
No problem dude! i do like a good level headed disscussion :) as for what Frost said about comprehendsion. You are 100% right. We are a tiny speck in the grand scheme of things. A grain of sand on 1 beach. Are we here for a reason? or just random choas. I dont know. I try not to think about it to much lol.

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 02:57 AM
Tell me, how would you remove the violence and keep the belief at the same time?

You`ll know how when you start abandoning the ridiculous thought that Violence is to Religion what Oxygen is to fire..

Megas_Doux
08-09-2013, 03:57 AM
MEH!!!!!!!!

There are, literally, tons of places to discuss of the most neverending feuds since the end of the XVIII century, so why here????


Continue with the offtopic, today, well yesterday, was the International Day of the Female Orgasm......

pirate1802
08-09-2013, 04:30 AM
Continue with the offtopic, today, well yesterday, was the International Day of the Female Orgasm......

What! How did I miss that!

OSantaClownO
08-09-2013, 06:02 AM
It's not religion, it's the people who abuse it. (Not all people of course)
"The same words that used to encourage life, used instead to justify taking it".

You can read the whole <name of religous book>, you'll see about 5% in it connected to the (religous) traditions you do.

AssassinHMS
08-09-2013, 12:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o6YL9p-TuCY

It is freaking awesome

This is nice and everything but it's not the reason why I play AC......................maybe next year Ubisoft will decide to make a game about assassins with only a few non-assassin's creed related activities instead of a game about something else (such as pirates) with a few assassin's creed elements (if that). Still it's a nice pirate game.


All hail Ismail the savior of the Pirate's Creed series!

Locopells
08-09-2013, 01:11 PM
How the heck did we get here from underwater ACIV:BF gameplay?!

Raibuscus
08-09-2013, 05:28 PM
This is nice and everything but it's not the reason why I play AC......................maybe next year Ubisoft will decide to make a game about assassins with only a few non-assassin's creed related activities instead of a game about something else (such as pirates) with a few assassin's creed elements (if that). Still it's a nice pirate game.


All hail Ismail the savior of the Pirate's Creed series!

Ashraf Ismail is as far as I saw doing a GREAT job.

There is a creed and there are assassin's so I think it's still Assassin's Creed ;)
What you're saying is the same as saying AC2 is bad because it is actually Banker's Creed or something.
IDK why everyone is so upset about it being a Pirate + Assassin game, I dreamed about a game like that for years!
I mean it is based around Assassin's and Templars, you still got Abstergo.

Btw, it's not because Desmond is dead that we're not playing an Assassin game anymore.

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 06:01 PM
This is nice and everything but it's not the reason why I play AC......................maybe next year Ubisoft will decide to make a game about assassins with only a few non-assassin's creed related activities instead of a game about something else (such as pirates) with a few assassin's creed elements (if that). Still it's a nice pirate game.


All hail Ismail the savior of the Pirate's Creed series!
AC II`s side missions.

Delivering letters = non-Assassins elements
Racing = non-Assassins elements
beating husbands up = non-Assassins elements
Tombs = non-Assassins elements
Glyphs = non-Assassins elements
Upgrading Villa = non-Assassins elements

Assassination contracts...

ACB is the same deal.

in short, sit down, mate..

pirate1802
08-09-2013, 06:26 PM
AC II`s side missions.

Delivering letters = non-Assassins elements
Racing = non-Assassins elements
beating husbands up = non-Assassins elements
Tombs = non-Assassins elements
Glyphs = non-Assassins elements
Upgrading Villa = non-Assassins elements

Assassination contracts...

ACB is the same deal.

in short, sit down, mate..

But it has Ezio. Anything related to Ezio is totally Assassinlike. Not like that stupid Native and this scumbag Pirate. Your point is invalid.

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 06:30 PM
But it has Ezio. Anything related to Ezio is totally Assassinlike. Not like that stupid Native and this scumbag Pirate. Your point is invalid.
Oh GOD that argument haunts me everywhere -_-

I can`t for the life of me find a convincing counter to it >_<

you win

WalSwJan
08-09-2013, 06:42 PM
This is nice and everything but it's not the reason why I play AC......................maybe next year Ubisoft will decide to make a game about assassins with only a few non-assassin's creed related activities instead of a game about something else (such as pirates) with a few assassin's creed elements (if that). Still it's a nice pirate game.


All hail Ismail the savior of the Pirate's Creed series!

Didn't you make a "boycott AC4!"-thread some time ago? Why do you even bother if you're going to boycott the game anyway? :o Also I don't get the whole Pirate's Creed thing that seems to be popular on the internet....anyone can be an assassin. Though I really think that we need a story trailer that shows Edward doing some assassin-things without whales, boarding and explosions because it's getting a bit old in the trailers imo :D

pirate1802
08-09-2013, 06:45 PM
Didn't you make a "boycott AC4!"-thread some time ago? Why do you even bother if you're going to boycott the game anyway? :o Also I don't get the whole Pirate's Creed thing that seems to be popular on the internet....anyone can be an assassin. Though I really think that we need a story trailer that shows Edward doing some assassin-things without whales, boarding and explosions because it's getting a bit old in the trailers imo :D

Natives are too stupid and Pirates are too morally degraded to be Assassins, duh!

WalSwJan
08-09-2013, 06:52 PM
Natives are too stupid and Pirates are too morally degraded to be Assassins, duh!

Oh I forgot, you're right! Forgive me :c

pirate1802
08-09-2013, 06:57 PM
Oh I forgot, you're right! Forgive me :c

No really, I had the misfortune of witnessing someone actually say that "Natives can't be good assassins because they are too pacifistic." M remembers it maybe.

Sushiglutton
08-09-2013, 06:59 PM
You are 1 in more than 7000000000 people. Your intelligence can't get you off a planet the size of a walnut compared to the sun and you barely even understand 10% of the ocean you live near. Our intelligence is beyond petty. We can't even fully comprehend our own planet. You see where I'm going? This isn't about the past, present or future to religious people. We cannot comprehend this world. Trying to comprehend it on your own then declaring that, you, with your puny mind can fathom it more than anyone is absolutely and utterly delusional.

Completely agree. Thing is though that it is religious people who claim they have the world figured out, not atheists. Religion postulates a number of eternal "truths" about the fundamentals of reality (like for example: "God created the World"). These "truths" lack any kind of evidence or substance. Science have hypothesis of how the universe work, but no honest scientist claims to fully understand it. Science is also revisioned constantly in the light of new evidence. Not so with religion.

Atheism is about acknowledging what we can't comprehend some things (yet or perhaps ever) instead of making baseless claims in these areas like religion does.



These religious people believe that an entity is the only explanation. That for whatever reason we have been lain on this earth, we have a purpose far bigger and greater than us. It's the same entity that gave accurate account of the past and gave accurate predictions kf the future while at the same time offering never before known facts about life. It's bot something you may understand, but it's a way to cope with life and its meaning. It's the only hope we cling on to. Heavenly justice for all. Our lives, everything about them can have a meaning, an effect. We may not fully understand God, but we can't trust the ways of humans as well. Trust me, why one would join a certain religion is far from purely spiritual. It's a way of reasoning.

There is no substance to these believes at all. Religion has not consistently predicted the future or offered any never before known facts about life. That is nonsense. Religious people have though of course.

We don't know anything about God at all. We don't know if he exists. We have no evidences what so ever for any of his poperties or what views he holds (if any). All that is just baseless speculation made by people over the centuries. So saying that we may never understand God is a massive understatement.

The vast majority of people who join a religion do so because their parents believed in it. It's not a way of reasoning at all. It's pure indoctrination from childhood onwards.



Take out religion and what do you have?

You'll have the country's culture left. I don't know if you know this, but I'd like you to check Arabic culture before Islam. A damn mess. Girls were buried alive, women had no social equality and were treated as pawns while violence and tribal wars were as common as sand. Human nature and culture breed these values, religion was just an instrument to justify what's unjustifiable both in real life and the religion. Again, my point resurfaces. You remove religion abd you have another 1000 reasons to fight for.


Sweden is a secular society with many atheists and it's a far superior to all the Arabic nations by any reasonable metric. Doesn't matter if it's wealthfare, rights for minorities, crime rates, education, women's rights, child mortality or whatever you want. Religion is not needed for a good society at all. On the contrary some key elements (like right for minorities) is clearly hindered by religion. Not allowing women to educate themselves/work freely is obv also a massive wealhtfare problem.

Prior to Islam I don't think Arabs lived in societies based on rational thinking and science. I'm pretty sure there were other forms of worshipping and superstitiouns. Relatively I'm sure Islam was much better than the things that were before. And it was def a positive force in that time for innovation and so on. However that was a long time ago. Religion just can't compete with rational thinking in modern societies.

I'm not saying that Islam is worse than any other religion by the way. It's religion in general that I don't like that much.

TheHumanTowel
08-09-2013, 07:07 PM
lol wtf this thread is about underwater gameplay

pirate1802
08-09-2013, 07:08 PM
lol wtf this thread is about underwater gameplay

Derailments seem to be the way for the past few days..

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 07:09 PM
This crap again -_-

Why the **** can`t you people take this to whatever anti-religious forum?? Jeez, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT

Sushiglutton
08-09-2013, 07:13 PM
lol wtf this thread is about underwater gameplay

Yeah I just dived right into the discussion.

ArabianFrost
08-09-2013, 07:13 PM
Completely agree. Thing is though that it is religious people who claim they have the world figured out, not atheists. Religion postulates a number of eternal "truths" about the fundamentals of reality (like for example: "God created the World"). These "truths" lack any kind of evidence or substance. Science have hypothesis of how the universe work, but no honest scientist claims to fully understand it. Science is also revisioned constantly in the light of new evidence. Not so with religion.

Atheism is about acknowledging what we can't comprehend some things (yet or perhaps ever) instead of making baseless claims in these areas like religion does.




There is no substance to these believes at all. Religion has not consistently predicted the future or offered any never before known facts about life. That is nonsense. Religious people have though of course.

We don't know anything about God at all. We don't know if he exists. We have no evidences what so ever for any of his poperties or what views he holds (if any). All that is just baseless speculation made by people over the centuries. So saying that we may never understand God is a massive understatement.

The vast majority of people who join a religion do so because their parents believed in it. It's not a way of reasoning at all. It's pure indoctrination from childhood onwards.





Sweden is a secular society with many atheists and it's a far superior to all the Arabic nations by any reasonable metric. Doesn't matter if it's wealthfare, rights for minorities, crime rates, education, women's rights, child mortality or whatever you want. Religion is not needed for a good society at all. On the contrary some key elements (like right for minorities) is clearly hindered by religion. Not allowing women to educate themselves/work freely is obv also a massive wealhtfare problem.

Prior to Islam I don't think Arabs lived in societies based on rational thinking and science. I'm pretty sure there were other forms of worshipping and superstitiouns. Relatively I'm sure Islam was much better than the things that were before. And it was def a positive force in that time for innovation and so on. However that was a long time ago. Religion just can't compete with rational thinking in modern societies.

I'm not saying that Islam is worse than any other religion by the way. It's religion in general that I don't like that much.

Well, I'm on mobile so it's difficult to try and dissect your message and answer each point on it's own. Let's take this to the "bring up whatever you want" thread btw. I'll number my counter-argument in respect to the order of each point.

TheHumanTowel
08-09-2013, 07:14 PM
Yeah I just dived right into the discussion.
lol I've never seen a more utterly derailed thread than this.

Sushiglutton
08-09-2013, 07:16 PM
lol I've never seen a more utterly derailed thread than this.

It's kind of funny I agree. Even more funny than my "dived in" joke :nonchalance:

lothario-da-be
08-09-2013, 07:36 PM
lol this thread was a joy to read.

Raibuscus
08-09-2013, 08:24 PM
Lothario is from Belgium, me too. Sorry I just wanted to say that.

lothario-da-be
08-09-2013, 09:38 PM
Lothario is from Belgium, me too. Sorry I just wanted to say that.
Cool, wich province?

ArabianFrost
08-09-2013, 09:58 PM
Cool, wich province?

The one with Dragons?

Raibuscus
08-09-2013, 11:06 PM
Antwerp, yes the one with dragons and argonians :D

Assassin_M
08-09-2013, 11:08 PM
Antwerp, yes the one with dragons and argonians :D
wait.......YOU HAVE DRAGONS??

AssassinHMS
08-10-2013, 12:17 AM
There is a creed and there are assassins so I think it's still Assassin's Creed
Sure that is a part of it too but, when I play AC, I want to feel like an assassin, I want to investigate (pickpocket, eavesdrop and interrogate), to be encouraged to use stealth and cunning instead of just killing everyone with a super easy combat system and to feel the tension and sense of danger when sneaking (which I can’t if the setting is a sunny beach like in the 15 seconds of stealth trailer)
However I don’t want to spend half the game sailing, scuba diving, firing guns, destroying enemy ships, searching for treasures and fighting, which is what AC4 BF seems to offer the most.


What you're saying is the same as saying AC2 is bad because it is actually Banker's Creed or something.
Why? Because of a single new feature that allowed to purchase buildings? How’s that even close to spending more than half of an AC game doing pirate stuff??



AC II`s side missions.

Delivering letters = non-Assassins elements
Racing = non-Assassins elements
beating husbands up = non-Assassins elements
Tombs = non-Assassins elements
Glyphs = non-Assassins elements
Upgrading Villa = non-Assassins elements

Assassination contracts...

ACB is the same deal.

in short, sit down, mate..

Exactly! They’re side missions and the number of assassination contracts was bigger than the others combined. Also, I don’t know why you’re comparing AC2 to AC4 BF but…

AC1:
Investigate – plan – infiltrate – assassinate

Well perhaps it won’t be so bad. Maybe 30% of AC4 BF will be like 80% of AC1 (assuming we’ll be able to plan that is)


Come on, mate, you can do better than that..

rileypoole1234
08-10-2013, 12:17 AM
I was gonna say this looks really cool and I'm excited for it, but I'm afraid I'll be yelled at now.

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 12:20 AM
Exactly! They’re side missions and I don’t know why you’re comparing AC2 to AC4 BF but…

AC1:
Investigate – plan – infiltrate – assassinate
Well perhaps it won’t be so bad. Maybe 30% of AC4 BF will be like 80% of AC1 (assuming we’ll be able to plan that is)

Come on, mate, you can do better than that..
and you`v seen every story mission from AC IV..yes, sit down, mate...

I`m bringing up side missions, because you`re whining about the pirate stuff...i.e side missions.

I CAN do better...it depends on to who i`m talking to...

Shahkulu101
08-10-2013, 12:21 AM
Sure that is a part of it too but, when I play AC, I want to feel like an assassin, I want to investigate (pickpocket, eavesdrop and interrogate), to be encouraged to use stealth and cunning instead of just killing everyone with a super easy combat system and to feel the tension and sense of danger when sneaking (which I can’t if the setting is a sunny beach like in the 15 seconds of stealth trailer)
However I don’t want to spend half the game sailing, scuba diving, firing guns, destroying enemy ships, searching for treasures and fighting, which is what AC4 BF seems to offer the most.


Why? Because of a single new feature that allowed to purchase buildings? How’s that even close to spending more than half of an AC game doing pirate stuff??




Exactly! They’re side missions and the number of assassination contracts was bigger than the others combined. Also, I don’t know why you’re comparing AC2 to AC4 BF but…

AC1:
Investigate – plan – infiltrate – assassinate

Well perhaps it won’t be so bad. Maybe 30% of AC4 BF will be like 80% of AC1 (assuming we’ll be able to plan that is)


Come on, mate, you can do better than that..
You're so bloody tedious mate.

AssassinHMS
08-10-2013, 12:26 AM
I`m bringing up side missions, because you`re whining about the pirate stuff...i.e side missions.

The pirate stuff isn't just side missions. Like i said assassination contracts where the main side mission.


I CAN do better...it depends on to who i`m talking to...

ahahah...of course mate, of course

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 12:29 AM
The pirate stuff isn't just side missions.
Not really no...AC II`s non-assassin stuff weren't just side missions either


Like i said assassination contracts where the main side mission.
Show me where it said so in the Animus DNA menu..lol "main side missions"

Shahkulu101
08-10-2013, 12:33 AM
It's ironic how you're such a big fan of staying true to the Assassin's yet so conservative to the point where you want to restrict change so very much.

Raibuscus
08-10-2013, 01:28 AM
Why? Because of a single new feature that allowed to purchase buildings? How’s that even close to spending more than half of an AC game doing pirate stuff??






No... Because his whole family was in the 'banker'-business

pirate1802
08-10-2013, 07:30 AM
The only game where you were a pure Assassin and nothing else was AC1. In AC2 you were for most of the part an angry teenager out to get revenge. In ACB you were Robin hood and also the destroyer of some weird machines. In ACR you played kingmaker and in AC3 you played as a freedom fighter who was also a diretor of patriot forces on the field. Some assassin stuff these are!


I was gonna say this looks really cool and I'm excited for it, but I'm afraid I'll be yelled at now.

You ought to be angsty and infuriated. That's the in thing these days regarding AC. :D


It's ironic how you're such a big fan of staying true to the Assassin's yet so conservative to the point where you want to restrict change so very much.

I've been to a few game forums, and in all of them I noticed the forums were filled with "true and old fans" whose only job seemed to diss the latest entry of the franchise. :D Not talking about AC in particular here.

Sushiglutton
08-10-2013, 09:23 AM
I really don't want AC to step back to AC1 as I have said hundreds of times. Investigation missions are hard as hell to make feel organic, varied and to let the player figure things out. AC1's investigation missions failled miserably in all these regards. AC1 encouraged stealth by making combat tedious. For me that is really not needed. I play stealthy because I enjoy it. I also enjoy combat and I want that system to be as fun as possible too.



I've been to a few game forums, and in all of them I noticed the forums were filled with "true and old fans" whose only job seemed to diss the latest entry of the franchise. :D Not talking about AC in particular here.


Haha very true. Just visit Bioshock Infinite froum for example lol.

Hans684
08-10-2013, 10:32 AM
Sure that is a part of it too but, when I play AC, I want to feel like an assassin, I want to investigate (pickpocket, eavesdrop and interrogate), to be encouraged to use stealth and cunning instead of just killing everyone with a super easy combat system and to feel the tension and sense of danger when sneaking (which I can’t if the setting is a sunny beach like in the 15 seconds of stealth trailer)
However I don’t want to spend half the game sailing, scuba diving, firing guns, destroying enemy ships, searching for treasures and fighting, which is what AC4 BF seems to offer the most.

Why? Because of a single new feature that allowed to purchase buildings? How’s that even close to spending more than half of an AC game doing pirate stuff??

Exactly! They’re side missions and the number of assassination contracts was bigger than the others combined. Also, I don’t know why you’re comparing AC2 to AC4 BF but…

AC1:
Investigate – plan – infiltrate – assassinate

Well perhaps it won’t be so bad. Maybe 30% of AC4 BF will be like 80% of AC1 (assuming we’ll be able to plan that is)


Come on, mate, you can do better than that..

Some questions then.

Can't you have a past life before becoming an assassin(pirate, banker, native)?
What is an assassin? And what is an assassin in AC?
What is needed for it to be an Assassin's Creed?
Can't there be diffrent kind of assassins for each time period?
Can't assassins adapt to the time period(The Golden Age of Piracy, American Revolution)?
Do they have to use stealth even if stealth hider you to get to the target?

roostersrule2
08-10-2013, 10:53 AM
Some questions then.

Can't you have a past life before becoming an assassin(pirate, banker, native)?
What is an assassin? And what is an assassin in AC?
What is needed for it to be an Assassin's Creed?
Can't there be diffrent kind of assassins for each time period?
Can't assassins adapt to the time period(The Golden Age of Piracy, American Revolution)?
Do they have to use stealth even if stealth hider you to get to the target?An absolute, flat out, 100% no to all.

MadJC1986
08-10-2013, 10:59 AM
An absolute, flat out, 100% no to all.

Especially to question 2 and 3.

ProletariatPleb
08-10-2013, 11:00 AM
The only game where you were a pure Assassin and nothing else was AC1. In AC2 you were for most of the part an angry teenager out to get revenge. In ACB you were Robin hood and also the destroyer of some weird machines. In ACR you played kingmaker and in AC3 you played as a freedom fighter who was also a diretor of patriot forces on the field. Some assassin stuff these are!
Not sure if you're being serious or trolling but this is ****ing accurate.

Farlander1991
08-10-2013, 11:37 AM
Haha very true. Just visit Bioshock Infinite froum for example lol.

That's the biggest irony about fans. If you change something - fans will complain. If you keep it the same - fans will complain. If you don't listen to them - fans will complain. If you do listen to them - fans will complain.

I guess it's double ironic that this message is also coming from a fan :D In the end, it's up to developers to decide what THEY feel is going to be awesome and everything, and what particular part of their fandom complaining (which depends on what the devs do) they can live with.

AssassinHMS
08-10-2013, 12:08 PM
The only game where you were a pure Assassin and nothing else was AC1. In AC2 you were for most of the part an angry teenager out to get revenge. In ACB you were Robin hood and also the destroyer of some weird machines. In ACR you played kingmaker and in AC3 you played as a freedom fighter who was also a diretor of patriot forces on the field. Some assassin stuff these are!

Exactly! Because some people found AC1 investigations boring, Ubisoft removed them completely. They didn't even try to make them more diversed, they simply gave up on assassin's creed. Every instalment Ubisoft moved away from assassin's creed concepts. AC2 marked the end of investigation missions and open ended assassinations and, by the time of AC3, assassin's creed was no longer about assassinating and instead was all about uncharted and hollywood moments mixed with explosions and ships.
I'm not asking for a pure assassin's creed and I'm not against change as long as AC's main elements are still there and are the focus of the game.
What I want is a return to the roots and, frankly, that is what the franchise needs right now because it has lost its personality and its integrity.

If they want to make a pirate game then make it outside of the AC franchise because it's already hardly recognizable.

ProletariatPleb
08-10-2013, 12:09 PM
assassin's creed was no longer about assassinating and instead was all about uncharted and hollywood moments mixed with explosions and ships.
Pretty much.

pirate1802
08-10-2013, 01:00 PM
Not sure if you're being serious or trolling but this is ****ing accurate.

I was being totally srs, misere.

Hans684
08-10-2013, 01:23 PM
Exactly! Because some people found AC1 investigations boring, Ubisoft removed them completely. They didn't even try to make them more diversed, they simply gave up on assassin's creed. Every instalment Ubisoft moved away from assassin's creed concepts. AC2 marked the end of investigation missions and open ended assassinations and, by the time of AC3, assassin's creed was no longer about assassinating and instead was all about uncharted and hollywood moments mixed with explosions and ships.
I'm not asking for a pure assassin's creed and I'm not against change as long as AC's main elements are still there and are the focus of the game.
What I want is a return to the roots and, frankly, that is what the franchise needs right now because it has lost its personality and its integrity.

If they want to make a pirate game then make it outside of the AC franchise because it's already hardly recognizable.

Do we still eavesdrop and pickpocket? Yes. Is that a part of investigation? Yes.
How good recorded the death of famous leders/rulers/kings ect. are desides how open ended assassintations will be.
Yea, since historically there never was explosions at wars especially dose with guns, ships and pirates never existed.

AssassinHMS
08-10-2013, 02:15 PM
Do we still eavesdrop and pickpocket? Yes. Is that a part of investigation? Yes.

What are you talking about? The only assassin who investigated before assassinating was Altair in AC1.



How good recorded the death of famous leders/rulers/kings ect. are desides how open ended assassintations will be.
Yea, since historically there never was explosions at wars especially dose with guns, ships and pirates never existed.

Am I supposed to understand this?
Well, from what I gather, you're saying that the excuse for the lack of open ended assassinations and the absurd amount of explosions is the time period the devs chose and history itself.
That is why they don't make an assassin's creed during World War I or II (because there are to many guns and explosions).
However there are many more suitable time periods and locations for an assassin's creed game. And yet AC4 BF devs chose the Caribbean during the Golden Age of Piracy . Why? Because it's a good setting for pirates and they want to make a pirate game. Then why name it AC? Because it's a lot more profitable and attracts more people.

And this is what the AC franchise is today: an excuse to make other games about something else other than assassins while being able to profit under the weight of the renowned name of the franchise.

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 02:17 PM
And this is what the AC franchise is today: an excuse to make other games about something else other than assassins while being able to profit under the weight of the renowned name of the franchise.
Nah, AC IV is still about Assassins and doing Assassin things;)

Hans684
08-10-2013, 02:45 PM
What are you talking about? The only assassin who investigated before assassinating was Altair in AC1.

Am I supposed to understand this?
Well, from what I gather, you're saying that the excuse for the lack of open ended assassinations and the absurd amount of explosions is the time period the devs chose and history itself.
That is why they don't make an assassin's creed during World War I or II (because there are to many guns and explosions).
However there are many more suitable time periods and locations for an assassin's creed game. And yet AC4 BF devs chose the Caribbean during the Golden Age of Piracy . Why? Because it's a good setting for pirates and they want to make a pirate game. Then why name it AC? Because it's a lot more profitable and attracts more people.

And this is what the AC franchise is today: an excuse to make other games about something else other than assassins while being able to profit under the weight of the renowned name of the franchise.

The only assassin? No. Ezio and Connor eavesdrop and pickpocket, just becouse it's not performed like the first AC dosen't mean it's gone.

Not an excuse, it's a reason. Play Hitman if you don't like it, AC follow history.
How do yo know they wanted to make a pirate game? You don't. Do you write the AC story? No. Do you know why Ubisoft chooses the way they do? No. Is The Golden Age of Piracy a part of history? Yes, and since AC is based on history it will still be AC nomater the time period except the future. Can there be assassin and templars in The Golden Age of Piracy? Yes, it's history

pirate1802
08-10-2013, 02:47 PM
What are you talking about? The only assassin who investigated before assassinating was Altair in AC1.

I spotted some of them in AC 3 too, but yeah they were not done by an Assassin.

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 02:49 PM
I spotted some of them in AC 3 too, but yeah they were not done by an Assassin.
But Connor eaves-....Oh yeah right..

pirate1802
08-10-2013, 02:51 PM
But Connor eaves-....Oh yeah right..

Isn't it funny, that the more Assassiny stuff in AC3 were done by a Templar xD

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 02:53 PM
Isn't it funny, that the more Assassiny stuff in AC3 were done by a Templar xD
Yeah. there was actually more sneaking with Haytham than with Connor..

Hans684
08-10-2013, 02:55 PM
Remember the Thomas Hicey chayse, before that we eavesdropped on some one to gett to him. Or when looking for Benjamin Chuch we eavesdropped on his people in the camp.

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 03:01 PM
Remember the Thomas Hicey chayse, before that we eavesdropped on some one to gett to him. Or when looking for Benjamin Chuch we eavesdropped on his people in the camp.
But Connor is not an Assassin. he`s a native

roostersrule2
08-10-2013, 03:03 PM
But Connor is not an Assassin. he`s a nativeHe's a jerk.

Sushiglutton
08-10-2013, 03:04 PM
I guess this thread was always destined to become a Connor thread sooner or later :nonchalance:

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 03:07 PM
I guess this thread was always destined to become a Connor thread sooner or later :nonchalance:
bravo good job. if it turns into a Connor thread (which it hasn't yet) it`s on you...good job

AssassinHMS
08-10-2013, 03:10 PM
Nah, AC IV is still about Assassins and doing Assassin things;)

Hopefully...
But I just can't see how. So many features (quantity everywhere) , so much emphasis on pirates, the same awful combat system, lots of ships, explosions and guns and the fact they even admit it is a pirate game. Not to mention everything (the setting, the time period and the gameplay) seems to be made specially for a pirate game and only a very, very small part of it is like assassin's creed (according to the devs)...



The only assassin? No. Ezio and Connor eavesdrop and pickpocket, just becouse it's not performed like the first AC dosen't mean it's gone.

Actually, Ezio had his missions investigated (most of the time) and planned by his "friends" and Connor didn't investigate or plan them at all (except for one time in one mission that didn't go well), at least that I remember.



How do yo know they wanted to make a pirate game? You don't.

Excuse me sir but are you talking to me or to yourself? Because I do know they wanted to make a pirate game from the start. How? Because they said it in their interviews.



Do you write the AC story? No. Do you know why Ubisoft chooses the way they do? No. Is The Golden Age of Piracy a part of history? Yes, and since AC is based on history it will still be AC nomater the time period except the future. Can there be assassin and templars in The Golden Age of Piracy? Yes, it's history

Hey, if you "know" all the answers to your questions then it's clear that you don't need my help.
Have a nice day.

Hans684
08-10-2013, 03:10 PM
But Connor is not an Assassin. he`s a native

And you're not an AC expert. You're a Qeen.

roostersrule2
08-10-2013, 03:10 PM
Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor Connor

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 03:15 PM
Hopefully...
But I just can't see how. So many features (quantity everywhere) , so much emphasis on pirates, the same awful combat system, lots of ships, explosions and guns and the fact they even admit it is a pirate game. Not to mention everything (the setting, the time period and the gameplay) seems to be made specially for a pirate game and only a very, very small part of it is like assassin's creed (according to the devs)...

Combat system has nothing to do with what an Assassin does, that`s irrelevant...no, only a very very very small part of it is like Assassins Creed according to YOU, not the devs..if we`re talking about the Devs, they`v stated that 85% of the game can be finished stealthily, AI has been improved, more assassinations and a return to the original assassination contracts..that`s what`s according to the devs..

AssassinHMS
08-10-2013, 03:29 PM
Combat system has nothing to do with what an Assassin does, that`s irrelevant

Actually, if the combat system is harder and the enemies smarter, the player is encouraged to use stealth and to think like an assassin. However, with a combat system like AC3's, it's all about flashy cinematic kills.



...no, only a very very very small part of it is like Assassins Creed according to YOU, not the devs..if we`re talking about the Devs, they`v stated that 85% of the game can be finished stealthily

Really? Even the 40% of the main missions that are naval? So, only 15% of the game are explosions and naval battles? Is that so??



AI has been improved, more assassinations and a return to the original assassination contracts..that`s what`s according to the devs..

I also remember the "what's according to the devs" last year, but ok. Let's see how big that is when compared to the rest of the game, you know, the pirate game.

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 03:35 PM
Actually, if the combat system is harder and the enemies smarter, the player is encouraged to use stealth and to think like an assassin. However, with a combat system like AC3's, it's all about flashy cinematic kills.
AC I`s combat wasn't hard either, but people still used stealth...your point?



Really? Even the 40% of the missions that are naval? So, only 25% of the game are explosions and naval battles? Is that so??
Yes 40%....it`s less than 60%...60% is not Naval...60% > 40%. 60% is not a very very very very small part, but hold that thought...I`ll use this 40% because that`s according to the devs.



I also remember the "what's according to the devs" last year, but ok. Let's see how big that is when compared to the rest of the game, you know, the pirate game.
See, here`s where you fail and your entire argument crumbles..you`re willing to quote devs and take EVERYTHING they say to face value when it`s "It`s a pirate game" "40% is naval", but the second that anyone quotes ANYTHING else like "85% can be done stealthily" or "there are more Assassinations" wax falls on your ears for some odd reason..why`s that?? because you only listen to what YOU want to listen to. if you want to be taken seriously then be consistent...

Funny how you put according to the devs between quotations when you`re the one who brought it up, not I...self sarcasm I guess??

pirate1802
08-10-2013, 03:41 PM
Meh. Deus Ex HR's combat wasn't hard either. Infact its stealth was a heck lot harder than blazing your guns through. Yet most of the people I know of play it primarily as a stealth game. I think it has nothing to do with how hard combat or stealth is, but how enjoyable the experience is.

ladyleonhart
08-10-2013, 03:47 PM
Because I do know they wanted to make a pirate game from the start. How? Because they said it in their interviews.


A pirate game may have been a childhood fantasy for many, and perhaps they did want to make a pirate game. The fact is, the Golden Age of Piracy wasn't actually chosen for that reason. Then, it was specifically chosen because they wanted to make a game about Connor's grandfather. Obviously, for that reason, the historical setting chosen needed to make sense and fit with Edward's age. So, in this instance, instead of the setting being chosen first, the protagonist was chosen before the historical setting. Hence, a "Pirate Assassin".

AssassinHMS
08-10-2013, 03:49 PM
AC I`s combat wasn't hard either, but people still used stealth...your point?

Really? Then why use stealth? The whole purpose of stealth is to avoid fighting, to avoid dying but if there is no fear, if fighting is easier than sneaking then there is no point using stealth. I used stealth in AC3 when the game let me, but only because I wanted to test myself and I pretended that the guards would kill me if I fought them directly but it's nowhere near the same thing and anyone who uses stealth knows this. Just take a look at Thief.


Yes 40%....it`s less than 60%...60% is not Naval...60% > 40%. 60% is not a very very very very small part, but hold that thought...I`ll use this 40% because that`s according to the devs.

60% is not naval but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with being an assassin because, you know, fighting a bunch of pirates in a tavern isn't naval.



See, here`s where you fail and your entire argument crumbles..you`re willing to quote devs and take EVERYTHING they say to face value when it`s "It`s a pirate game" "40% is naval", but the second that anyone quotes ANYTHING else like "85% can be done stealthily" or "there are more Assassinations" wax falls on your ears for some odd reason..why`s that?? because you only listen to what YOU want to listen to. if you want to be taken seriously then be consistent...

See, that's what you wished but I only said what came to my mind. Not only that but, in the end, I complied and accepted it as a fact because I knew it wasn't fare. As my last sentece in that post proves, I took what you said as a fact, so quit it.

ArabianFrost
08-10-2013, 03:59 PM
Meh. Deus Ex HR's combat wasn't hard either. Infact its stealth was a heck lot harder than blazing your guns through. Yet most of the people I know of play it primarily as a stealth game. I think it has nothing to do with how hard combat or stealth is, but how enjoyable the experience is.

Agreed.

I could play Deus Ex HR 10 times and it still would be a joy to play. The non-linearity and stealth are just nailed down right, you can't be upset with the challenge again.

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 03:59 PM
Really? Then why use stealth? The whole purpose of stealth is to avoid fighting, to avoid dying but if there is no fear, if fighting is easier than sneaking then there is no point using stealth. I used stealth in AC3 when the game let me, but only because I wanted to test myself and I pretended that the guards would kill me if I fought them directly but it's nowhere near the same thing and anyone who uses stealth knows this. Just take a look at Thief.
You didnt offer any counters to what I said. you just repeated the same thing again. Thief is a PRIMARILY stealth game. AC is not, stealth is an important element in AC, but so is Combat...Thief`s combat is non-existent and AGAIN, AC I`s combat wasn't hard yet people still did missions stealthily...your point?

Designing a "better" mechanic is a flaw. designing combat to be extremely hard that players have no choice, but to stealth is idiotic. something that ANY designer should steer clear away from.



60% is not naval but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with being an assassin because, you know, fighting a bunch of pirates in a tavern isn't naval.

And collecting flags isnt Assassiny, but it was on the ground and I didn't hear you complain...your point?



See, that's what you wished but I only said what came to my mind. Not only that but, in the end, I complied and accepted it as a fact because I knew it wasn't fare. As my last sentece in that post proves, I took what you said as a fact so quit it.
Oooh look he gets all fussy. tongue in cheek comments, mate....like putting according to the devs between quotations....please

AssassinHMS
08-10-2013, 04:19 PM
You didnt offer any counters to what I said. you just repeated the same thing again. Thief is a PRIMARILY stealth game. AC is not, stealth is an important element in AC, but so is Combat...Thief`s combat is non-existent and AGAIN, AC I`s combat wasn't hard yet people still did missions stealthily...your point?

If you go to Thief Forums etc. you'll see that they want combat to be hard or almost non-existent (not that I think that should be AC's case) because that adds fear and tension and gives a real purpose to stealth.
I already explained to you how combat difficulty influences the use of stealth and my point is in my posts so keep looking for it mate...


Designing a "better" mechanic is a flaw. designing combat to be extremely hard that players have no choice, but to stealth is idiotic. something that ANY designer should steer clear away from.

According to you. So you're saying Thief's devs are idiots because they design combat to be extremely hard so that players don't have a choice but to use stealth... Your words mate.

Why not have different levels of difficulty then? For those who want to be able to kill everything that moves and for the others who want some challenge and to be encouraged to use stealth. Oh, not to mention, a man killing hundreds in fare combat is ridiculous and unrealistic.



And collecting flags isnt Assassiny, but it was on the ground and I didn't hear you complain...your point?

I also didn't complain about beat up events, courier missions and whatnot because those things were a minority and didn't get in the way. They had their own place and they did their job without getting mixed or taking the stage away from the assassin stuff.




Oooh look he gets all fussy. tongue in cheek comments, mate....like putting according to the devs between quotations....please

See, if you want to be taken seriously then you should avoid such childish comments and actually contribute for the discussion instead of trying to get personal. Shame...

Assassin_M
08-10-2013, 06:51 PM
If you go to Thief Forums etc. you'll see that they want combat to be hard or almost non-existent (not that I think that should be AC's case) because that adds fear and tension and gives a real purpose to stealth.
I already explained to you how combat difficulty influences the use of stealth and my point is in my posts so keep looking for it mate...
Again with thief. I already told you why that comparison does not work. Thief is PRIMARILY a stealth game. AC is not. stealth is THE MAIN design base of thief. a non-confrontational style, while AC is supposed to be about freedom of play. if Combat is hard as bricks, that just kills the whole idea. you`re killing a play style in favor of another one, you`re forcing the player into a specific play style. that`s not AC.

AGAIN, AC I`s combat was not challenging at all, yet people still used stealth...your point?




According to you. So you're saying Thief's devs are idiots because they design combat to be extremely hard so that players don't have a choice but to use stealth... Your words mate.
According to any sane designer. When my base design is about choosing different play styles, then I go and encourage or discourage a play style over the other then I`m an idiot. that does not apply to Thief`s design which WANTS to encourage a non-confrontational play style. it`s a direction. if Thief`s combat system was easy like AC while still retaining its base design of non-confrontation, then yes THAT is idiotic.


Why not have different levels of difficulty then? For those who want to be able to kill everything that moves and for the others who want some challenge and to be encouraged to use stealth. Oh, not to mention, a man killing hundreds in fare combat is ridiculous and unrealistic.
that`s an entirely different subject altogether. I don`t think a difficulty system would work in a game like AC, but that`s just me. do I want harder combat? absolutely, I just don`t think a choice between hard and easy can be made, NOR do I want challenge for the goal of discouraging combat and encouraging stealth.



I also didn't complain about beat up events, courier missions and whatnot because those things were a minority and didn't get in the way. They had their own place and they did their job without getting mixed or taking the stage away from the assassin stuff.
I`m assuming getting mixed up means being embroiled and integrated in the story?? fine lets examine that. Beat up missions were integrated in story missions, delivery and racing were integrated numerous times throughout AC II`s story, tombs were integrated as well, collecting flags was integrated in AC I`s investigation.

There you go. It still didn't take away anything from the Assassin elements.



See, if you want to be taken seriously then you should avoid such childish comments and actually contribute for the discussion instead of trying to get personal. Shame...
Tongue in cheek comments suck don`t they?;)

Raibuscus
08-10-2013, 09:53 PM
AC is fine the way it is. No need for combat to be so hard that you'll **** bricks when you get detected, if you want to play stealthy you'll be able to. If you want to kill everything and everyone, go have fun and do that. I don't see the problem here guys, there are different ways of doing it and yet you guys are complaining.

pirate1802
08-11-2013, 04:27 AM
Yeah. In a game that advertises its freedom, forced stealth is as bad as forced combat.