PDA

View Full Version : Daniel Cross Deleted Monologue...What Could Have Been.



Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:29 AM
Listen. Just Listen. Why cut this? What the hell man? Just...I don't even...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LP1b2s4YsiE

Assassin_M
08-31-2013, 02:31 AM
what the actual hell, that was....it gave me goosebumps....i feel very sorry for the actor who delivered this, my god...what a damm waste

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:33 AM
what the actual hell, that was....it gave me goosebumps....i feel very sorry for the actor who delivered this, my god...what a damm waste

I know right...what a brilliant performance from the actor. I'm beyond mad at AC3 now , maybe if they had more time.

I welled up the minute I heard his distress and sheer pain in his voice.

ArabianFrost
08-31-2013, 02:36 AM
Can we confirm this is authentic? I would imagine we would hear a bit of Desmond.


If this is legit, then the devs of AC3 must have really not thought through the presentation of the story through. What message in God's name where they trying to send with that game? There was not one character that had a complete story arc. First the Connor speech now this? These speeches are what give characters deoth and ending. Fake or not, this made me feel for Daniel. For God's sake, why?

I-Like-Pie45
08-31-2013, 02:39 AM
the same reason this was cut

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6d79JHh3cU

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:41 AM
Can we confirm this is authentic? I would imagine we would hear a bit of Desmond.


If this is legit, then the devs of AC3 must have really not thought through the presentation of the story through. What message in God's name where they trying to send with that game? There was not one character that had a complete story arc. First the Connor speech now this? These speeches are what give characters deoth and ending. Fake or not, this made me feel for Daniel. For God's sake, why?

It's legit, sounds exactly like his voice actor. Hutchinson you scoundrel.

LightRey
08-31-2013, 02:41 AM
the same reason this was cut

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6d79JHh3cU
Leaving this one out was probably the biggest mistake Ubi made regarding the entire series.

ArabianFrost
08-31-2013, 02:45 AM
Leaving this one out was probably the biggest mistake Ubi made regarding the entire series.

Before you point fingers, understand that developing both an engine and a game can take quite a lot of time. It's not that they deliberately removed it, but they just probably weren't able to implement these speeches into the game. When you think about, they cannot just insert it into the game. They need to find context for it and fast. My guess is that they didn't have enough time to fit these speeches into narrative contexts.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:45 AM
the same reason this was cut

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6d79JHh3cU

So yeah I just heard that for the first time.

I can't believe it. WHY? Would this even that much require extra time? Poor show Ubisoft, poor show.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:47 AM
Before you point fingers, understand that developing both an engine and a game can take quite a lot of time. It's not that they deliberately removed it, but they just probably weren't able to implement these speeches into the game. When you think about, they cannot just insert it into the game. They need to find context for it and fast. My guess is that they didn't have enough time to fit these speeches into narrative contexts.

Those scenes would be worth a month's delay at very least.

D.I.D.
08-31-2013, 02:49 AM
I'd say they cut that because it's absolutely laughable, and it would have made the game even worse. My God.

There's really nothing too far for some of you, eh

roostersrule2
08-31-2013, 02:49 AM
Those scenes would be worth a month's delay at very least.Not really, he could have said it to Haytham.

ArabianFrost
08-31-2013, 02:50 AM
More than anyone else, I feel bad for the AC3 devs. They really really could have had something going and they are the biggest losers in this. They're expendable. Ubisoft couldn't care much as long as the games generate revenue.

**** greed man. The Witcher 3 with its world that's bigger than Skyrim, only took about $2 million to make in the last year. Look how well it's doing? More publishers need to understand that inhibiting the devs ideas only to implement a set of ideal only the executives agree to ruins the game.

Assassin_M
08-31-2013, 02:52 AM
I always felt Cross should`v had a death speech...that alone would`v made up for the atrocious ark they gave him in AC III..at least for me.

adventurewomen
08-31-2013, 02:53 AM
Some of these sound files have been compressed with the games files on PC, a few people have extracted them before like this one for example:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6d79JHh3cU

This monologue was included within the game files of AC3, it's the same situation for Cross' monologue.

ArabianFrost
08-31-2013, 02:53 AM
Not really, he could have said it to Haytham.

You underestimate how hard it is to implement such a riveting speech. Do you wanted Connor to say it to Edward when he was bleeding out or chasing Church? They had to create a whole sub-plot to reach the point where Connor even finds the time to sit with the old man and have a nice long speech.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:54 AM
I'd say they cut that because it's absolutely laughable, and it would have made the game even worse. My God.

There's really nothing too far for some of you, eh

I respect your opinion despite your rudeness but don't you believe Daniel's death deserved at least some context? Out of curiosity what's so bad about this anyway?

Assassin_M
08-31-2013, 02:55 AM
You underestimate how hard it is to implement such a riveting speech. Do you wanted Connor to say it to Edward when he was bleeding out or chasing Church? They had to create a whole sub-plot to reach the point where Connor even finds the time to sit with the old man and have a nice long speech.
Playing that speech over him putting the portraits in the fire would`v have more than sufficed...

D.I.D.
08-31-2013, 02:55 AM
I always felt Cross should`v had a death speech...that alone would`v made up for the atrocious ark they gave him in AC III..at least for me.

It would have just made something weird even weirder for anyone who hadn't read their graphic novel or played all of the multiplayer stages.

I think they were in a bit of a bind by the time it came to having that showdown. He couldn't be left out, but at the same time they couldn't make too much of him because so many players would be scratching their heads and wondering, "... Who?"

Assassin_M
08-31-2013, 02:57 AM
It would have just made something weird even weirder for anyone who hadn't read their graphic novel or played all of the multiplayer stages.

I think they were in a bit of a bind by the time it came to having that showdown. He couldn't be left out, but at the same time they couldn't make too much of him because so many players would be scratching their heads and wondering, "... Who?"
He`s there in the game already, why screw up it for those who know him then?? with the way it is right now, they screw up BOTH those who knew Cross by removing this and those who didn't by adding him to the game..just why then?

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:58 AM
It would have just made something weird even weirder for anyone who hadn't read their graphic novel or played all of the multiplayer stages.

I think they were in a bit of a bind by the time it came to having that showdown. He couldn't be left out, but at the same time they couldn't make too much of him because so many players would be scratching their heads and wondering, "... Who?"

It would be nice fan service for the Hardcore fans who waited years for a good conclusion to Desmond's story arc and instead got something absolutely terrible.

Kaschra
08-31-2013, 02:59 AM
I always felt Cross should`v had a death speech...that alone would`v made up for the atrocious ark they gave him in AC III..at least for me.
I definitely agree with this.
Wh did they cut this.... why....

SixKeys
08-31-2013, 02:59 AM
Holy ****. Connor's deleted monologue never did anything for me (as I felt it was unnecessary, we already saw the essence of it in his character), but this.....Damn, if this is legit, then I am so disappointed. Daniel was a huge wasted opportunity in the game and this could have at least somewhat redeemed him.

LightRey
08-31-2013, 03:00 AM
Before you point fingers, understand that developing both an engine and a game can take quite a lot of time. It's not that they deliberately removed it, but they just probably weren't able to implement these speeches into the game. When you think about, they cannot just insert it into the game. They need to find context for it and fast. My guess is that they didn't have enough time to fit these speeches into narrative contexts.
Tbh, they could've played the sound file during the credits and the game would've been better, so even considering what you've said I still think it's a huge mistake.


Holy ****. Connor's deleted monologue never did anything for me (as I felt it was unnecessary, we already saw the essence of it in his character), but this.....Damn, if this is legit, then I am so disappointed. Daniel was a huge wasted opportunity in the game and this could have at least somewhat redeemed him.
Well for you and I it did yeah, but I think it wasn't apparent to all, not by a long shot.
Should've been though, it was really clear as freakin' day. People just see what they want to see. :/

Assassin_M
08-31-2013, 03:01 AM
It would be nice fan service for the Hardcore fans who waited years for a good conclusion to Desmond's story arc and instead got something absolutely terrible.
This made me think...this speech could`v actually also added to Desmond, not just Cross...we relate to characters when they`re placed in different, various arrays of situations..Cross was losing his mind and Desmond killing him just like that was utterly disrespectful to BOTH Desmond and Cross.

D.I.D.
08-31-2013, 03:01 AM
I respect your opinion despite your rudeness but don't you believe Daniel's death deserved at least some context? Out of curiosity what's so bad about this anyway?

It's totally over the top to the point of being high camp, like anime-level bad.

I didn't have any reason to care about Daniel Cross to the extent that they presented him in the game. I read the graphic novel once, and he was pretty disappointing there (both stereotypical and anachronistic - a 90s cliché in the early 80s?*), but you have to remember only a minority of people read that at all. Then your only other exposure to him was in ACR MP cutscenes - I didn't play MP at all, lots of other people didn't. Some might have done what I did and watched some of the cutscenes on YouTube I guess.

* [Scratch that, misremembered! For some reason I thought Cross was shown around 85, but Wikia says he was a 90s cliché in the 90s after all!]

So they built up Cross for a long time, but that's not the same thing as building him up well. I think it would have been better if they'd had Desmond see but not catch Cross - then the devs would have more time to build him up over future games before the payoff. He needed to slowly acquire a legend in the games themselves, but instead Cross and Vidic were squandered in a way that pleased hardly anyone.

roostersrule2
08-31-2013, 03:02 AM
I always felt Cross should`v had a death speech...that alone would`v made up for the atrocious ark they gave him in AC III..at least for me.What do you mean? He never had a ship?

ArabianFrost
08-31-2013, 03:02 AM
Holy ****. Connor's deleted monologue never did anything for me (as I felt it was unnecessary, we already saw the essence of it in his character), but this.....Damn, if this is legit, then I am so disappointed. Daniel was a huge wasted opportunity in the game and this could have at least somewhat redeemed him.

As someone who read the comics, Daniel Cross always seemed like a soft guy with a mean shroud on top. I really would have liked them to explore such a complex character....and hanna.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 03:03 AM
Holy ****. Connor's deleted monologue never did anything for me (as I felt it was unnecessary, we already saw the essence of it in his character), but this.....Damn, if this is legit, then I am so disappointed. Daniel was a huge wasted opportunity in the game and this could have at least somewhat redeemed him.

I believe it is legit. All this shows is the writers did have an understanding of his character and simply couldn't be arsed doing anything with it.

roostersrule2
08-31-2013, 03:05 AM
This wouldn't have redeemed him for me, maybe felt a tad sorry for him but only in the same way that made people feel sorry for the Joker's scars.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 03:06 AM
It's totally over the top to the point of being high camp, like anime-level bad.

I didn't have any reason to care about Daniel Cross to the extent that they presented him in the game. I read the graphic novel once, and he was pretty disappointing there (both stereotypical and anachronistic - a 90s cliche in the early 80s?*), but you have to remember only a minority of people read that at all. Then your only other exposure to him was in ACR MP cutscenes - I didn't play MP at all, lots of other people didn't. Some might have done what I did and watched some of the cutscenes on YouTube I guess.

* [Scratch that, misremembered! For some reason I thought Cross was shown around 85, but Wikia says he was a 90s cliché in the 90s after all!]

So they built up Cross for a long time, but that's not the same thing as building him up well. I think it would have been better if they'd had Desmond see but not catch Cross - then the devs would have more time to build him up over future games before the payoff. He needed to slowly acquire a legend in the games themselves, but instead Cross and Vidic were squandered in a way that pleased hardly anyone.

I only read his Wikia article and still I felt for him during this speech. Maybe I'm immature I don't know or care--there are hardcore fans that read the comics who would greatly enjoy it. There's no denying that, especially gauging from the reaction here.

ArabianFrost
08-31-2013, 03:08 AM
Playing that speech over him putting the portraits in the fire would`v have more than sufficed...

That would have been lazy, especially that the portrait collection was supposed to be Connor's personal moment of despair. The best scene would have been an extended scene during Haytham's funeral. Just Connor, standing under the drizzling rain, witnessing his father's funeral as he speaks speech. Again, if it were that easy, they could have done it, but they probably wanted it to be either perfect or not at all.

D.I.D.
08-31-2013, 03:08 AM
It would be nice fan service for the Hardcore fans who waited years for a good conclusion to Desmond's story arc and instead got something absolutely terrible.

The whole level was bad in so many ways: dialogue, events, pacing. I'm imagining this overwrought scene slotted into it, and I really think it would have been way worse. It's such a weird switch from the chase dialogue to this, and then to have to wait for this to finish before proceeding to the weirdness with Vidic? Too much cheese in one level. I reckon they were desperately hacking pieces away from that level to try and get it into a vaguely palatable shape with a deadline looming.

Jexx21
08-31-2013, 03:09 AM
It would be nice fan service for the Hardcore fans who waited years for a good conclusion to Desmond's story arc and instead got something absolutely terrible.

I actually thought that the ending of AC3 was perfect. The bits relating to Cross and Vidic though.. not so much.

Also, I don't think that this speech is true to Cross's character. I would have loved a a death speech from both Cross and Vidic, but I wouldn't have liked this one for Cross because Cross embraced the lives of his ancestors as his own.

Jexx21
08-31-2013, 03:11 AM
That would have been lazy, especially that the portrait collection was supposed to be Connor's personal moment of despair. The best scene would have been an extended scene during Haytham's funeral. Just Connor, standing under the drizzling rain, witnessing his father's funeral as he speaks speech. Again, if it were that easy, they could have done it, but they probably wanted it to be either perfect or not at all.
Uh.. in Forsaken this speech was spoken by Connor as he dug up the grave of Achilles' son to bury the amulet. That's when they could have put it in.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 03:14 AM
The whole level was bad in so many ways: dialogue, events, pacing. I'm imagining this overwrought scene slotted into it, and I really think it would have been way worse. It's such a weird switch from the chase dialogue to this, and then to have to wait for this to finish before proceeding to the weirdness with Vidic? Too much cheese in one level. I reckon they were desperately hacking pieces away from that level to try and get it into a vaguely palatable shape with a deadline looming.

You're right. At the end of the day there should have been no deadline and they should of had the freedom to finish whenever they liked. They could have the time to provide satisfying conclusions for all the characters such as Cross and Vidic in great missions that are actually coherent/paced well and not stopped till they got it right.

But Alas...

SixKeys
08-31-2013, 03:19 AM
I don't know what they originally had in store for Desmond and Daniel's confrontation(s) in the game. This makes me think they had much bigger plans to connect the two but things changed when they started running out of time or resources. It seems like in the original script Desmond actually assassinated Daniel in a proper assassin-y way, death speech and all, and probably had more of an understanding of what Daniel was going through. In the final game there is literally no connection between them when they could have done so much more. Daniel's veins start glowing the same way Desmond's arm did at the end of ACR, they never explained why. There should have been a moment where Desmond realizes that the same thing that is killing Cross will probably end up killing him too (or driving him mad), leading to the ultimate realization at the end that he has no other choice but to sacrifice himself for humanity's sake. If Desmond had chosen to live on and become the leader of the post-apocalyptic world like Minerva suggested, he probably would have eventually ended up succumbing to the bleeding effect like Daniel. The script needed more room to develop the parallels between Desmond and Daniel, to show that they're going through the exact same thing and they both know it will ultimately lead to their death. It's just a question of who goes first and how. Daniel ends up pleading for his life because he knows Desmond understands his pain. Desmond ends up becoming a true assassin who has to make the hard decision of killing someone not just because they're a direct threat but because it's the right thing to do.

Instead, in the final game Desmond kills Daniel unceremoniously, having learned nothing of his inner turmoil except through some throwaway remarks by Rebecca. Vidic is killed by random security guard #4, so Desmond never gets his moment as a true assassin.

I feel robbed. Like having Daniel be a properly developed character in the game and showing the parallels between him and Desmond could actually have redeemed the modern day story somewhat.

Jexx21
08-31-2013, 03:23 AM
The Daniel and Vidic arcs were what ruined the modern day story.. if they were better there would be nothing to redeem in my opinion.

But I agree with the rest of your post there, they should have had Daniel and Desmond develop some sort of relationship, even if it's at death.

D.I.D.
08-31-2013, 03:27 AM
He`s there in the game already, why screw up it for those who know him then?? with the way it is right now, they screw up BOTH those who knew Cross by removing this and those who didn't by adding him to the game..just why then?

You could ask "why?" about so many aspects of this.

Cross makes me think of movies made from books. You know how often directors will warn fans of the book, "Some fans aren't going to like it, but we've trimmed [x] because she serves basically the same purpose as [y] so we've balled them up together as a single person. Oh, and we tried including [z], but he just wasn't working, so we had to leave him out"? Cross is one of those characters. The way he acted through AC3 was like one of those villain's henchman types out of a DC comic, or a brute character in a fighting game. We never really knew who he was beyond spiky hair, nose ring, bad childhood, and it seemed like the devs couldn't really get a handle on this character either.

His history in the comics didn't match this guy. He'd become a kind of faux-enlightened Scientologist-like figure in the book, a charismatic cult leader who's secretly ruthless, but then the game just had him as Vidic's guard dog, a simple superthug. I don't think this speech would have squared that circle. Perhaps it would have been best if Cross's story had only been in the games, or if it had stayed strictly in the comic?

Jexx21
08-31-2013, 03:30 AM
I take it someone didn't read the AC Initiates stuff.

SixKeys
08-31-2013, 03:30 AM
The Daniel and Vidic arcs were what ruined the modern day story.. if they were better there would be nothing to redeem in my opinion.

But I agree with the rest of your post there, they should have had Daniel and Desmond develop some sort of relationship, even if it's at death.

They really needed some moments alone (not in that way, you pervs). In the final game, Desmond chases down Cross while being pursued by several guards, so inserting a death speech there would have been unrealistic. (It only works in the ancestor segments because Animus.) There should have been more cat-and-mouse play between the two of them, to really give off that vibe that Cross was dangerous and determined. When they finally confronted each other, Cross should have gone off on a rant about how his life was ruined by the assassins and the pain he goes through with the bleeding effect every day. That would have given Desmond a more personal perspective on who he was dealing with and given him pause to reflect on their similarities. Then when Daniel succumbs to the bleeding effect, he pleads Desmond to end his life. Desmond complies, now fully understanding that Daniel isn't really a bad guy, just driven mad by the same condition that's plaguing him. So he does what an assassin should do, which is to show mercy even at his enemies. When the deed is done and Daniel is dead, Desmond rises with new determination, ready to face his newfound identity and Vidic.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 03:31 AM
I take it someone didn't read the AC Initiates stuff.

I didn't. What are you referring to?

Jexx21
08-31-2013, 03:31 AM
Not that I disagree with that basis, but the Assassins didn't ruin Daniel's life. It was all Abstergo.

Jexx21
08-31-2013, 03:32 AM
I didn't. What are you referring to?

Tons of Daniel and Otso Beg stuff. I would copy and paste it here but I don't think I'm allowed. *sigh* I remember when AC Initiates was open to everyone.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 03:34 AM
Tons of Daniel and Otso Beg stuff. I would copy and paste it here but I don't think I'm allowed. *sigh* I remember when AC Initiates was open to everyone.

You'll not be eaten whole. Divulge! ;)

SixKeys
08-31-2013, 03:34 AM
Not that I disagree with that basis, but the Assassins didn't ruin Daniel's life. It was all Abstergo.

Yeah, but that's not how Daniel saw it. Otherwise he wouldn't have sided with the Templars. He was driven crazy by his past life as Nikolai, an assassin.

D.I.D.
08-31-2013, 03:35 AM
I take it someone didn't read the AC Initiates stuff.

Me? Absolutely not. I refuse to believe there was something on the other side of the ARG water torture that could somehow make a bad story good, but even if there was then someone ought to be fired.

Jexx21
08-31-2013, 03:35 AM
Right, where the Assassins were ****s to him and his family. Forgot about that.

Jexx21
08-31-2013, 03:36 AM
Me? Absolutely not. I refuse to believe there was something on the other side of the ARG water torture that could somehow make a bad story good, but even if there was then someone ought to be fired.

"omg, this guy is so bad at his job. he should be fired instead of giving him advice and criticism to help him learn."

SixKeys
08-31-2013, 03:41 AM
The AC Initiates stuff relating to Daniel, from what I read, wasn't that different from what we saw in AC3. He was basically Vidic's lapdog which felt oddly jarring to how he was portrayed in the comics. The comics made him out to be a troubled but extremely intelligent individual. He made it all the way to the top through his own merits and was considered one of the most dangerous and efficient Templars. The Initiates stuff (I'm assuming it's safe to say this since the information used to be public, before the site locked down) was just a bunch of phone calls between him and Vidic where Daniel came off as impatient, impulsive and entirely dependent on Vidic. That's how we saw him in AC3 too. What happened to the calculating Daniel who could outsmart even Vidic?

Spider_Sith9
08-31-2013, 03:47 AM
First Connor and now this? Also, where are people finding these?

joey-4321_web
08-31-2013, 04:20 AM
This only makes me wish that ubisoft had every body working on Ac3 instead off splitting the teams to make brotherhood and revelation full fledged games instead of dlcs and having a smaller team working Ac3 for the first couple years

The_Heisenberg
08-31-2013, 05:20 AM
Well well well, looks like Hutchinson has out done himself yet again! What an amazing scene, completely wasted.

LoyalACFan
08-31-2013, 05:28 AM
Well well well, looks like Hutchinson has out done himself yet again! What an amazing scene, completely wasted.

I doubt Hutchinson made a conscious decision to cut it out. It was likely the same thing that seemed plague the rest of AC3. They had plenty of time to make the game, develop oodles of side content, yadda yadda yadda, but then all of a sudden they were caught by the deadline with heaps of unfinished content on the table. Something had to get axed, and unfortunately some of it was good stuff, while large amounts of crap remained.

Farlander1991
08-31-2013, 07:13 AM
You know people, just because AC3 didn't leave up to the hype, expectations, and failed to deliver on a number of levels, doesn't mean that Hutchinson is some evil guy with a moustache who was going "Bwahaha! We won't have assassination contracts like in AC2, just random people walking around to be killed! Bwahahaha! We're going to have Daniel Cross killed just as any other random guard! Bwahahaha!" I mean, really, stuff like this happens a lot in game dev. You want to make the best game possible, and then, time comes, and hard decisions have to be made. What to focus on. What not to focus on. What to cut. Nobody wants to make a bad game, and AC3 had lots of smart talented people working on it. I mean, really, it should be, "Hutchinson, even though AC3 is not what we wanted, thanks for attempting to bring to us the best experience possible!", and instead it's "Oh Hutchinson you bastard ruining AC since 2012" or something all over the place.

misterB2001
08-31-2013, 08:30 AM
See this is the kind of stuff that would have helped redeem AC3 for me. The writing and acting is superb and a huge step up from previous efforts.

Makes me kinda sad, if AC3 had been able to have another 6 month or so to develop, it would have been so much better.

lothario-da-be
08-31-2013, 11:48 AM
Another ac dev to add on my hate list, first Connor now Cross? Why ubi?

TheHumanTowel
08-31-2013, 11:51 AM
Eh it's alright. It's a bit melodramatic especially at the start. "Oh the voices!"

I do like the idea of Daniel breaking down and begging Desmond to kill him but this small scene would not have redeemed the travesty that is the Abstergo mission or Daniel Cross' portrayal in the game. It does make me wonder about the original vision for the game and how that would compare to what we got. It certainly would have been better presentation wise given what we've seen. It always felt like they were running out of time and just threw the modern day together and this lends a little bit of credibility to that.

Farlander1991
08-31-2013, 12:03 PM
I kind of half-expected the Modern Day part of AC3 to be disappointing. Because it makes sense, less resources are allocated to it, because you've got all these cities and things in the past to deal with.
AC1 pretty much had just one room in the whole game.
AC2 was a bigger scope, but modern day there was practically non-existent - a kinda boring warehouse and an extension of the Abstergo building at the very beginning.
ACB got its Modern Day part extended thanks to the ability to reuse assets from what they were doing for the past parts in AC2 and ACB.
ACR, like AC1, was pretty much just one location in the whole game.
And then we have AC3 with four absolutely new full locations that for the most part don't reuse anything from the past games (even for Abstergo they most likely would have to create new models) or past time locations.

So, if you think about it, in AC3 we have the most new content any AC game ever had. And even that wasn't enough to also fully flesh out the modern day storyline.

Makes you wonder what would've happened if there were no ACB and Revelations.

ACfan443
08-31-2013, 12:30 PM
As nice as it is, this 60 second piece of audio could not have saved the abysmal and unceremonious ending that cross had, his character was long doomed (as was the modern day in general) and no amount of emotion in a death speech could rectify that.

AlphaAltair
08-31-2013, 12:35 PM
Jesus. They could of played that speech over the end credits. It's Connor journalising. i guess a lot of you guys still buy the "we took 3 years to develop this" crap. Ubisoft is one of the biggest bulls**ters ever when it comes to marketing. In that, they deliver great marketing campaigns that really drive hype but then dont deliver when the game comes out....

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 01:25 PM
Eh it's alright. It's a bit melodramatic especially at the start. "Oh the voices!"

I do like the idea of Daniel breaking down and begging Desmond to kill him but this small scene would not have redeemed the travesty that is the Abstergo mission or Daniel Cross' portrayal in the game. It does make me wonder about the original vision for the game and how that would compare to what we got. It certainly would have been better presentation wise given what we've seen. It always felt like they were running out of time and just threw the modern day together and this lends a little bit of credibility to that.

Agreed, it's not the best but at least this would maybe, just maybe do any small amount of justice for his character in AC3. I know it's been said a thousand times before but if they had no deadlines, if they didn't release yearly it would only increase the games quality greatly.

roostersrule2
08-31-2013, 01:33 PM
Agreed, it's not the best but at least this would maybe, just maybe do any small amount of justice for his character in AC3. I know it's been said a thousand times before but if they had no deadlines, if they didn't release yearly it would only increase the games quality greatly.Indeed, I thought the series would get a dramatic change from current-next gen but with it being on both gens, they'll just ease into it and we will still only see minor upgrades for the next couple of years.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 01:42 PM
Indeed, I thought the series would get a dramatic change from current-next gen but with it being on both gens, they'll just ease into it and we will still only see minor upgrades for the next couple of years.

I hope Ubisoft Toronto's AC will be the next big step up. I am happy with Black Flag though, even though it's got similarities with AC3, in fact it's actually using them better than AC3 did and exploiting the potential AC3 had -- which was A LOT.

roostersrule2
08-31-2013, 01:47 PM
I hope Ubisoft Toronto's AC will be the next big step up. I am happy with Black Flag though, even though it's got similarities with AC3, in fact it's actually using them better than AC3 did and exploiting the potential AC3 had -- which was A LOT.It's doing what ACB did to AC2, except AC2 did reach it's potential.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 01:55 PM
It's doing what ACB did to AC2, except AC2 did reach it's potential.

Ehhhh...disputable. I thought Brotherhood was better gameplay wise what with the brilliant side missions like Da Vinci's machines and Borgia Towers. Also, It's side missions made a lot more sense -- no beating up husband's and such. I also loved the new lift free running element which I found useful to evade guards.

I enjoyed ACB a whole lot more than any other AC game. Maybe it was because it was my first.

roostersrule2
08-31-2013, 02:00 PM
Ehhhh...disputable. I thought Brotherhood was better gameplay wise what with the brilliant side missions like Da Vinci's machines and Borgia Towers. Also, It's side missions made a lot more sense -- no beating up husband's and such. I also loved the new lift free running element which I found useful to evade guards.

I enjoyed ACB a whole lot more than any other AC game. Maybe it was because it was my first.That's what I'm saying haha, ACB's gameplay was so polished and added little yet noticeable things to the gameplay/graphics, the side missions were very good, best in the series.

All I meant by with AC2 is that it did live up to it's promise, at least I think it did. I wasn't around here back then, but it's the most critically acclaimed AC game yet.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:09 PM
That's what I'm saying haha, ACB's gameplay was so polished and added little yet noticeable things to the gameplay/graphics, the side missions were very good, best in the series.

All I meant by with AC2 is that it did live up to it's promise, at least I think it did. I wasn't around here back then, but it's the most critically acclaimed AC game yet.

Well AC2's combat greatly disappointed me because it just felt slow and uninteresting. The beat-up missions were very pointless and although it was funny the first time it became boring. There were little inconsistencies that dampened my experience but it's probably my second favourite.

I personally believe AC2 is overhyped.

roostersrule2
08-31-2013, 02:14 PM
Well AC2's combat greatly disappointed me because it just felt slow and uninteresting. The beat-up missions were very pointless and although it was funny the first time it became boring. There were little inconsistencies that dampened my experience but it's probably my second favourite.

I personally believe AC2 is overhyped.That's probably because you played ACB first, AC2 has my 2nd favourite combat of the series, it's not extremely easy like ACB's but not boring like AC1's, AC3 had my favourite. That's why I told you to play UC1 before UC2 in the other thread.

You can't really say it's overhyped if you weren't there for the hype but you could say it's overrated but I'd disagree.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:16 PM
That's probably because you played ACB first, AC2 has my 2nd favourite combat of the series, it's not extremely easy like ACB's but not boring like AC1's, AC3 had my favourite. That's why I told you to play UC1 before UC2 in the other thread.

You can't really say it's overhyped if you weren't there for the hype but you could say it's overrated but I'd disagree.

Yeah overrated, I meant overrated. Each to his own then Rooster, we're starting to drift off topic.

roostersrule2
08-31-2013, 02:19 PM
Yeah overrated, I meant overrated. Each to his own then Rooster, we're starting to drift off topic.Good, almost every thread I post in goes off-topic, I think people are starting to become aware.

Anywho I doubt this would have done much for his character, it made him look whiny more then it would have made me feel sympathy for him.

Shahkulu101
08-31-2013, 02:29 PM
Good, almost every thread I post in goes off-topic, I think people are starting to become aware.

Anywho I doubt this would have done much for his character, it made him look whiny more then it would have made me feel sympathy for him.

Whiny? Those voices tortured him his whole life did they not? I'm pretty sure that would mess you up.

roostersrule2
08-31-2013, 02:30 PM
Whiny? Those voices tortured him his whole life did they not? I'm pretty sure that would mess you up.Yea but he was ******.

BATISTABUS
08-31-2013, 05:16 PM
Whoever worked the chopping block for AC3 needs to re-evaluate their standards.

inferno33222
08-31-2013, 06:15 PM
The Bleeding Effect is such a cool concept, but I was disappointed that we didn't see it affect Desmond in any way. Wouldn't it have been way cooler if all throughout AC3 Desmond kept getting crazier and crazier, perhaps even choosing to die in the end because he knew there was no future for him?

Farlander1991
08-31-2013, 06:21 PM
The Bleeding Effect is such a cool concept, but I was disappointed that we didn't see it affect Desmond in any way. Wouldn't it have been way cooler if all throughout AC3 Desmond kept getting crazier and crazier, perhaps even choosing to die in the end because he knew there was no future for him?

Yeah, I was disappointed with the lack of Bleeding Effect too. In this thread I list a few ideas that could be used with it in AC3. (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/756061-Why-Desmond-shouldn-t-have-had-the-Bleeding-Effect-cured-(SPOILERS))

Jexx21
08-31-2013, 06:21 PM
ACR was supposed to cure the bleeding effect. At least, from the Ezio and Altair memories.

Assassin_M
08-31-2013, 06:28 PM
The Bleeding Effect is such a cool concept, but I was disappointed that we didn't see it affect Desmond in any way. Wouldn't it have been way cooler if all throughout AC3 Desmond kept getting crazier and crazier, perhaps even choosing to die in the end because he knew there was no future for him?
I think the point of Desmond`s bleeding effect was him NOT getting crazy, well...at least not like 16. but ACR was actually all about the bleeding effect. His hallucinations in AC II and ACB cultivated when he killed Lucy and then his brain shut down....he was still suffering from it in AC III, though..when he collapses in front of the temple gate.

adventurewomen
08-31-2013, 06:30 PM
Desmond suffered from a bleeding effect in the start of AC3, the cure of the bleeding effect failed.

Assassin_M
08-31-2013, 06:32 PM
Desmond suffered from a bleeding effect in the start of AC3, the cure of the bleeding effect failed.
Yes and I think the point is that we should`v seen more of this fail...Farlander`s linked thread is a nice idea and a great read

Farlander1991
08-31-2013, 06:33 PM
But that bleeding effect thing at the start of AC3 is such a cop out, though. And it's not really 'suffering' from the bleeding effect as much as Juno activating it on purpose. Plus, it's the only instance of the bleeding effect for Desmond we ever get in the whole game, so for all intents and purposes he was cured in ACR as far as we know.

Sushiglutton
08-31-2013, 08:34 PM
Wouldn't have saved it for me, I didn't even know who the guy was :/. No fan of the modern part of AC3 at all, but to be fair the devs had some very tough side constraints. It was pretty much mission impossible.

pacmanate
08-31-2013, 10:33 PM
Its weird how the dialogue cut from the game so far that I have heard is the best I have heard in the whole series. Really annoying. Loved Connors monologue thing, loved Haythams, love Daniels. Heck if those 3 were all present in AC3 it could have saved it for me. Connors speech was amazing. It made me disregard me thinking he was just arrogant all the time.

I-Like-Pie45
08-31-2013, 10:53 PM
Its weird how the dialogue cut from the game so far that I have heard is the best I have heard in the whole series. Really annoying. Loved Connors monologue thing, loved Haythams, love Daniels. Heck if those 3 were all present in AC3 it could have saved it for me. Connors speech was amazing. It made me disregard me thinking he was just arrogant all the time.
If you're referring to Haytham's final journal entry where he talks about how Edward was the only person that never lied to him and how he hopes that Connor will one day understand, I don't think that was ever in the game.

I think it was a Forsaken reading Adrian Hough did for a fan request on one of that guy(Doomer?)'s podcasts.

pacmanate
08-31-2013, 10:57 PM
If you're referring to Haytham's final journal entry where he talks about how Edward was the only person that never lied to him and how he hopes that Connor will one day understand, I don't think that was ever in the game.

I think it was a Forsaken reading Adrian Hough did for a fan request on one of that guy(Doomer?)'s podcasts.

Oh really? Okay, well either way.

I thought Connors speech was amazing either way, its a shame it was cut imo as it salvaged his character.

TheDanteEX
08-31-2013, 11:03 PM
Haytham's last argument with Connor while they were fighting each other was great as well, and it's actually difficult to hear the whole thing because enviromental counters are automatic when pressing B and you can't parry forever, but that conversation is actually really cleared some things up that wasn't as obvious. Even if you did last the whole battle to hear it, it's hard to focus on it when you're trying to survive. I had to use a "call Assassins" glitch, which makes the battle impossible to beat eventually.

As for Cross' monologue, it definitely sounds like he's in pain and wants it to be over, but I can see why it would be removed. It sort of clashes with the whole scene before and after it and I guess a "final speech" wouldn't make sense in modern times, no matter how cool it would be. Personally, I think it's a bit over the top, but I wouldn't know what an unstable, dying person would sound like so..

Kaschra
08-31-2013, 11:44 PM
Haytham's last argument with Connor while they were fighting each other was great as well, and it's actually difficult to hear the whole thing because enviromental counters are automatic when pressing B and you can't parry forever, but that conversation is actually really cleared some things up that wasn't as obvious. Even if you did last the whole battle to hear it, it's hard to focus on it when you're trying to survive. I had to use a "call Assassins" glitch, which makes the battle impossible to beat eventually.


Yeah, I absolutely love that speech. I didn't even hear it the first time I played that memory :/
The speech is also longer than the fight itself, and sometimes it doesn't trigger at all or stops in the middle - happened to me when I replayed that fight against Haytham and wanted to listen to it.


Someone uploaded it one Youtube (I thinnk some of the sentences are not in the right order though)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81PmXgEKymk

Farlander1991
08-31-2013, 11:49 PM
Here's the full boss battle including the full speech straight from the game (don't have to worry about sentence order :) ):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLAQLRB76Y8

Jexx21
09-01-2013, 12:00 AM
Oh really? Okay, well either way.

I thought Connors speech was amazing either way, its a shame it was cut imo as it salvaged his character.

It's still a canon speech though.

I-Like-Pie45
09-01-2013, 12:07 AM
It's still a canon speech though.

in your head canon

Jexx21
09-01-2013, 12:09 AM
in my head Far Cry 3, Watch Dogs, and AC are all in the same universe.

i like you pie. don't make me kill you.

I-Like-Pie45
09-01-2013, 12:12 AM
Don't feel bad, Jexx

I have two AC head canons as well

roostersrule2
09-01-2013, 12:15 AM
in my head Far Cry 3, Watch Dogs, and AC are all in the same universe.

i like you pie. don't make me kill you.Don't taunt your food.

Shahkulu101
09-01-2013, 12:50 AM
Oh really? Okay, well either way.

I thought Connors speech was amazing either way, its a shame it was cut imo as it salvaged his character.

It only salvaged his character for people who didn't understand his character in the first place.

pirate1802
09-01-2013, 11:33 AM
Err.. I'd be the odd one out here and say that this monologue sounded overtly dramatic. Not a fan of it, sorry. Just my opinion. *looks for shelter*

LightRey
09-01-2013, 11:39 AM
Tbh I think putting Daniel in AC3 as an important antagonist was a mistake to begin with. The people who knew who he was wanted a fitting, dramatic end, while those who didn't (really) would've found such added drama to be out of place. The only way to solve that problem would've been to give Daniel a significant re-introduction, so that the players who didn't know him could get to know him, but it's obvious that there was no way to fit that into the game.

pacmanate
09-01-2013, 11:43 AM
It only salvaged his character for people who didn't understand his character in the first place.

... erm.

I understood his character quiet well, he just showed hardly any range of emotions throughout. He was almost always angry, rude to achilles. I have said this a thousand times. Connors monologue (which should have made the game) as well as the speech he gave after Achilles died were very good.

Legendz54
09-01-2013, 12:41 PM
I kind of laughed at the death sounds..

overdidd
09-01-2013, 01:13 PM
I hope the same doesn't happen with AC4. The 'not enough time' thing.

TheDanteEX
09-01-2013, 07:03 PM
Well, didn't they claim the whole game has been intact for months, meaning all the missions, dialogue, etc. have been added and they've just been bug-testing and tweaking little things I'd assume. So I don't think time is an issue with AC4.

What I think happened with AC3 is procrastination in a sense. It feels as if they spend 2010 doing nothing but brainstorming ideas, creating characters, story, gameplay functions and such. Then 2011 is were they began the programming, adding all the new features they wanted for the core gameplay mechanics, Connor's animations, basic story outline was more than likely done. Then 2012 is only when they began actually working on the missions which, obviously, there's a ton of them if you include side and main. They never were allowed the time to proof their game out because when you too much time, you do things slowly.. Of course, that's just my interpretation of what I believe happened.

lothario-da-be
09-01-2013, 07:45 PM
Well, didn't they claim the whole game has been intact for months, meaning all the missions, dialogue, etc. have been added and they've just been bug-testing and tweaking little things I'd assume. So I don't think time is an issue with AC4.

What I think happened with AC3 is procrastination in a sense. It feels as if they spend 2010 doing nothing but brainstorming ideas, creating characters, story, gameplay functions and such. Then 2011 is were they began the programming, adding all the new features they wanted for the core gameplay mechanics, Connor's animations, basic story outline was more than likely done. Then 2012 is only when they began actually working on the missions which, obviously, there's a ton of them if you include side and main. They never were allowed the time to proof their game out because when you too much time, you do things slowly.. Of course, that's just my interpretation of what I believe happened.
This, look at ac3 and acr. I like both equal, kinda strange when ac3 had 3 years of dev time and acr less then a year.

GunnarGunderson
09-02-2013, 04:37 PM
What if they cut this because Daniel didn't die? Halfway through they realized they weren't doing him justice but it was too far along to scrap the entire sequence. Abstergo is probably the safest place to get stabbed in the neck/gut/back

Farlander1991
09-02-2013, 05:02 PM
This, look at ac3 and acr. I like both equal, kinda strange when ac3 had 3 years of dev time and acr less then a year.

Well, it's unfair to compare development time without context.
ACR: Engine that had it's kinks worked out two and a half years before development started (i.e. AC1)
AC3: Improved engine made pretty much from scratch.

ACR: 75% of animation set already ready, cities had a lot of re-used models (like, in Constantinople you can see some AC1 towers and houses and stuff with different textures on, and Masyaf is absolutely reused)
AC3: Almost all animations are new, all the models are new.

ACR: One big new city, one small new area, one old city (plus a few of unique locations).
AC3: Two huge new cities, one huuuuuge new open area, one new small area.
(btw, both games failed to properly fill all that with content, with Homestead being an exception).

And the list can be continued.

Not that ACR didn't meet its fair share of problems along the development, but, context. AC3 with its 3 years of development time was a much more ambitious project than ACR in 10 months, and didn't have a lot of advantages ACR already had.

GunnarGunderson
09-02-2013, 05:08 PM
Well, it's unfair to compare development time without context.
ACR: Engine that had it's kinks worked out two and a half years before development started (i.e. AC1)
AC3: Improved engine made pretty much from scratch.

ACR: 75% of animation set already ready, cities had a lot of re-used models (like, in Constantinople you can see some AC1 towers and houses and stuff with different textures on, and Masyaf is absolutely reused)
AC3: Almost all animations are new, all the models are new.

ACR: One big new city, one small new area, one old city (plus a few of unique locations).
AC3: Two huge new cities, one huuuuuge new open area, one new small area.
(btw, both games failed to properly fill all that with content, with Homestead being an exception).

And the list can be continued.

Not that ACR didn't meet its fair share of problems along the development, but, context. AC3 with its 3 years of development time was a much more ambitious project than ACR in 10 months, and didn't have a lot of advantages ACR already had.

They really mistepped with that new engine. Did they even need it to be able to display 1000s of npcs at once? The only parts of the game that did that were terrible with a single exception and I don't think it was worth it for the awful draw distance

Farlander1991
09-02-2013, 05:10 PM
They really mistepped with that new engine. Did they even need it to be able to display 1000s of npcs at once? The only parts of the game that did that were terrible with a single exception and I don't think it was worth it for the awful draw distance

There is far more to the new engine than the ability to display a lot of npcs at once (though I suppose that was the most advertised feature).

And really it's not a misstep. At least we know that AC4 is going to be better off with the new engine now that AC3 has tested it out.

lothario-da-be
09-02-2013, 05:22 PM
They really mistepped with that new engine. Did they even need it to be able to display 1000s of npcs at once? The only parts of the game that did that were terrible with a single exception and I don't think it was worth it for the awful draw distance
this, the bunker hill mision was a joke. And for the rest the 1000s of npcs weren't realy used.

Jexx21
09-02-2013, 05:29 PM
best use of the 1000 npcs on a screen at once was the theater royale mission

Farlander1991
09-02-2013, 05:47 PM
The new engine is not just 1000 NPCs.
It's water in the ocean and how it acts.
It's the dynamic weather.
It's the new lighting system.
It's a new crowd AI programming.
It's the different animation system (with much more procedural animation than Anvil had, and better animation blending, that requires a lot of programming)
And a bunch of other stuff.

Jexx21
09-02-2013, 08:02 PM
Crowd AI is bunches better.