PDA

View Full Version : 100% synch bonus objectives need to go away



RatonhnhakeFan
09-17-2013, 12:56 AM
I'm replaying AC3 again and it's just so distracting. The big red X FAILED 100% SYNCH feels like I'm being told "you're doing it wrong" constantly. AC2 was so much more enjoyable when I really was doing the missions anyway I wanted.

OR at the very least it should be turned off by default when doing the missions for the first time.

I-Like-Pie45
09-17-2013, 01:10 AM
i don't think they ever will

it saves the developers trouble of having to actually implement actual difficulty into the game design

RatonhnhakeFan
09-17-2013, 01:23 AM
i don't think they ever will

it saves the developers trouble of having to actually implement actual difficulty into the game design
I don't think that was ever the idea bbehind 100% synch, rather a way to artifically extend Brotherhood's lenght and add more new stuff to it. They knew how much slack they could potentially get for Brotherhood if it didn't have enough stuff

adventurewomen
09-17-2013, 01:42 AM
The full 100% sync is related to the Animus for the user to feel integrated properly into the ancestors memories and environment, the synchronization needs to be 100% for each mission and seqeunce. That's what I remember and understand from AC1 and that 100% sync objectives carried on throughout all AC games in different capacities.

For the Animus user to complete the 100% sync is to follow the ancestor exactly how they completed the mission and sequences to earn 100% sync.

deskp
09-17-2013, 01:46 AM
Well they are super optional..... I keep them as replay value, and pay no attention to them during the mission.

adventurewomen
09-17-2013, 01:50 AM
Well they are super optional..... I keep them as replay value, and pay no attention to them during the mission.
I wouldn't call the 100% sync objectives "super" optional - they are to some extent however to play AC games properly you need to follow them otherwise you're not really completing the game or gaining the unlockables from complete !00% sync of the memory sequences for a completed game.

I personally like to achieve these 100% sync objectives in the first play through.

RatonhnhakeFan
09-17-2013, 01:52 AM
The full 100% sync is related to the Animus for the user to feel integrated properly into the ancestors memories and environment, the synchronization needs to be 100% for each mission and seqeunce. That's what I remember and understand from AC1 and that 100% sync objectives carried on throughout all AC games in different capacities.

For the Animus user to complete the 100% sync is to follow the ancestor exactly how they completed the mission and sequences to earn 100% sync.
I get the lore idea, but gameplay-wise they're heavily distracting, especially on first playthrough.

deskp
09-17-2013, 01:55 AM
I wouldn't call the 100% sync objectives "super" optional - they are to some extent however to play AC games properly you need to follow them otherwise you're not really completing the game or gaining the unlockables from complete !00% sync of the memory sequences for a completed game.

I personally like to achieve these 100% sync objectives in the first play through.

If you like to achieve them then there is no problem. But for people who do not like them they can jsut ignore them.. The reward for it in ac 3 is a bad Altair costume, so not much loss there really, unless youre all about achievments.


It does sound link the AC4 objectives are less strict so that should help people who complained about the ac4 ones.

adventurewomen
09-17-2013, 02:01 AM
I get the lore idea, but gameplay-wise they're heavily distracting, especially on first playthrough.
I agree, however I do like the idea of them apart from the really annoying ones like the time at the end of Revelations and Ezio is with Sofia and you have to kill like 25 or so guards while trying to control a prachute without hitting the buildings and loosing health that mission was annoying. Also in AC3 the "Something to Remember" mission had taken me like 10 times to do just for the 100% sync objective.


If you like to achieve them then there is no problem. But for people who do not like them they can jsut ignore them.. The reward for it in ac 3 is a bad Altair costume, so not much loss there really, unless youre all about achievments..
Actually the reward wasn't just the Altair outfit it was also to achieve an overall Animus Sync percentage.

Gi1t
09-17-2013, 02:09 AM
If you like to achieve them then there is no problem. But for people who do not like them they can jsut ignore them.. The reward for it in ac 3 is a bad Altair costume, so not much loss there really, unless youre all about achievments.


It does sound link the AC4 objectives are less strict so that should help people who complained about the ac4 ones.

Actually, the issue with Brotherhood was that the game sort of b****** at you for not doing them, but I think I did see something indicating that 4 would no longer complain if you ignored them.

RatonhnhakeFan
09-17-2013, 02:19 AM
Actually, the issue with Brotherhood was that the game sort of b****** at you for not doing them, but I think I did see something indicating that 4 would no longer complain if you ignored them.All 3 that had them so far do it, ACB, ACR and AC3. There's always that red failed message when you don't do 100% synch objectives.

adventurewomen
09-17-2013, 02:23 AM
At this point the 100% sync objectives are integrated into the foundations of AC games so far, it will be interesting to see how the objectives evolve for AC4. A change is gonna come that's evident.

Megas_Doux
09-17-2013, 02:37 AM
All just because of the red message? Meh.....

poptartz20
09-17-2013, 03:13 AM
Umm... I have mixed emotions about the 100% sync. I feel that it is cool to have them because you're doing just like the ancestor did, yet at the same time it brings in more of an added challenge to it! Granted some of them are broken. like the Tea Party one in AC3. Overall I like the fact that you have to go the extra mile to get those few extra trophies if you're into that kind of thing ya know? Not to mention that these objectives are Optional.

Also at the same time I feel as if I should be able to play how I want and it shouldn't count against me if I still achieve the same goal.

I feel maybe that most people are bothered by the big red X that appears on the screen if they don't complete the objectives though. It doesn't help that it even has a loud sound effect as well. Haha. It would be nice if they added maybe instead of the X's they did a sliding bar perhaps. (like a life bar) showing how far synced the mission was. Something not as bashing as AC3 or nothing as Obvious and obnoxious like in ACB-R. Therefore not breaking the submersion in the game but at least you still know!

Just a thought.

LoyalACFan
09-17-2013, 03:36 AM
Well it's been said that the big red X doesn't show up anymore in AC4, so there's that.

I personally would rather see them gone completely. The much-touted "replay value" they add is very artificial; IMO true replay value comes from wanting to experience things again or find anything you may have missed, not from having to go back and mop up your supposed mistakes from your first playthrough. That, and we've always been given crappy rewards for completing it, so there's absolutely no point whatsoever in completing them anyway.

pirate1802
09-17-2013, 04:33 AM
Nope They just need to be tinkered to make sense. Don't get detected, Do not kill any guards etc. Not assassinate by throwing a bomb to his face or dance for 10 minutes before killing your target.

The full sync constraint in the Juan Borgia mission in ACB was super fun and also made a lot of sense. That's how it should be


All just because of the red message? Meh.....

They should replace the red text by fluffy pink letters: Excuse me sir, we don't mean to be rude but you failed an optional task. Please don't be mad.

Gi1t
09-17-2013, 05:03 AM
All just because of the red message? .

I do think it's overkill to eliminate the optional stuff because of the message, but given that the "failure" message is the problem, that's what they should take out. Achievements don't b**** at you for not doing them. Loads of games have optional objectives and all they do is notify you if you did them. Is that so hard? Is someone going to lose it if they fail an optional objective and the game DOESN'T b**** at them? I doubt it, they'll probably restart before they even finish it if they really want to finish the mission.

STDlyMcStudpants
09-17-2013, 05:31 AM
I'm replaying AC3 again and it's just so distracting. The big red X FAILED 100% SYNCH feels like I'm being told "you're doing it wrong" constantly. AC2 was so much more enjoyable when I really was doing the missions anyway I wanted.

OR at the very least it should be turned off by default when doing the missions for the first time.

Amen. I hate 100 % sync too....
And in general gaming...
I hate time trials.
When it comes to trophies
I hate trophy collectibles - Obviously placed because developers made too short of a game *COUGH* Shooters, and Movie Games*
THEY ONLY BELONG IN OPEN WORLD GAMES ;D
Forced Replays - Beat this game 4 times in every difficulty even though you were over it midway through the 1st time!
Online Trophies - Servers Shut Down. Keep online trophies, but make them a separate list only downloadable via your MP server! That way if you go bankrupt THQ, we can still plat your games! ;D

Gaming industry please...stop this sh**

Megas_Doux
09-17-2013, 06:00 AM
Nope They just need to be tinkered to make sense. Don't get detected, Do not kill any guards etc. Not assassinate by throwing a bomb to his face or dance for 10 minutes before killing your target.

The full sync constraint in the Juan Borgia mission in ACB was super fun and also made a lot of sense. That's how it should be



They should replace the red text by fluffy pink letters: Excuse me sir, we don't mean to be rude but you failed an optional task. Please don't be mad.

I do not like either, it is just that I was waiting something more elaborate than "that big ugly red message is, well, big ugly and red."

Gi1t
09-17-2013, 06:18 AM
And in general gaming...
I hate time trials.


Me too. XD In combat, and in many other tasks, sometimes NOT rushing through things is the wiser sttrategy.


When it comes to trophies
I hate trophy collectibles - Obviously placed because developers made too short of a game *COUGH* Shooters, and Movie Games*


THEY ONLY BELONG IN OPEN WORLD GAMES ;D


Looking for things can be fun, but it's dumb when there's literally NO point other than to get the little *blip* achievement 10 pts thing.



Forced Replays - Beat this game 4 times in every difficulty even though you were over it midway through the 1st time!


Yes, that's rather ambitious. I'll play this game again if I feel like it and that doesn't mean I consider it an intriguing enough challenge to play on higher difficulties. Most games' higher difficulty settings are just the same **** but with stat boosts. I onl play on higher settings that have something to offer beyond that, like new enemies/enemy abilities and better AI.



Online Trophies - Servers Shut Down. Keep online trophies, but make them a separate list only downloadable via your MP server! That way if you go bankrupt THQ, we can still plat your games! ;D

I don't even play online.

In addition, I hate those statistics trophies that go way beyond long-term achievements. "Kill 30,000 enemies" (on the same file; totals from other playthroughs don't add together. It has to be on the same playthrough) Really? -__-

STDlyMcStudpants
09-17-2013, 06:36 AM
Me too. XD In combat, and in many other tasks, sometimes NOT rushing through things is the wiser sttrategy.


Looking for things can be fun, but it's dumb when there's literally NO point other than to get the little *blip* achievement 10 pts thing.



Yes, that's rather ambitious. I'll play this game again if I feel like it and that doesn't mean I consider it an intriguing enough challenge to play on higher difficulties. Most games' higher difficulty settings are just the same **** but with stat boosts. I onl play on higher settings that have something to offer beyond that, like new enemies/enemy abilities and better AI.



I don't even play online.

In addition, I hate those statistics trophies that go way beyond long-term achievements. "Kill 30,000 enemies" (on the same file; totals from other playthroughs don't add together. It has to be on the same playthrough) Really? -__-

Time Trials mostly aggravate me in racing games or anything that involves a vehicle for that matter..I dont mind getting out before something explodes or even a treasure chase like in rayman origins (a hidden time trial) I actually enjoy those types :D
And I love open world collectibles...I like looking for stuff in hiding places but i like to be able to do so freely...it really brings me into the world....But no to having to replay a level for them *COUGH AC2 :X
Replay on difficulty and get a redic ammount of kills are a cop out and have 0 respect for them lol ..but these types are usually in shooting games...
NG+ is okay.
And as far as online goes...I play the crap out of my games..I would be kicking myself in the A if i skipped ACB online or Killzone 2 online...I'll at least give them a try...
Online trophies tend to do 1 of 2 things
1 Burn you out so you will never play again after you get them all - ACB KZ2 Tomb Raider Bioshock
or 2 Give you just enough playing time for you to justly say, well I'm not missing out on anything here - Uncharted 2 and 3, ACR
:D
MP can be a complete waste...it's the new difficulty mode..just there for micro transactions and to prevent you from getting your game into the used game market so fast..
I hate when its so obviously thrown in there and you can tell they didnt give a sh**...
Tomb Raider 2013 was so amazingly fun when it worked...It was stupid fun..i mean setting up poles for people to get electrocuted?! :D It reminded me of Bioshock..
I wish more games would do something completely different in their MP..
Mp should always be stupid fun! Not people accusing others of modding :D

TheDanteEX
09-17-2013, 06:37 AM
I definitely think optional objectives should be in these games, but they should be retooled. Optional objectives similar to Dishonored. They don't point out all the optional objectives until you discover them, unless given to you by someone. This encourages exploration, which is key in an open world game, right? Does it make sense to the memory structure they usually, but not always, go by? Of course not. But fun gameplay should always top lore or story in my book.

STDlyMcStudpants
09-17-2013, 06:42 AM
Nope They just need to be tinkered to make sense. Don't get detected, Do not kill any guards etc. Not assassinate by throwing a bomb to his face or dance for 10 minutes before killing your target.

The full sync constraint in the Juan Borgia mission in ACB was super fun and also made a lot of sense. That's how it should be



They should replace the red text by fluffy pink letters: Excuse me sir, we don't mean to be rude but you failed an optional task. Please don't be mad.
I would like this a lot more...Tell me what im supposed to do and what im not supposed to do, just dont tell me how i have to do it.

Bastiaen
09-17-2013, 04:52 PM
I've been replaying the franchise getting ready for AC4, and honestly, it can be quite liberating to just ignore the objectives and do things the way you want to. For instance, I air assassinated Juan Borgia instead of Bench Assassinating him, and it was actually more of a challenge, but quite a bit frustrating. I think it would be fun to create a mode like Contracts in Hitman Absolution, where players create their own assassinations by playing through them a specific way, then uploading the challenge to the network. Would be way more fun in AC and help to create a lot of replay value.

LightRey
09-17-2013, 05:15 PM
They've gone way overboard with the idea, so I agree it should just be scrapped. They aren't even realistic anymore, as especially in AC3 there are objectives that are simply ridiculous if you consider the fact that Connor must've done it that way. They should never have tried to 'add challenge' to the AC games. It has always been a stupid request by self-proclaimed "diehards" with masochistic tendencies and it had no part in the AC franchise to begin with.

AnthonyA85
09-17-2013, 05:23 PM
I think, the only way for the Optional objectives to stay in, and for people to actually like them, in AC4, is for them to be truly optional, in that they don't affect synch % at all, whether you complete them or not, so basically, you'd have a synch system identical to AC2, just with optional ways of doing it that don't penalize you for not doing them, and you still get 100% synch.

This might be the system they've gone with if you no longer get a warning for failing the optional objective, at least, that's what i'm hoping.

Sushiglutton
09-17-2013, 05:25 PM
Yeah I'm no fan of how they have been implemented. I mean how can it be ok to in one mission kill either zero or fifty human beings, while in another you fail if you shove someone? Just doesn't make sense (unless so make up some super convoluted argument). I wouldn't cry if they just removed them at this point tbh.



I definitely think optional objectives should be in these games, but they should be retooled. Optional objectives similar to Dishonored. They don't point out all the optional objectives until you discover them, unless given to you by someone. This encourages exploration, which is key in an open world game, right? Does it make sense to the memory structure they usually, but not always, go by? Of course not. But fun gameplay should always top lore or story in my book.


Haven't played Dishonored yet, but that sounds like a much better design!

ladyleonhart
09-17-2013, 06:53 PM
I like the 100% synchronisation optional objectives even if they are frustrating or ridiculous at times. They provide some challenge and encourage you to form a strategy and that's why I hope they will stay. Without them, it would just be too easy and I enjoy figuring out the best way to fulfil them.

However, I do think that they need to be more realistic, although some were quite good. For example, I liked the 'River Rescue' constraint i.e. 'Do not touch the water'. The reason being that because Connor has the tree free-running ability, I felt that this was realistic and made you think about the best possible route to achieve this. Another objective was 'Perform low profile assassinations - 5' during the memory 'The Angry Chef', which encouraged stealth and I felt this was important for this memory, since not doing so would likely result in increasing your notoriety to level 3 straight away with hoards of enemies attacking you. I also quite liked the 'Do not get detected' objective too, which was implemented in various memories. Well, these are just a few examples that I can remember from playing ACIII recently. I'm sure there are more good examples though, but I'm certain that not everyone will agree with me. Well, that's my opinion.


I think, the only way for the Optional objectives to stay in, and for people to actually like them, in AC4, is for them to be truly optional, in that they don't affect synch % at all, whether you complete them or not, so basically, you'd have a synch system identical to AC2, just with optional ways of doing it that don't penalize you for not doing them, and you still get 100% synch.

This might be the system they've gone with if you no longer get a warning for failing the optional objective, at least, that's what i'm hoping.

I definitely agree that maybe they should not affect 100% synchronisation since some people dislike them. Then, if they are implemented as solely optional objectives, perhaps a different reward could be unlocked for those who do wish to complete them. Anyway, here's hoping ACIV will make everyone happy.

pirate1802
09-17-2013, 07:20 PM
I definitely agree that maybe they should not affect 100% synchronisation since some people dislike them. Then, if they are implemented as solely optional objectives, perhaps a different reward could be unlocked for those who do wish to complete them. Anyway, here's hoping ACIV will make everyone happy.

I'm currently playing Mark of the Ninja, and it too has similar wacky side objectives, like terrorize a guard by throwing a dead body on him, string up five guards to the roof etc. The kicker is that completing side objectives gives you "points" which in turn unlock cool outfits which have actual gameplay benefits and arent just cosmetic, like one makes you completely silent and nearly invisible; another makes you a walking nightmare and guards basically get scared to death whenever they see you etc. Something like this could definitely be worked into AC instead of a percentage sync.

Sushiglutton
09-17-2013, 07:28 PM
I'm currently playing Mark of the Ninja, and it too has similar wacky side objectives, like terrorize a guard by throwing a dead body on him, string up five guards to the roof etc. The kicker is that completing side objectives gives you "points" which in turn unlock cool outfits which have actual gameplay benefits and arent just cosmetic, like one makes you completely silent and nearly invisible; another makes you a walking nightmare and guards basically get scared to death whenever they see you etc. Something like this could definitely be worked into AC instead of a percentage sync.

Mark of the Ninja is more of a pure game than AC is. It makes sense to fill a game like that with scores and unlockables (and I'm saying this with full respect, it's a great game). For AC I feel immersion is a key component. Therefor I think the devs should be careful implementing too many gamey features in AC. More of TLOU philosophy as opposed to classic arcade-philosophy.

SixKeys
09-17-2013, 07:31 PM
The best way to do full synch challenges would be like the challenges in Red Dead Redemption. Things like "Kill a cougar with a knife", "Shoot 10 flying birds" etc. They were neatly tucked away in their own little category and could be completed whenever the player wanted. When you completed a set, you got cool rewards like a new outfit or weapon. In AC these types of objectives have been implemented in the form of guild and club challenges ("kill X number of enemies with the hidden blade" etc.), but I think they would work better as full synch challenges. The achievement for completing an objective would not be visible all the time during a mission, but if you wanted to see it, you could just check the menu for Mission Objectives and decide whether you wanted to do it.

ladyleonhart
09-17-2013, 07:34 PM
I'm currently playing Mark of the Ninja, and it too has similar wacky side objectives, like terrorize a guard by throwing a dead body on him, string up five guards to the roof etc. The kicker is that completing side objectives gives you "points" which in turn unlock cool outfits which have actual gameplay benefits and arent just cosmetic, like one makes you completely silent and nearly invisible; another makes you a walking nightmare and guards basically get scared to death whenever they see you etc. Something like this could definitely be worked into AC instead of a percentage sync.

Agreed. That sounds like a great idea. Something like that would definitely provide an extra incentive to those interested in unlocking additional gameplay benefits and maybe others would also be willing to give the optional objectives a try at some point. Then, I do like the idea of additional costumes and weapons or additional abilities, for example, being able to carry more arrows or something like that. Although, I would prefer the unlockables to be realistic and nothing like the Animus Hack options, since I never really felt like using those. Most of all, we'd be able to keep the side objectives and it would be a win-win situation. :)

Gi1t
09-18-2013, 12:39 AM
They should never have tried to 'add challenge' to the AC games. It has always been a stupid request by self-proclaimed "diehards" with masochistic tendencies and it had no part in the AC franchise to begin with.

Actually, they should, but they need to do it properly and not look for shorcuts. -__- I wouldn't even call the 100% stuff adding difficulty. It's hardly more than adding in more random achievements. If they want to add in difficulty, they should add in thigs with actual substance: enemies, entirely new missions, new capabilities for existing enemies; stuff like that. You can't just say 'you take double damage now=hard mode'. And how to separate that stuff out so people don't HAVE to deal with it? Just use something people have been asking for for ages now: difficulty settings. Bottom line is, if they want to add some challenge to the game, they need to get serious about it and stop cutting corners.

LightRey
09-18-2013, 01:16 AM
Actually, they should, but they need to do it properly and not look for shorcuts. -__- I wouldn't even call the 100% stuff adding difficulty. It's hardly more than adding in more random achievements. If they want to add in difficulty, they should add in thigs with actual substance: enemies, entirely new missions, new capabilities for existing enemies; stuff like that. You can't just say 'you take double damage now=hard mode'. And how to separate that stuff out so people don't HAVE to deal with it? Just use something people have been asking for for ages now: difficulty settings. Bottom line is, if they want to add some challenge to the game, they need to get serious about it and stop cutting corners.
No, they really don't. All the games need to be is coherent and historically accurate to the extent that the story requires. Challenge is something of the early generation of gaming where the games were limited to being relatively simple and repetitive. The element of challenge was what made these simple games what they were, because at the time there was barely anything of a story-based game to begin with.

Gaming actually took a whole new turn when games became so complex that games such as RPG's could be developed. Assassin's Creed is from an 'era' of gaming where the value of a game is no longer based on how challenging it is. Games are now becoming more like novels, they tell stories. A word that is nowadays commonly thrown around by gamers is 'immersion', the feeling of 'forgetting', as it were, that it's 'just a game'. This has become the primary focus of the gaming community these days and this is what makes or breaks a game. If challenge is to be a factor in a game's quality, it will be only because of the sense of immersion it adds (or removes) and contrary to what many might think, added challenge is often not immersive. This is because despite (sometimes) being more realistic, added realism doesn't always mean that the game is more immersive. This is because, for one, it's not exactly an immersive experience if your character dies, since that is exactly the kind of moment the sensation of being the character you're playing is broken.
It's pretty hard to 'lose yourself' in a virtual reality if the fact that it's all fake (since your character is dead) is staring you right in the face. What you actually want from a game if it is to be immersive is for it to be challenging enough so that it doesn't all seem so terribly unreal that it breaks immersion, but at the same time not so challenging that you keep dying all the time. I think that up until AC3, the games have performed more than adequately in that respect, but the constant roar for challenge has negatively affected that quality of the AC games in increasing measure since ACB.

The fact is that the fans don't know what they want and as such shouldn't be listened to.

Gi1t
09-18-2013, 01:53 AM
No, they really don't. All the games need to be is coherent and historically accurate to the extent that the story requires. Challenge is something of the early generation of gaming where the games were limited to being relatively simple and repetitive. The element of challenge was what made these simple games what they were, because at the time there was barely anything of a story-based game to begin with.

Gaming actually took a whole new turn when games became so complex that games such as RPG's could be developed. Assassin's Creed is from an 'era' of gaming where the value of a game is no longer based on how challenging it is. Games are now becoming more like novels, they tell stories. A word that is nowadays commonly thrown around by gamers is 'immersion', the feeling of 'forgetting', as it were, that it's 'just a game'. This has become the primary focus of the gaming community these days and this is what makes or breaks a game. If challenge is to be a factor in a game's quality, it will be only because of the sense of immersion it adds (or removes) and contrary to what many might think, added challenge is often not immersive. This is because despite (sometimes) being more realistic, added realism doesn't always mean that the game is more immersive. This is because, for one, it's not exactly an immersive experience if your character dies, since that is exactly the kind of moment the sensation of being the character you're playing is broken.
It's pretty hard to 'lose yourself' in a virtual reality if the fact that it's all fake (since your character is dead) is staring you right in the face. What you actually want from a game if it is to be immersive is for it to be challenging enough so that it doesn't all seem so terribly unreal that it breaks immersion, but at the same time not so challenging that you keep dying all the time. I think that up until AC3, the games have performed more than adequately in that respect, but the constant roar for challenge has negatively affected that quality of the AC games in increasing measure since ACB.

.

So you're of the opinion that it is impossible for a game to feature both challenging gameplay and an immersive story? Don't get me wrong, it's easy to screw up when trying to blend the two together, but it's not impossible because they're two different things.



What you actually want from a game if it is to be immersive is for it to be challenging enough so that it doesn't all seem so terribly unreal that it breaks immersion, but at the same time not so challenging that you keep dying all the time.


This here is quite true, but people have differing ideas about what it takes to make a game challenging and about the point where the it just becomes an annoyance. There's no one size that fits all, which is why the difficulty settings are important, so people have an option to suit them.


The fact is that the fans don't know what they want and as such shouldn't be listened to.

Fans do know what they want, there's just a lot of them and they don't all agree. There's no one right answer, nor any one set of 'superior' fans. Saying they should focus on the immersive and storytelling aspects first and leave the exploration of difficulty for later is a very sensible comment, but I don't think it's fair to completely discount the people who are interested in the challenging aspects. They're fans too and it's not impossible to make settings for both. Challenge isn't just some relic of old gaming eras, it's just evolving, and not every developer has kept up as well as they could have. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

LightRey
09-18-2013, 02:11 AM
So you're of the opinion that it is impossible for a game to feature both challenging gameplay and an immersive story? Don't get me wrong, it's easy to screw up when trying to blend the two together, but it's not impossible because they're two different things.



This here is quite true, but people have differing ideas about what it takes to make a game challenging and about the point where the it just becomes an annoyance. There's no one size that fits all, which is why the difficulty settings are important, so people have an option to suit them.



Fans do know what they want, there's just a lot of them and they don't all agree. There's no one right answer, nor any one set of 'superior' fans. Saying they should focus on the immersive and storytelling aspects first and leave the exploration of difficulty for later is a very sensible comment, but I don't think it's fair to completely discount the people who are interested in the challenging aspects. They're fans too and it's not impossible to make settings for both. Challenge isn't just some relic of old gaming eras, it's just evolving, and not every developer has kept up as well as they could have. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying that challenge is no longer a defining factor. Therefore, whenever one needs to make room for the other, it is the factor of challenge that needs to make way.

Though the idea of a difficulty setting might work, it in itself can be quite immersion-breaking, if only for the fact that there's no longer a universal standard, nothing that determines the "real" experience. Besides that, it once again takes the focus off immersion in terms of development, which is precisely what I'm arguing to be something that shouldn't and needn't happen.

Now here you're just being na´ve. Of course there are different groups of fans with varying opinions, but to say that they know what they want is simply not true. I've seen it happen countless times that people would hate a game and give reasons for that hate, as if the hate was something rational, something one could "choose" to have or not. This is preposterous. It's simply a common human tendency to look for reasons to explain our emotions, and most of us aren't very good at it. When it comes to games, we'll cry for challenge or blame a main character for not being emotional enough, even if there are countless examples that contradict these statements. This is because we have a verificationistic tendency. We tend not to look for examples that disprove our theories, but for those that prove them, and in doing so we forget what we're actually talking about, the experience itself. There's nothing wrong with disliking a game, but to seek something abstract from the specific things we disliked, something universal and perhaps even objective, that's a mistake that makes such critcisms meaningless and misleading.

Humans can be very good at showing how they feel (under the right conditions), but generally they're terrible at explaining why they feel that way.

dxsxhxcx
09-18-2013, 02:23 AM
I'm replaying AC3 again and it's just so distracting. The big red X FAILED 100% SYNCH feels like I'm being told "you're doing it wrong" constantly. AC2 was so much more enjoyable when I really was doing the missions anyway I wanted.

OR at the very least it should be turned off by default when doing the missions for the first time.

AC3 has a factor that makes it even worse, the game kinda stop after each mission/sequence to show you your "score" at the end of a mission/sequence, sometimes I thought I was playing a game divided by stages like a platform game or something like that...

Gi1t
09-18-2013, 03:02 AM
Now here you're just being na´ve. Of course there are different groups of fans with varying opinions, but to say that they know what they want is simply not true. I've seen it happen countless times that people would hate a game and give reasons for that hate, as if the hate was something rational, something one could "choose" to have or not. This is preposterous. It's simply a common human tendency to look for reasons to explain our emotions, and most of us aren't very good at it. When it comes to games, we'll cry for challenge or blame a main character for not being emotional enough, even if there are countless examples that contradict these statements. This is because we have a verificationistic tendency. We tend not to look for examples that disprove our theories, but for those that prove them, and in doing so we forget what we're actually talking about, the experience itself. There's nothing wrong with disliking a game, but to seek something abstract from the specific things we disliked, something universal and perhaps even objective, that's a mistake that makes such critcisms meaningless and misleading.

Humans can be very good at showing how they feel (under the right conditions), but generally they're terrible at explaining why they feel that way.

Oh, you're talking about hate? :D I was talking more about peoples' reasons for liking games. I don't even really count hate as a rational component of discussion for all the reasons you just meantioned. :) (I especially agree when it comes to people complaining about characters.)

But when you get under all the rationalizing, you can look at it as "a person wants this IN the game' as opposed to 'they hate something else and want it out'. It ought to be more about what people think devs could add to the game than what has to be cut. I don't expect anything to be taken out to make room for difficulty.

LoyalACFan
09-18-2013, 03:44 AM
I absolutely agree with LightRey on this. Challenge is no longer something that needs to be present in games, as their increasing complexity allows better things (such as emotional storytelling and believable immersion) to replace it. Red Dead Redemption is a perfect example of this. It's one of my favorite games of all time, beautifully immersive and well-written, but it was so easy that I don't think I ever died or failed a mission while playing it (goofy cliff dives and accidental forays into rivers notwithstanding).

I think what people want when they ask for "challenge" is simply meaningful player interaction. It doesn't need to be difficult, but the player should be able to interact with the game world in ways that make sense and add to the overall experience. Many felt AC3 was lacking in this respect, since almost all of its missions were "on rails," so to speak, and involved little more than walking from cutscene to cutscene. I don't think making combat harder, making Connor weaker, or any other arbitrary difficulty tweaks would have remedied this in the slightest. This is part of the reason I'm looking forward to AC4 with such enthusiasm; player freedom is said to be returning, and we can engage in activities that truly deliver on the promise of an Assassin pirate fantasy. We'll have to see if it actually comes to fruition, but I'm liking what I've seen so far.

Gi1t
09-18-2013, 04:14 AM
I absolutely agree with LightRey on this. Challenge is no longer something that needs to be present in games, as their increasing complexity allows better things (such as emotional storytelling and believable immersion) to replace it. .

I don't think it's essential to make me like a game, but I don't consider storytelling and immersion a replacement for it either. I see them as two different things that are not in conflict necessarily and given two games that are equal in quality as far as immersion and storytelling, if one provides an effctive challenge too, I'd like it better. :) And when I say challenge, I mean gameplay that's engaging and thought-inspiring whether it's big on testing your reflexes or not. I actually don't care whether I die at all or not. I don't need to be killed to think of a game as an enjoyable challenge, really. I just enjoy the sense of being tested and facing a worthy opponent or other challenge.

LoyalACFan
09-18-2013, 05:03 AM
I don't think it's essential to make me like a game, but I don't consider storytelling and immersion a replacement for it either. I see them as two different things that are not in conflict necessarily and given two games that are equal in quality as far as immersion and storytelling, if one provides an effctive challenge too, I'd like it better. :) And when I say challenge, I mean gameplay that's engaging and thought-inspiring whether it's big on testing your reflexes or not. I actually don't care whether I die at all or not. I don't need to be killed to think of a game as an enjoyable challenge, really. I just enjoy the sense of being tested and facing a worthy opponent or other challenge.

The problem is, though, for an action game, basically the only way to make it challenging is adding an imminent threat of death/failure/desynchronization. Which DOES break immersion. If you're failing a mission over and over, it severely detracts from the experience. Really, the only other thing that could add challenge would be puzzles (think AC2 glyphs), which I would be fine with as side content since it makes sense that they would be challenging, but they can't be incorporated too much into the narrative or the whole thing begins to feel like a puzzle minigame.

pirate1802
09-18-2013, 05:10 AM
No, they really don't. All the games need to be is coherent and historically accurate to the extent that the story requires. Challenge is something of the early generation of gaming where the games were limited to being relatively simple and repetitive. The element of challenge was what made these simple games what they were, because at the time there was barely anything of a story-based game to begin with.

Gaming actually took a whole new turn when games became so complex that games such as RPG's could be developed. Assassin's Creed is from an 'era' of gaming where the value of a game is no longer based on how challenging it is. Games are now becoming more like novels, they tell stories. A word that is nowadays commonly thrown around by gamers is 'immersion', the feeling of 'forgetting', as it were, that it's 'just a game'. This has become the primary focus of the gaming community these days and this is what makes or breaks a game. If challenge is to be a factor in a game's quality, it will be only because of the sense of immersion it adds (or removes) and contrary to what many might think, added challenge is often not immersive. This is because despite (sometimes) being more realistic, added realism doesn't always mean that the game is more immersive. This is because, for one, it's not exactly an immersive experience if your character dies, since that is exactly the kind of moment the sensation of being the character you're playing is broken.
It's pretty hard to 'lose yourself' in a virtual reality if the fact that it's all fake (since your character is dead) is staring you right in the face. What you actually want from a game if it is to be immersive is for it to be challenging enough so that it doesn't all seem so terribly unreal that it breaks immersion, but at the same time not so challenging that you keep dying all the time. I think that up until AC3, the games have performed more than adequately in that respect, but the constant roar for challenge has negatively affected that quality of the AC games in increasing measure since ACB.

The fact is that the fans don't know what they want and as such shouldn't be listened to.

If you were a girl I'd have married you.

Gi1t
09-18-2013, 07:21 AM
The problem is, though, for an action game, basically the only way to make it challenging is adding an imminent threat of death/failure/desynchronization..

I disagree with that somewhat. I have met with plenty of experiences where the threat of losing only added to the immersion. If the threat you're facing is supposed to be tough to deal with, it ends up working. I've played through plenty of scenarios where dying felt like it made sense because what I was doing wasn't supposed to go smoothly, it was supposed to be really tough in the context of the story. I really don't find that the immersion breaks unless there is a disconnect with the gameplay and the story; (for example, the main character gets into a fight that clearly would be really easy for him and somehow it's really hard--that would be immersion breaking.) I don't think death is always immersion breaking.

But more to the point I still don't agree that there has to be this one size fits all standard and there can't be any other settings for different people. In a really broad audience, adding more options is one of the few ways to close some of these gaps. Having more control options and HUD options has already helped the series. A difficulty option could add to their audience too, if they can find the time to do it right.

LightRey
09-18-2013, 08:04 AM
Oh, you're talking about hate? :D I was talking more about peoples' reasons for liking games. I don't even really count hate as a rational component of discussion for all the reasons you just meantioned. :) (I especially agree when it comes to people complaining about characters.)

But when you get under all the rationalizing, you can look at it as "a person wants this IN the game' as opposed to 'they hate something else and want it out'. It ought to be more about what people think devs could add to the game than what has to be cut. I don't expect anything to be taken out to make room for difficulty.
Well hate does seem to be the central focus of the advocates of challenge, but I could say the same about any other emotional display. It's not a strong liking of challenging games that generally seems to drive these people, but a hatred for how easy it is, or rather a hatred for what they think is how easy it is.
Now it's true that people who are expressing an enthusiasm for something rather than hate are generally more reliable in their judgements, but that doesn't take away how bad they are at finding the reasons for the things they like. They often lack the kind of insight to determine whether they'd like what they think they like in the context they're requesting/suggesting it to be added to.

Difficulty isn't just some feature that can be removed or added, it's something that affects the entire gameplay in terms of design and experience. You can't just add some difficulty settings willy-nilly and expect the game to work the same way. They need to program in the factors that affect the so-called difficulty, vary them consistently, and on top of it all test each type of setting. Now even if that doesn't take up any of the time and space needed for other things, it's still all focused on something that in no way affects the factor or immersion positively, which I've argued before is what is the main focus of a game such as Assassin's Creed. You could argue that I was wrong when I argued that challenge has become secondary to immersion these days (I'm not saying you'd win that argument, but you could go into that direction), but even if that were true, then that still wouldn't apply to Assassin's Creed, because it's so obviously not focused on challenge. If there is one factor Assassin's Creed was most praised for from the very beginning, it's the story and that pretty much means immersion.

Farlander1991
09-18-2013, 08:27 AM
It seems to me that full synch in ACB was added because of the Brotherhood system. While it felt good to call on your Assassins when doing a mission (that one button press felt strangely satisfying), it, really, is an incredibly dominant strategy. You really don't need absolutely any tool under your disposal with the exception of the Brotherhood to successfully complete pretty much all missions.

There is a full synch requirement to chase a target down and kill with the Hidden Blade. What I would've done most likely without one? Brotherhood.
There is a full synch requirement to kill somebody with a pistol. What I would've done most likely without one? Brotherhood.
And so on and so on.

I know what would some people say, "If you don't like it, don't use it", but that logic I think applies only to non-dominant tools and strategies. Because if the dominant tool is there, it's always tempting you, there's no real reason not to use it, and, well, it's just not really good design that it's there in the first place, people don't have to restrict themselves on purpose from dominant strategies.

The brotherhood system as it is in ACB and ACR is broken (it's less broken in AC3 since Brotherhood also takes form of different abilities, but still kinda broken). And to counter that you add restrictions. Which is not fixing the problem, but just giving crutches, but it kinda worked in a way due to the OCD of the players and the fact that the huge red 50% complete message annoys you. And if you add a restriction system to your missions, well, then you kinda add restrictions to all of the levels since it's a mission.

I do think that the full synch system should concentrate on optional side-objectives rather than such restrictions (with the exception being stealth objectives).

Gi1t
09-18-2013, 08:32 AM
Well hate does seem to be the central focus of the advocates of challenge, but I could say the same about any other emotional display. It's not a strong liking of challenging games that generally seems to drive these people, but a hatred for how easy it is, or rather a hatred for what they think is how easy it is.
Now it's true that people who are expressing an enthusiasm for something rather than hate are generally more reliable in their judgements, but that doesn't take away how bad they are at finding the reasons for the things they like. They often lack the kind of insight to determine whether they'd like what they think they like in the context they're requesting/suggesting it to be added to.


Eh, I think that's just how the express it on the internet. I've talked to plenty of people who seemed to genuinely hate things only to find that when you really get into it with them, their frustration is really driven by the fact that they want something from the game that it's not delivering and they really believe it could be done. In the end it doesn't come from such a bad place; the internet just tends ot be an unflattering filter. :)



Difficulty isn't just some feature that can be removed or added, it's something that affects the entire gameplay in terms of design and experience. You can't just add some difficulty settings willy-nilly and expect the game to work the same way. They need to program in the factors that affect the so-called difficulty, vary them consistently, and on top of it all test each type of setting. Now even if that doesn't take up any of the time and space needed for other things, it's still all focused on something that in no way affects the factor or immersion positively, which I've argued before is what is the main focus of a game such as Assassin's Creed. You could argue that I was wrong when I argued that challenge has become secondary to immersion these days (I'm not saying you'd win that argument, but you could go into that direction), but even if that were true, then that still wouldn't apply to Assassin's Creed, because it's so obviously not focused on challenge. If there is one factor Assassin's Creed was most praised for from the very beginning, it's the story and that pretty much means immersion.

That's what I figured the main issue was. Yeah, difficulty, done properly, requires investment. If there's no time, you can't pull it off. But all i'm really trying to say here is that I don't think the industry should give up on taking the time to develop things other than the immersion factor. Just because something's secondary doesn't mean it should be ignored entirely.

ladyleonhart
09-18-2013, 12:12 PM
Actually, they should, but they need to do it properly and not look for shorcuts. -__- I wouldn't even call the 100% stuff adding difficulty. It's hardly more than adding in more random achievements. If they want to add in difficulty, they should add in thigs with actual substance: enemies, entirely new missions, new capabilities for existing enemies; stuff like that. You can't just say 'you take double damage now=hard mode'. And how to separate that stuff out so people don't HAVE to deal with it? Just use something people have been asking for for ages now: difficulty settings. Bottom line is, if they want to add some challenge to the game, they need to get serious about it and stop cutting corners...

Fans do know what they want, there's just a lot of them and they don't all agree. There's no one right answer, nor any one set of 'superior' fans. Saying they should focus on the immersive and storytelling aspects first and leave the exploration of difficulty for later is a very sensible comment, but I don't think it's fair to completely discount the people who are interested in the challenging aspects. They're fans too and it's not impossible to make settings for both. Challenge isn't just some relic of old gaming eras, it's just evolving, and not every developer has kept up as well as they could have. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying...

I don't think it's essential to make me like a game, but I don't consider storytelling and immersion a replacement for it either. I see them as two different things that are not in conflict necessarily and given two games that are equal in quality as far as immersion and storytelling, if one provides an effctive challenge too, I'd like it better. :) And when I say challenge, I mean gameplay that's engaging and thought-inspiring whether it's big on testing your reflexes or not. I actually don't care whether I die at all or not. I don't need to be killed to think of a game as an enjoyable challenge, really. I just enjoy the sense of being tested and facing a worthy opponent or other challenge...

I have met with plenty of experiences where the threat of losing only added to the immersion. If the threat you're facing is supposed to be tough to deal with, it ends up working. I've played through plenty of scenarios where dying felt like it made sense because what I was doing wasn't supposed to go smoothly, it was supposed to be really tough in the context of the story. I really don't find that the immersion breaks unless there is a disconnect with the gameplay and the story; (for example, the main character gets into a fight that clearly would be really easy for him and somehow it's really hard--that would be immersion breaking.) I don't think death is always immersion breaking...

But more to the point I still don't agree that there has to be this one size fits all standard and there can't be any other settings for different people. In a really broad audience, adding more options is one of the few ways to close some of these gaps. Having more control options and HUD options has already helped the series. A difficulty option could add to their audience too, if they can find the time to do it right...

That's what I figured the main issue was. Yeah, difficulty, done properly, requires investment. If there's no time, you can't pull it off. But all i'm really trying to say here is that I don't think the industry should give up on taking the time to develop things other than the immersion factor. Just because something's secondary doesn't mean it should be ignored entirely.

I absolutely agree with Gi1t. :D I love Assassin's Creed and I have no real complaints at all. I just feel that everything always has room for improvement, and I know that the developers always want to improve the games for us to give us the best possible experience. xD So we are really lucky to have these forums to allow us to discuss these ideas. Then, I'd just like to say thank you to the developers and the to the Forum Managers and everyone else for making all this possible. :)

Also, I would just like to say to you, Gi1t, that your posts are always so well thought out and you've summed it all up perfectly. :) So, thank you. :D

roostersrule2
09-18-2013, 12:16 PM
I think we should take a GTA V system, full sync requirements aren't shown until after you've done the mission, so you aren't obliged to do anything and you can still do them to get 100% or whatever.

phoenix-force411
09-18-2013, 02:23 PM
ACIII's optional objectives were too messy. Some objectives made no sense at all, and some were too hard to perform due to how darn far the enemy can spot you. Did really Connor really perform all of those crazy stunts, probably not. Like that one mission at the ship wrecks where you have to chase down a guy, but you can't be less than 40 meters away from him was so darn annoying. You had to be perfect, just one second slower, and you'll lose the optional objective when it gets very close to the part where you have to assassinate him from the air. They need to make ACIV's Optional Objectives more situation based and make it to actually make sense than telling me to air assassinate a grenadier when it's suppose to be a stealthy mission on a boat.

Megas_Doux
09-18-2013, 02:51 PM
No matter what, people will complain.

Aphex_Tim
09-18-2013, 02:52 PM
I think I would like these constraints a lot more if they actually made sense and didn't cramp your playing style. For example, I really don't like the objectives where you have to kill your target in a certain way at all. Like John Pitcairn. There are so many ways to get to him but for 100% sync you HAVE to remain unseen, you HAVE to limit redcoat kills and you HAVE to air assassinate him with the hidden blade, pretty much making these other options obsolete. And if you play it your way, you get these big, red X's shoved in your face.
I think these objectives would be a lot more fun if they were things like having to kill an extra target or saving a certain person. You could still do these things as you see fit without having to change your preferred playing style. As far as I know, there were only two objectives like this in AC3: one where you have the option to kill a general in Silas' fort and the other during the battle of Lexington where you have the option to save civilians from unjust execution.

Megas_Doux
09-18-2013, 02:54 PM
I think we should take a GTA V system, full sync requirements aren't shown until after you've done the mission, so you aren't obliged to do anything and you can still do them to get 100% or whatever.

And then, the scenario will be: " Stupid ubisoft, why dont you tell me that before, I hate you, blah blah blah blah blah blah wah wah wah". The thing with the full sync is that, especially in AC3, the design of the level is attached to that of the requirement asked, if fixed in AC IV, I will be happy.

Being honest, the concept of relieving memories does NOT compute with the "freedom" and "play how you want" idea, so the full sych is a way to "address" the concept of experience the memory of someone else logically.

The red message is overreacting, if you ask me.

dxsxhxcx
09-18-2013, 03:04 PM
Being honest, the concept of relieving memories does NOT compute with the "freedom" and "play how you want" idea, the full sych is a way to "address" the concept of experience the memory of someone else logically.

if we were too literal on this case the animus shouldn't even be capable of create the rest of the world/people/etc the character didn't interact on a mission/during his life, all we would've had would be corridors of where the character passed during a specific mission providing a linear experience..

pirate1802
09-18-2013, 03:04 PM
And then, the scenario will be: " Stupid ubisoft, why dont you tell me that before, I hate you, blah blah blah blah blah blah wah wah wah".

I can almost see that happening.


I think we should take a GTA V system, full sync requirements aren't shown until after you've done the mission, so you aren't obliged to do anything and you can still do them to get 100% or whatever.

That's stupid.

Farlander1991
09-18-2013, 03:05 PM
And then, the scenario will be: " Stupid ubisoft, why dont you tell me that before, I hate you, blah blah blah blah blah blah wah wah wah"

To be fair, in my opinion that's plain bad design. Optional objectives shouldn't be shoven into our faces, but there also should be a way to view them from the get go for people who want such a thing.


Being honest, the concept of relieving memories does NOT compute with the "freedom" and "play how you want" idea, the full sych is a way to "address" the concept of experience the memory of someone else logically.

Well, the "play how you want" idea was already addressed pretty logically in AC1. What we're trying to do as the player/character reliving the memories is to synchronize with the ancestor, and cutscenes serve as 'synchronization waypoints' which essentially means, 'yep, we were close enough'. The beauty of it without the full synch specific objectives is that every player's 'close enough' is what he wants it to be, it doesn't have to be uniform for EVERY player. But for that specific player in that specific moment: THAT'S what the ancestor did in the past. If the way I worded my thought made any sense >_<

roostersrule2
09-18-2013, 04:03 PM
That's stupid.Probably but it works in V, you do the mission, if you did those requirements you get a gold star like good boy, if not depending on your percentage you get silver or bronze. Now you didn't know what you had to do so if you want gold but got silver you simply replay the mission.

I think either that or turning them off/on depending on if you want them or not are the best options.

RatonhnhakeFan
09-18-2013, 04:19 PM
That's stupid.Sounds great to me.

Gi1t
09-18-2013, 04:23 PM
I absolutely agree with Gi1t. :D I love Assassin's Creed and I have no real complaints at all. I just feel that everything always has room for improvement, and I know that the developers always want to improve the games for us to give us the best possible experience. xD So we are really lucky to have these forums to allow us to discuss these ideas. Then, I'd just like to say thank you to the developers and the to the Forum Managers and everyone else for making all this possible. :)

Also, I would just like to say to you, Gi1t, that your posts are always so well thought out and you've summed it all up perfectly. :) So, thank you. :D

Thank you very much! :D You always seem to be such a kind and resonable voice on these forums! :)

Shahkulu101
09-18-2013, 04:28 PM
I agree - I hate them. To me they are annoying and demeaning: " Hey, wan't to play your own way? Too bad son, our way's better - your not intelligent enough to find the CORRECT way of doing things, so here you are. If you don't comply then you don't get a crappy Altair costume. "

pirate1802
09-18-2013, 04:48 PM
Probably but it works in V, you do the mission, if you did those requirements you get a gold star like good boy, if not depending on your percentage you get silver or bronze. Now you didn't know what you had to do so if you want gold but got silver you simply replay the mission.

I think either that or turning them off/on depending on if you want them or not are the best options.


Sounds great to me.

Nah. Not giving the player an iota of hint about what the full sync requirements are is, imo, a much worse design choice than shoving a red text in your face. And do you think doing that would cause people to complain less? Its bad enough that some of those requirements are illogical, what would be far worse is not even knowing what those illogical requirements are!