PDA

View Full Version : Do you think forts should be missions instead?



jayjay275
10-17-2013, 11:08 AM
I know that most of my threads are generally about forts, but infiltrating them is what I enjoy doing after completion.
I would like to ask you all, whether you think forts should be missions in which you can replay and change your playstyle through each time you play. I would like to refer to the Assassin's Creed 3 E3 demo; a mission where you could infiltrate the fort and kill the captain with a proper purpose. However, this mission was only for the purpose of a demo, but I thought it would've fit perfectly into the story of the game.
What do you think?

adventurewomen
10-17-2013, 11:11 AM
I don't mind the fort gameplay to be side missions, as well as story missions it depends on the context of the fort mission. If the main target of the story is within the fort then yeah have the fort gamplay as part of the memory block for the sequence. If the gameplay for the fort mission is a side mission with a secondary target then that also works well! :)

EllJim
10-17-2013, 12:47 PM
Since this is open world it would be hard to implement, since you'd have to rewind the world (which is a lot of data to bookmark each time). I suspect they will have or introduce if the community asks for it a way of resetting the forts a-la Far cry 3.

David2010549
10-17-2013, 04:32 PM
This is an interesting question, one that strikes a central conflict in the series' design. I'm not sure if this was exactly what you intended, since you mention the issue of being able to replay forts after taking them, which is more of a functionality than a philosophy issue (at least in AC3 specifically), and the idea that one specific fort fit into the game's plot perfectly, which I think is a pretty murky subject. In any case, the point you strike is that from a broad philosophical view, story missions in AC trend toward strictness, while side objectives can be much looser. I don't think that necessarily makes story missions inferior, there's definitely a place for experiences that are only relevant once or a few times as opposed to being endlessly re-playable, especially when it comes to tutorial purposes. The developers themselves obviously feel this conflict; the idea of full synchronization has been a clear attempt at giving story missions additional looseness, but the implementation of that idea is very difficult to balance properly, leading to a great deal of frustration over some implementations.

So where should they be headed in the long term? Focusing on the style the forts offer completely would likely lead to a game similar in structure to Splinter Cell, with relatively large, loose scenarios that are each self contained, and little else. I'd actually be really interested to see a spinoff that was like this, or perhaps kept the open world aspect but used it more as connective tissue than an attraction in itself, but I realize that this approach isn't viable for a mainline entry; it would be too different. Still, I think they can strike a better balance when it comes to the story missions, especially in the climactic assassinations. I don't think the idea of full synchronization is fundamentally broken, it's more that specific implementations have been flawed and the presentation of the concept as a whole is less than ideal, with the idea of "less than full synchronization" giving it a negative connotation by default. Black Flag sees the return of the same old presentation unfortunately. I'm hopeful it'll change, but that wouldn't eliminate the need to balance the objectives well of course, and ideally it would be supplemented by more openness in general.

Ultimately, I don't think there's an easy answer for ending this conflict, it's just too fundamental. Subsets of this broad conflict are everywhere in the games' design; how can combat and stealth coexist when combat, while offering most players a very similar experience to others, thus ensuring broad appeal, is usually much more efficient for achieving the game's stated goals even when stealth is an option? How can relatively controlled, crafted scenarios mesh with a vast, loose open world? Again, a controlled experience isn't necessarily inferior to a looser one (and there isn't even an objective standpoint to judge those qualities, it's all relative), but this series has struggled terribly with balancing the two. My broadest suggestion would be to focus on the series' greatest strength: navigation. Build interesting navigation opportunities and challenges through level and AI design, and minimize the role of concepts that have nothing to do with that core strength. I'd be willing to give more specific suggestions, but this probably isn't the place.

If I misunderstood your intentions with this thread, I apologize. I hope you or someone found this crazy long post relevant. I also really enjoyed infiltrating the forts, and I even made a long series of videos on them, which you can find here: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/794914-Perfectionist-Stealth-in-the-Forts-of-Assassin-s-Creed-III?p=9275353

I hope that doesn't come off as cynically self-promoting, I honestly think you'd enjoy them, and I think all that stuff above should be proof enough that I'm genuinely passionate about this.

jayjay275
10-17-2013, 05:30 PM
I like the feedback. I just thought that it'd be more interesting to have forts as proper side missions with a story, instead of just killing a random captain. :/
Attacking the fort in a mission could allow you to try a different play-style, whether it be stealth or going in guns blazing.

k4Anarky2011
10-17-2013, 05:58 PM
In a sandbox environment, the less "mission structured", the better. Just give us a target. (This is what made Far Cry 2 superior to Far Cry 3... But that is a story for another time, children.:o)

I'm sure you already know that forts can be captured to give you fire support when you pass by... But is there any confirmation if the enemies would try to take BACK the forts? Because Far Cry 3's permanently capture outposts broke my heart.

Or some sort of system to make things more challenging like, if you fail to be stealthy, the enemies would call pirate hunter ships to surround the fort and cut off your escape.

luckyto
10-17-2013, 06:01 PM
No.

poptartz20
10-17-2013, 08:26 PM
I personally would like to keep it as a side mission. Why? just personal preference. It would be nice to have a little background reason but not necessary.

STDlyMcStudpants
10-17-2013, 09:37 PM
No. I think the way they are used in AC 3 is perfect
Wouldnt mind ACB style though where you are given the time of day your target shows up and had to take a different approach eachtime
ACR style was just annoying though...
Capture a place..walk around for 2 min (templars are taking that place you just worked your butt off for for an hour...)

HiddenKiller612
10-17-2013, 10:01 PM
I like it the way it is... I don't want to have to sail all the way back to a fort just to retake it each time

SpiritMuse
10-17-2013, 10:42 PM
No. I think the way they are used in AC 3 is perfect
Wouldnt mind ACB style though where you are given the time of day your target shows up and had to take a different approach eachtime
ACR style was just annoying though...
Capture a place..walk around for 2 min (templars are taking that place you just worked your butt off for for an hour...)
I never had any trouble holding onto den towers in ACR. In my latest playthrough I don't think I played the den defense minigame even once, apart from the tutorial. Just make sure your notoriety doesn't max out and the Templars will stay away. And once you have master assassins occupying all of them, you're untouchable.

STDlyMcStudpants
10-17-2013, 10:44 PM
I never had any trouble holding onto den towers in ACR. In my latest playthrough I don't think I played the den defense minigame even once, apart from the tutorial. Just make sure your notoriety doesn't max out and the Templars will stay away. And once you have master assassins occupying all of them, you're untouchable.

I didnt undertsand the master assassin thing until i beat the game
And there is no fun in keeping your notoriety down :D

SpiritMuse
10-17-2013, 11:21 PM
I didnt undertsand the master assassin thing until i beat the game
And there is no fun in keeping your notoriety down :D
Heheh, I suppose we differ in opinion then, I prefer to be able to walk around without getting into a fight on every street corner. :) Also, as far as I could tell, notoriety in ACR works differently anyway - it doesn't make the guards come after you more, as it's not so much notoriety but "templar awareness" of assassin activity, that's why it would go up if you bought a shop. Once I had all my assassin dens mastered, it didn't make any difference if I had the meter full or not.

Stealth Gamer92
10-17-2013, 11:24 PM
No. I agree with those who have said a reset function would work better.

DisbandedBox359
10-17-2013, 11:55 PM
Maybe have one or two in the main mission to introduce them to those who wouldn't go out there way to do them.

Sturnz0r
10-18-2013, 12:35 AM
right; janissary guards don't care if your meter is red, iirc.