PDA

View Full Version : the assassins creed franchise is to easy



theupsidedown1
10-30-2013, 12:40 AM
i believe the assassins creed franchise is to easy to complete. the story line is alright in my opinion but the overall franchise is just too easy for me to finish. the combat sucks again too easy. dont forget its MY opinion.

LoyalACFan
10-30-2013, 01:37 AM
You're not alone. Personally I'm not too fussed with difficulty, but that's just me.

phoenix-force411
10-30-2013, 03:33 AM
Not as easy as ACB's.

Megas_Doux
10-30-2013, 03:36 AM
Not as easy as ACB's.

I have been able to defeat enemies in ACB, with my eyes closed.......Lliterally haha.

pirate1802
10-30-2013, 05:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zdWC9rHWmk


I have been able to defeat enemies in ACB, with my eyes closed.......Lliterally haha.

It was actually impossible to die in combat in ACB. If your health dropped too low enemies would pause just enough to allow you to regenerate before starting again.

King fiShiZ
10-30-2013, 08:14 AM
Yes ack, its way to easy.
But like all Game in this time, all is going casual :-/

Flutterwhat
10-30-2013, 09:13 AM
do what i do, and turn off every single hud element and the music as well. it actually becomes more challenging.

Krayus Korianis
10-30-2013, 09:16 AM
In AC 1, the time between being attacked and using a counter was way short... It was good. It made actually using the hidden blade VERY dangerous. Now it's a pretty large space of time between countering and being attacked. 'Specially in AC III and IV.

roostersrule2
10-30-2013, 01:14 PM
I don't care really, it's not super easy like ACB or super hard like Dark Souls or something, it's relatively easy but it's still rather fun.

ACLexter
10-30-2013, 01:26 PM
I agree. combat is way too easy. just know the pattern and go to kill everyone.
I have not played AC4 and I hope they make the stealth more challenging. that's what I llke about Assassin's Creed. killing with your hidden blade without anyone seeing you.

STDlyMcStudpants
10-30-2013, 06:30 PM
TBH thats why I love it....
Its very casual and at my own pace..think about it..you are a skilled ASSASSIN..it shouldnt take more than the slip of a hidden blade to kill a target...
The only way i could see added difficulty is leonardo blue print type missions from ACB (frustratingly hard sometimes)
or timed missions( please god no)
Its fine the way it is.

AssassinHMS
10-30-2013, 06:48 PM
think about it..you are a skilled ASSASSIN..it shouldnt take more than the slip of a hidden blade to kill a target...

I couldn't agree more. This is what most people seem to forget. "You are a skilled Assassin", not a skilled Hulk, not even a warrior. Fighting more than three skilled enemies at once (using melee weapons only) is not something an assassin can do.

luckyto
10-30-2013, 06:50 PM
I have been able to defeat enemies in ACB, with my eyes closed.......Lliterally haha.
a dozen enemies

dxsxhxcx
10-30-2013, 06:59 PM
I couldn't agree more. This is what most people seem to forget. "You are a skilled Assassin", not a skilled Hulk, not even a warrior. Fighting more than three skilled enemies at once (using melee weapons only) is not something an assassin can do.

at least it isn't something he should do with so much ease like it has been happening in AC lately...

luckyto
10-30-2013, 07:03 PM
Honestly, I thought AC3 was fairly well balanced. It only barely leaned towards the too easy. So do the Arkham games. I think the people who want hard are in the minority. They should have a Difficulty setting that upped AI health and reduced their own and be done with it.

AssassinHMS
10-30-2013, 08:52 PM
at least it isn't something he should do with so much ease like it has been happening in AC lately...
Yeah, at least that. But, you know, challenge is scaaaaary...and obviously not as fun as pressing some buttons/killing 10 enemies (that even a newborn could easily pull off).



I think the people who want hard are in the minority. They should have a Difficulty setting that upped AI health and reduced their own and be done with it.

Challenge is underrated. Most AC fans would love a challenging AC game but many of them don't even realize it. True immersion is only obtainable if the game captures reality. If you can stand back and play god (you know, do ridiculous things like killing 20 enemies at once or loosing a health square after falling off a ten storey building) you feel distant from that world and it stops feeling real. The only way AC can trully put the players in the shoes of an assassin is by being realistic. AC looks real due to the realism and detail of the buildings and NPCs but it doesn't feel real since gameplay isn't realistic (or detailed enough for that matter). AC needs to make players think like an assassin. Combat, stealth and navigation need to be more realistic and less gamey. That is how AC can succeed.

Assassin_M
10-30-2013, 09:05 PM
Turn off the SSI...makes it pretty cool...if you're talking about AC IV that is.

luckyto
10-30-2013, 09:09 PM
Often, real doesn't make a good 'game.' Immersion doesn't outweigh gameplay. This isn't a movie. It's a game. It's a fine balance. Real would be that one hit from another sword and you are done. One hit from a bullet and you limp for the next "30 game days." Or half the time, your pistols won't fire or don't fire straight. For most people, that would not be fun. No matter how real it is. Naval isn't real - it takes days to catch up with another ship on the open seas and firing your cannons is luck and positioning. Why do so many more people favor Call of Duty over Arma 3? Which one is more real? From what I can tell, about 30% of gamers want their game to be so easy that they can just mash buttons (like Brotherhood.) Another 30% want Dark Souls Extreme Difficulty on every game they play. And then the middle want something with a moderate challenge.

AssassinHMS
10-30-2013, 09:26 PM
Often, real doesn't make a good 'game.' Immersion doesn't outweigh gameplay. This isn't a movie. It's a game. It's a fine balance. Real would be that one hit from another sword and you are done. One hit from a bullet and you limp for the next "30 game days." Or half the time, your pistols won't fire or don't fire straight. For most people, that would not be fun. No matter how real it is. Naval isn't real - it takes days to catch up with another ship on the open seas and firing your cannons is luck and positioning. Why do so many more people favor Call of Duty over Arma 3? Which one is more real? From what I can tell, about 30% of gamers want their game to be so easy that they can just mash buttons (like Brotherhood.) Another 30% want Dark Souls Extreme Difficulty on every game they play. And then the middle want something with a moderate challenge.

Good points, but that is taking realism to the extreme. "half the time your pistols won't fire(...)" Why are you dealing in absolutes? That doesn't make my point wrong. What I want is more balance and more challenge and not a full life simulator (The assassin must go to the bathroom or else you'll desynchronize!).
Also I don't understand what you're trying to say with "This isn't a movie. It's a game.", because I'm well aware of that, I'm doing this for gameplay purposes.

luckyto
10-30-2013, 09:29 PM
lol - the bathroom bit is funny. Granted.

I think my point was that all good games take liberty with the challenge and the reality. It just seems like every other game, Ubisoft caves to the "this is too easy" crowd and they do something with combat that tries to make it more challenging but just makes it annoying. The easy fix is health nerf to the player and a health buff to the AI - so every single hit becomes that much more difficult.

dxsxhxcx
10-30-2013, 09:40 PM
Often, real doesn't make a good 'game.' Immersion doesn't outweigh gameplay. This isn't a movie. It's a game. It's a fine balance. Real would be that one hit from another sword and you are done. One hit from a bullet and you limp for the next "30 game days." Or half the time, your pistols won't fire or don't fire straight. For most people, that would not be fun. No matter how real it is. Naval isn't real - it takes days to catch up with another ship on the open seas and firing your cannons is luck and positioning. Why do so many more people favor Call of Duty over Arma 3? Which one is more real? From what I can tell, about 30% of gamers want their game to be so easy that they can just mash buttons (like Brotherhood.) Another 30% want Dark Souls Extreme Difficulty on every game they play. And then the middle want something with a moderate challenge.


why when someone suggest an increase of challenge in combat some people always assume they want the game to be the closest thing to the real world we can get? I doubt most people who want an increase in challenge want that (if difficulty settings were implemented this would be a different story, but this isn't the case now), no one's asking for AC to become Dark Souls in terms of challenge (I never played that game but when people mention it they always talk about its difficulty so I can imagine how hard it might be) but the direction this is going is getting ridiculous, the game is getting easier and easier each new game they release (can't judge AC4 yet but from what I saw it doesn't SEEM to change this formula) and Ubisoft's fake attempts to increase challenge don't fool anyone, different archetypes of guards aren't the solution when kill them don't represent any challenge and we have counter windows bigger than the ozone hole (and this is only part of the problem)...

LoyalACFan
10-30-2013, 09:56 PM
Challenge is underrated. Most AC fans would love a challenging AC game but many of them don't even realize it. True immersion is only obtainable if the game captures reality. If you can stand back and play god (you know, do ridiculous things like killing 20 enemies at once or loosing a health square after falling off a ten storey building) you feel distant from that world and it stops feeling real. The only way AC can trully put the players in the shoes of an assassin is by being realistic. AC looks real due to the realism and detail of the buildings and NPCs but it doesn't feel real since gameplay isn't realistic (or detailed enough for that matter). AC needs to make players think like an assassin. Combat, stealth and navigation need to be more realistic and less gamey. That is how AC can succeed.

I disagree. A game does not have to be realistic or challenging in the slightest for it to stay immersive and engaging. Look at Red Dead Redemption. Possibly one of the easiest shooters I've played on this gen (I mean, Marston was practically a god with Dead-Eye targeting) but it remains hands-down THE most immersive game I've ever played. Realism doesn't even need to factor in, as long as the game world presents itself in a consistent and predictable fashion. It needs to have clear rules of what is and what is not possible, for sure, but those rules don't have to align at all with those of the real world. Personally, I don't care that Edward Kenway can tear through a hundred armed guards any more than I cared that John Marston could gun down a whole town full of outlaws. It IS a game, and I play it largely for escapism and entertainment. As long as the gameplay is engaging, it really doesn't matter to me at all whether it's difficult or realistic.

That said, AC gameplay can be shaky at times, but I think on the whole it's improved significantly since AC1. There's still room for improvement of course, but I certainly don't think those improvements need to force us to play as a hardcore stealthy Assassin all the time whose combat skills are merely realistic. Not even AC1 was a hardcore stealth game like some people make it out to be.

AssassinHMS
10-30-2013, 10:26 PM
I disagree. A game does not have to be realistic or challenging in the slightest for it to stay immersive and engaging. Look at Red Dead Redemption. Possibly one of the easiest shooters I've played on this gen (I mean, Marston was practically a god with Dead-Eye targeting) but it remains hands-down THE most immersive game I've ever played. Realism doesn't even need to factor in, as long as the game world presents itself in a consistent and predictable fashion. It needs to have clear rules of what is and what is not possible, for sure, but those rules don't have to align at all with those of the real world. Personally, I don't care that Edward Kenway can tear through a hundred armed guards any more than I cared that John Marston could gun down a whole town full of outlaws. It IS a game, and I play it largely for escapism and entertainment. As long as the gameplay is engaging, it really doesn't matter to me at all whether it's difficult or realistic.

That said, AC gameplay can be shaky at times, but I think on the whole it's improved significantly since AC1. There's still room for improvement of course, but I certainly don't think those improvements need to force us to play as a hardcore stealthy Assassin all the time whose combat skills are merely realistic. Not even AC1 was a hardcore stealth game like some people make it out to be.



That isn’t true. There are many reasons why RDR is such an immersive experience while being quite an easy shooter and now, I’ll have to explain them:
Let’s start by saying there is a lot more to RDR than guns and duels. The world, the people, the activities, the random events, everything gives a sense of realism. RDR was that good because it felt very real.
The only thing that wasn’t as realistic nearly as it could’ve been was the combat. And here is the thing. RDR is a shooter, AC is not. If combat wasn’t so unrealistic (especially with the Dead eye), it would’ve been frustrating for most gamers to die with a single well placed bullet. That is the problem with games with guns. In real life you can get shot in a split-second. This is one of the reasons AC needs to move away from guns. If RDR’s was more linear and relied more on combat, it wouldn’t feel real or be half as good.
However there is a hardcore mode which I played, and even though it still had Dead Eye, it forced me to think and plan my actions which, I can easily say, was a lot more immersive than normal mode. Once I tried hardcore mode I never went back because I never felt excited, scared or immersed (when in comparison) in normal mode.

So, no. Realism matters a lot. Immersion requires realism. Red Dead is actually just another proof of that. If enemies aren’t strong then escaping isn’t thrilling, stealth isn’t filled with tension, combat isn’t exciting and I never push my abilities or feel like I’m in the shoes of an assassin because the game is putting me, instead, in the shoes of a god. And being a god isn’t fun or thrilling. It’s actually dull and boring.

LoyalACFan
10-30-2013, 10:35 PM
That isn’t true. There are many reasons why RDR is such an immersive experience while being quite an easy shooter and now, I’ll have to explain them:
Let’s start by saying there is a lot more to RDR than guns and duels. The world, the people, the activities, the random events, everything gives a sense of realism. RDR was that good because it felt very real.
The only thing that wasn’t as realistic nearly as it could’ve been was the combat. And here is the thing. RDR is a shooter, AC is not. If combat wasn’t so unrealistic (especially with the Dead eye), it would’ve been frustrating for most gamers to die with a single well placed bullet. That is the problem with games with guns. In real life you can be shot in a split-second. This is one of the reasons AC needs to move away from guns. If RDR’s was more linear and relied more on combat, it wouldn’t feel real or be half as good.
However there is a hardcore mode which I played, and even though it still had Dead Eye, it forced me to think and plan my actions which, I can easily say, was a lot more immersive than normal mode. Once I tried hardcore mode I never went back because I never felt excited, scared or immersed (when in comparison) in normal mode.

So, no. Realism matters a lot. Immersion requires realism. Red Dead is actually just another proof of that. If enemies aren’t strong then escaping isn’t thrilling, stealth isn’t filled with tension, combat isn’t exciting and I never push my abilities or feel like I’m in the shoes of an assassin because the game is putting me, instead, in the shoes of a god. And being a god isn’t fun or thrilling. It’s actually dull and boring.

Nope, I still totally disagree. Difficulty might be something YOU require to be immersed, but you can't say that as a blanket statement. I remained on Casual mode in RDR from start to finish, and I was still blown away by it. Personally, I feel that if a game is so difficult that I fail and have to retry a certain segment, that's actually EXTREMELY detrimental to the immersion. That would be like forcing yourself to reread the same chapter of a book multiple times in a row without progressing.

As for the atmosphere of Red Dead... yeah? I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. It's chock full of environmental detail which boosts immersion, but that's got nothing to do with difficulty. That's why I'm saying games don't need to be hard to be immersive; just look at the ease of Red Dead compared to its unrivaled sense of immersion. The actual fights and such actually didn't have much to do with it. AC4 is actually much the same way, though I think RDR still trumps it.

AssassinHMS
10-30-2013, 11:37 PM
Nope, I still totally disagree. Difficulty might be something YOU require to be immersed, but you can't say that as a blanket statement. I remained on Casual mode in RDR from start to finish, and I was still blown away by it. Personally, I feel that if a game is so difficult that I fail and have to retry a certain segment, that's actually EXTREMELY detrimental to the immersion. That would be like forcing yourself to reread the same chapter of a book multiple times in a row without progressing.

Life is difficult. Or you could say life is challenging. So, in order to be realistic, a game needs to be challenging (not as difficult as life but, a requirement nevertheless). No, difficulty isn't about failing, it's about conquering, about evolving, about realism. If you want to do something successfully, you don't just go there and do it, you plan, you think before you do it (especially if it is something difficult) otherwise it is likely that you will fail. If a game doesn't require the player to think, to analyze the situation, to plan then it doesn't feel real. I mean, this is as basic as it can get. Challenge is a huge part of life, if it isn't life itself. So how can a game feel real or immersive if it isn't challenging?



As for the atmosphere of Red Dead... yeah? I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. It's chock full of environmental detail which boosts immersion, but that's got nothing to do with difficulty. That's why I'm saying games don't need to be hard to be immersive; just look at the ease of Red Dead compared to its unrivaled sense of immersion. The actual fights and such actually didn't have much to do with it. AC4 is actually much the same way, though I think RDR still trumps it.

You're comparing two different things. Fighting is the last thing an assassin wants to do. That is why they spend years training to become masters of stealth. They would rather run than fight. All that matters is the target and the creed. So why do assassins train to avoid fighting so much? Because fighting gets you killed. Because direct confrontation is stupid when you have stealth. Hell, running is a better option than fighting (unless there is only one or two enemies given the assassins are good fighters). So why does a franchise, like this (where the original goal was to put the player in the shoes of an assassin), makes combat so easy? Why isn't stealth in a level comparable to other games like Thief?

Fights and guns are a big part of the old west, so it is understandable and not that immersion breaking if combat is easy in RDR, especially when everything else is very well done. However, in a game about Assassins (that avoid combat at all costs), it doesn't make any sense to make combat easy, not to mention it defeats the purpose of stealth and AC's original goal.

LoyalACFan
10-31-2013, 01:34 AM
Life is difficult. Or you could say life is challenging. So, in order to be realistic, a game needs to be challenging (not as difficult as life but, a requirement nevertheless). No, difficulty isn't about failing, it's about conquering, about evolving, about realism. If you want to do something successfully, you don't just go there and do it, you plan, you think before you do it (especially if it is something difficult) otherwise it is likely that you will fail. If a game doesn't require the player to think, to analyze the situation, to plan then it doesn't feel real. I mean, this is as basic as it can get. Challenge is a huge part of life, if it isn't life itself. So how can a game feel real or immersive if it isn't challenging?

"Realistic" and "immersive" are two entirely different things. They aren't even related. The world only needs to feel authentic and true to its own rules to be immersive. It doesn't even have to resemble the real world in any way, and in fact, it's a bad thing if it resembles the real world too much. I daresay you could make a game about accountancy and make it incredibly realistic, but that doesn't mean it would be immersive or appealing. In these types of adventure games, the protagonist HAS to be especially powerful in some way, otherwise the game has no appeal. Besides, you're talking about planning routes and thinking out your actions before you attempt them, as if that's no longer part of the series. AC4 encourages you to do this far more than any other AC game since the original.


You're comparing two different things. Fighting is the last thing an assassin wants to do. That is why they spend years training to become masters of stealth. They would rather run than fight. All that matters is the target and the creed. So why do assassins train to avoid fighting so much? Because fighting gets you killed. Because direct confrontation is stupid when you have stealth. Hell, running is a better option than fighting (unless there is only one or two enemies given the assassins are good fighters). So why does a franchise, like this (where the original goal was to put the player in the shoes of an assassin), makes combat so easy? Why isn't stealth in a level comparable to other games like Thief?

Fights and guns are a big part of the old west, so it is understandable and not that immersion breaking if combat is easy in RDR, especially when everything else is very well done. However, in a game about Assassins (that avoid combat at all costs), it doesn't make any sense to make combat easy, not to mention it defeats the purpose of stealth and AC's original goal.

I think you're remembering AC1 through rose-colored glasses. Yes, the Creed says an Assassin should hide in plain sight, but AC has never been a stealth series. Fight mechanics have consistently been more sophisticated and developed than stealth mechanics, and the ENTIRE progression system in AC1 is linked to combat. If anything, AC4 is a "stealthier" game than AC1, since we finally have some true stealth mechanics that can be put to good use in free-roam.

Plus, RDR gets a free pass since "fights were a big part of the Wild West?" Like they weren't a big part of the Crusades or golden age of piracy? Can't help but sense a bit of a double standard there.

AC2_alex
10-31-2013, 01:48 AM
Infiltration missions should be difficult, and frankly, this is where the franchise is at its best. AC1 and AC2 did this very well. AC3 pushed it aside, which was a huge mistake.

Combat, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily have to be difficult. As long as it's free-flowing and some-what varied, it's fine. AC3 had the best combat imo.

(haven't played black flag yet)

luckyto
10-31-2013, 01:57 AM
You're comparing two different things. Fighting is the last thing an assassin wants to do. That is why they spend years training to become masters of stealth. They would rather run than fight. All that matters is the target and the creed. So why do assassins train to avoid fighting so much? Because fighting gets you killed. Because direct confrontation is stupid when you have stealth. Hell, running is a better option than fighting (unless there is only one or two enemies given the assassins are good fighters). So why does a franchise, like this (where the original goal was to put the player in the shoes of an assassin), makes combat so easy? Why isn't stealth in a level comparable to other games like Thief?
.

I think you are placing your own interpretation of what "Assassin" means on the franchise. One, I significantly remember combat training as a key element of AC1. Not stealth training. There was a courtyard where they all learned how to fight with swords. Two, Assassins used stealth to get to their target; but they chose their executions in public places for shock value - and after the kill - guess what happens: combat. Fighting and combat is a core part of AC. Altair was notoriously a hot-head and excellent fighter at the beginning of AC. Ezio was the same - he did lots of fighting and combat as a young nobleman before ever became an Assassin. Wielding exceptional fighters is an CORE part of the AC experience. I would argue even more than stealth, although some keep thinking this is a stealth game. It's not.

dxsxhxcx
10-31-2013, 02:20 AM
when basically the only thing capable of kill you is a failed jump from one building to another you know there's something wrong with game, it amazes me how many people are OK with it...

pirate1802
10-31-2013, 04:48 AM
I agree with the loyal fan and disagree with HMS. Immersion doesn't require realism, not by my experience. It only needs to be believable according to its own standards and universe. I have played games that were easy as hell but still immersive as ****. Gotta say immersion, atleast in my experience has zilch to do with challenge and everything to do with how the wold is, and how the characters react to it. As long as that reaction is believable (according to the game's own rules) the game will remain immersive. And yes, I too think that while AC definitely could use some more challenge (nobody would disagree with that probably) making it so hard that player has to try a segment several times to proceed would be making it worse. Because even with no challenge, immersion is always there in AC games. When you make it so hard that I'd have to replay the missions several times even that immersion is broken, for me atleast. That's why I don't like super hard games.

scooper121s
10-31-2013, 04:51 AM
I agree with the loyal fan and disagree with HMS. Immersion doesn't require realism, not by my experience. It only needs to be believable according to its own standards and universe. I have played games that were easy as hell but still immersive as ****. Gotta say immersion, atleast in my experience has zilch to do with challenge and everything to do with how the wold is, and how the characters react to it. As long as that reaction is believable (according to the game's own rules) the game will remain immersive. And yes, I too think that while AC definitely could use some more challenge (nobody would disagree with that probably) making it so hard that player has to try a segment several times to proceed would be making it worse.
Perfectly said Me' Hearty

STDlyMcStudpants
10-31-2013, 05:31 PM
Yeah, at least that. But, you know, challenge is scaaaaary...and obviously not as fun as pressing some buttons/killing 10 enemies (that even a newborn could easily pull off).




Challenge is underrated. Most AC fans would love a challenging AC game but many of them don't even realize it. True immersion is only obtainable if the game captures reality.

I agree 100% with these points
(Not so much with immersion needs realism - Borderlands 2 and Skyrim are just 2 of many that disprove that thought.)

It progressively got easier from AC - ACB and then they hit the kill switch and progressively got harder (havent played ACIV yet - finishing up darksiders 2 first)
ACR had insanely tough AI and really started to make you think on your feet during combat (after farming for trophies and understanding them all combat got fairly easy as anything will with practice) and in AC 3 they added even more variety..it had so much variety that you couldnt remember how to deal with each different enemy type and had to resort to roof assassinations but I think this amount of variety is perfect..it forces you to play around with targets and relearn their weaknesses you forgot from 10 sequences ago lol

The difficulty shouldnt be about the amounts of hits it takes to kill something *COUGH* Skyrim *COUGH*
It should be about variety and not being able to button mash your way through a game - which AC is perfectly.

luckyto
10-31-2013, 06:22 PM
when basically the only thing capable of kill you is a failed jump from one building to another you know there's something wrong with game, it amazes me how many people are OK with it...

Well, if you didn't die in AC3, you weren't picking big enough fights or you are seriously good. I still die - it's usually after I've killed 2 dozen people and six Jaegars and a firing squad are on me --- but I did die. I've died in ACIV a few times too, but more because the combat isn't as fluid rather than being more difficult. I think Brotherhood is the only game where you it was near impossible to die. In Black Flag, if you ignore those snipers, I assure you that you will die.

Sushiglutton
10-31-2013, 07:00 PM
Yeah it's a bit too easy imo. Especially I wish the skill ceiling was a bit higher. It's rewarding in games when you feel you are constantly getting better. In AC it's like when you have understood the basics there's not much room for imrprovement. I like AC to stay fairyly casual though, just a bit more depth and ompf to the various gameplay systems would be nice.

adventurewomen
10-31-2013, 07:07 PM
Then why rush play, just take your time an enjoy the story, IDK why so many are in such a rush to complete. Just take your time enjoy and appreciate.

LoyalACFan
10-31-2013, 07:08 PM
Yeah it's a bit too easy imo. Especially I wish the skill ceiling was a bit higher. It's rewarding in games when you feel you are constantly getting better. In AC it's like when you have understood the basics there's not much room for imrprovement. I like AC to stay fairyly casual though, just a bit more depth and ompf to the various gameplay systems would be nice.

I feel like they took a step in the right direction with the Jackdaw on this front though. If you're not fully upgraded, the legendary ships and some of the harder forts will tear you to shreds.

luckyto
10-31-2013, 07:48 PM
Sushi, yeah, it is too easy. Brotherhood was too easy to a fault. AC3 is simply slightly too easy - and would be better if the timing was tightened and the health systems refined. AC1 as well. (Although the hidden blade counter took some time to master). To me, these are refinements rather than saying the gameplay s just overwhelmingly easy.


I feel like they took a step in the right direction with the Jackdaw on this front though. If you're not fully upgraded, the legendary ships and some of the harder forts will tear you to shreds.

Definitely. You will get destroyed if you are too bold early in the game.

Ritterkreuz1978
10-31-2013, 08:48 PM
Frankly, I have to disagree. I've always found the AC games to be pretty difficult. Not so much the combat, but the chases are pretty frustrating for me. In fact I never finished AC 3 thanks to a chase mission that was simply too difficult (that one where you have to stop the 5 riders, I never once got close to the final rider).

FrankieSatt
10-31-2013, 08:55 PM
Frankly, I have to disagree. I've always found the AC games to be pretty difficult. Not so much the combat, but the chases are pretty frustrating for me. In fact I never finished AC 3 thanks to a chase mission that was simply too difficult (that one where you have to stop the 5 riders, I never once got close to the final rider).

That. along with other reasons, is why I refuse to play AC3 anymore.

The series can get difficult for those who don't have very good controller skills, especially when you jumping in hale bays by accident and climbing on things while trying to chase someone down the street or jumping off of buildings when trying to chase someone across rooftops.

The games are far from easy.

Gi1t
11-01-2013, 02:14 AM
AC is definitely in need of some more challenging gameplay to keep the challenge-seekers interested. Just making you die faster isn't enough. I won't even bother to play a game on a harder difficulty if all the changes are just stat boosts for the bad guys. To me, if that's all you get, you might as well just play the game in normal mode and quit every time you take a hit. -__- I'm exaggerating here, but, my point is, I don't find much difference in a difficulty setting like that except that the game's just being really ******y about you making mistakes. It's still the same, easy game in every other respect. And that's why Ninja Gaiden was such a favorite of mine because the higher difficulty settings changed a ton of stuff, from adding new or improved attacks to existing enemies to changing the encounters (giving you tougher enemies earlier in the game) to throwing in boss fights that weren't there before. The AI reacted faster too, and though they increased damage parameters, it really wasn't all that much from one difficulty to the next.

So if they're going to make a harder setting, or even just improve the one they have, they need enemies that have a wider variety of attacks and smarter AI (meaning they'll actually try to avoid taking damage/making themselves easy targets.) Too many game companies still look at enemies as being mere targets for the purpose of demonstrating their combat system. Enemies are basically HALF the combat system. If they're boring, it doesn't matter how great the main character is. The thing with AC's combat is that it's still compartmentalized into separate, simple actions that all have a success/fail scenario. In other words, there's a winning button for everything. The only skill based factor is reaction time. Rather than adding more of these, they need to add new rules to the ones they have. Where combat becomes really interesting is when it has a strong internal set of rules (almost like a strategy game) that can work outside of preset scenarios. When a certain kind of attack cancels out another type, for example, players can apply their own logic to the combat system and use attacks that follow that rule to their advantage, even if the programmers didn't specifically mean for them to be used that way. When that happens, the combat gains a lot of potential for expansion because they can add in new enemies and attacks and simply apply attributes to them to create a unique combination with its own strengths and weaknesses. It starts off like Rock-Paper-Scissors but the more conditions you add, the more you have to think about what you're doing. :D That said, enemies should exhibit some weaknesses as well, such as vulnerability during most attacks etc. That way, players don't necessarily need to know all the rules to win, but if they do, they can really take advantage of them.

As for Dark Souls, it had really terrific combat even though it wasn't too complex because the enemies made things interesting. Unfortunately, even though I love a lot of how they did things, I never really got into it because you pretty much had to redo half the level when you died and that turned the game into a chore. I don't mind getting repeatedly killed by a boss, or even regular enemies, but I don't like having to redo a bunch of fights I already won if I die. I like being able to die and try again against a tough opponent, but it loses its appeal if I've already done it. XD

Ritterkreuz1978
11-01-2013, 03:14 PM
That. along with other reasons, is why I refuse to play AC3 anymore.

The series can get difficult for those who don't have very good controller skills, especially when you jumping in hale bays by accident and climbing on things while trying to chase someone down the street or jumping off of buildings when trying to chase someone across rooftops.

The games are far from easy.

Those were the same problems I would have. Sometimes it felt like if I was off by so much at a 10th of 1 degree with my controller that was it, the chase was over and the missions was lost.

For those who think it's easy, I'm glad you're so good at these things, but stop ruining it for the rest of us.

dxsxhxcx
11-01-2013, 03:33 PM
For those who think it's easy, I'm glad you're so good at these things, but stop ruining it for the rest of us.

so it's OK to ruin it for the rest of us as long as YOU get what you want?

riftsNglyphs
11-01-2013, 03:38 PM
so it's OK to ruin it for the rest of us as long as YOU get what you want?

it's not exactly 'ruined' for the rest of us who want challenge, though. There's so much more to enjoy. If the game is easy, then that's fine...even though I want challenge, BUT if the games get harder, then that alienates a huge base of the fans, because the game might be unplayable for some, as preposterous as that sounds, since we have people here who actually thought ac3 was hard lawl

dxsxhxcx
11-01-2013, 03:55 PM
it's not exactly 'ruined' for the rest of us who want challenge, though. There's so much more to enjoy. If the game is easy, then that's fine...even though I want challenge, BUT if the games get harder, then that alienates a huge base of the fans, because the game might be unplayable for some, as preposterous as that sounds, since we have people here who actually thought ac3 was hard lawl

yeah but what I'm starting to notice in this kind of thread is that those who wants the game to remain the same (or even easier) are so scared of an increase of challenge (be aware that no one is asking for AC to become Dark Souls, at least not without the option to lower the difficulty) that if Ubisoft changes something and make you get hit more than twice they think they'll be uncapable of play the game, if they continue this way AC14 will only have "go to point A to B" kind of missions, cutscenes and STE (Slow Time Events since QTE will be too hard) because anything that'll take a little more effort to be accomplished will be labeled as "too hard"...

IMO AC1 is the hardest AC game to date and that game isn't even hard...

Ritterkreuz1978
11-01-2013, 04:30 PM
so it's OK to ruin it for the rest of us as long as YOU get what you want?

The problem is that in the overall gaming world, you guys are kind of in the minority. Most gamers aren't THAT hardcore and thus if you make a game too hard or too challenging they won't buy the sequels, which in turns ends the series. AC III was a nightmare for me, and so frustratingly difficult that I finally had to just quit. I almost didn't buy IV because of it, but changed my mind at the last minute (and glad I did, so far IV has been great).

FrankieSatt
11-01-2013, 05:24 PM
so it's OK to ruin it for the rest of us as long as YOU get what you want?

I think what is being said is that the Assassin's Creed series is hard enough right now. It's far from "Easy" and if it is too easy for you and others than maybe it's time for UbiSoft to start adding difficulty levels to the game instead of just making the game increasingly harder every time and forcing everybody to play it on that level.

Every single game I have played have difficulty levels, but the Assassin's Creed games. It's time they start adding difficulty levels in this series as well instead of making it increasingly harder and forcing everyone else to play it that way.

Ritterkreuz1978
11-01-2013, 05:28 PM
Every single game I have played have difficulty levels, but the Assassin's Creed games. It's time they start adding difficulty levels in this series as well instead of making it increasingly harder and forcing everyone else to play it that way.

I could gladly live with Difficultly levels built into the game.