PDA

View Full Version : Where is AC's Spark? *SPOILERS*



AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 05:08 PM
Sorry, in advance, for the long post.

Every Assassin’s Creed is different, not really at its core since it has been pretty untouched but, at its motif.
When I first played AC1 I was immediately pulled by this world filled with pain, war and lies. Acre had corpses everywhere, a ghostly lighting and I could almost feel the fear and misery of the citizens. Damascus and Jerusalem, while different, still revolved around the same motifs while displaying the wealth and depravity of the social elitists and the misery of the not so fortunate.
Bottom-line, AC1 really displayed a raw and unforgiving world full of violence and treachery.

And then there were the assassins. The game portrayed them as free-thinking people who fought to end all the fights. But what really stood out to me was how they interacted with the world around them. Apparently they were just like every other faction, ready to kill and murder their way to reach the goal they thought was right. But what was so interesting to me was how they shined. Visually, the white of their robes gave away this sense of purity and righteousness that really stood out in such a cruel world.
http://www.merlininkazani.com/images/games/7243/26.jpg

Then there were these ideals that really showed how rational and deep the Creed was. But, the last piece that made this complex and divine painting was the secrecy and the mystery of their ways. How they concealed themselves and worked in the dark to serve the light.
http://static9.cdn.ubi.com/en-DK/images/Carousel_Video_AC1_Altair_Trailertcm7753714.jpg

And all these concepts and ideas mixed so well…they were the reason why Assassin’s Creed shined in the first place. And, of course there was the music that really enticed and added more of this vibe to the package.

And then there’s AC2. Although it had many flaws, it pushed the Assassin’s Creed vibe/spark to a whole new level.
AC2 introduced many things but, above all else, it introduced class. The Renaissance, the cheerful people, the expensive clothes, the beautiful cities, the lights, the lush…all of these things, never seen before in the franchise, were brought to the table and astonishingly renewed AC. The assassin concept, which I mentioned above, blended so well with this that it was enough to make AC2 the most praised AC game to date.
The purity and darkness of Forli
http://s017.radikal.ru/i443/1304/a0/b708a068a65e.jpg

Florence, Venice…
http://cddiski-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/31865/screenshot/ab0aaee9.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJz9OGYmPvs

There is no other AC that captures this as well as AC2. The assassin concept reached new heights when mixed with such a vibrant and lush environment but it was never matched. AC gradually lost the mystery (glyphs, conspiracies, secrets…), the beauty, the purity (the white, the atmosphere, the impact…) and the assassin concept. Not only that but AC2’s music is unmatched and really adds the feel of a beautiful society dominated by religion, ruled by conspiracy and striped off of their own identity that can only be set free by the assassins.
http://gamesinanutshell.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/assassins-creed-bonfire-of-the-vanities-dlc-screenshot-499x281.jpg

So: Did you feel any of this while playing AC1 and AC2? Do you think AC’s spark is still alive in games like AC3 or AC4? If so, in what form? If not, what can be done to revive it?

Ardil
11-10-2013, 05:15 PM
It's really hard to capture the same essence like AC1 and AC2. Those games were just amazing. I think it's alot about the time period and environment, for example if ithe game was during the Feudal Japan time period with samurais and ninjas. Honor, creed and codex would be a big role, since samurais had a lot of honor in their villages with a lot of traditions and such.

Ardil
11-10-2013, 05:15 PM
Hopefully what I wrote made sense hahaha

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 05:27 PM
It's really hard to capture the same essence like AC1 and AC2. Those games were just amazing. I think it's alot about the time period and environment, for example if ithe game was during the Feudal Japan time period with samurais and ninjas. Honor, creed and codex would be a big role, since samurais had a lot of honor in their villages with a lot of traditions and such.

Yes I'm well aware of that, but it seems that the Assassin's Creed essence (the mystery, the atmosphere, the assassin's creed concept...) has become less and less prevalent and replaced with other essences that Ubisoft thinks will sell more.

Rithrius
11-10-2013, 05:28 PM
AC1 and 2 feel different, but in no way better or worse. Assassin's Creed is one of the few, if not the only franchise in which the sequels don't only take place in a different location, but a different era alltogether, and each era has it's own unique spark.


Yes I'm well aware of that, but it seems that the Assassin's Creed essence (the mystery, the atmosphere, the assassin's creed concept...) has become less and less prevalent and replaced with other essences that Ubisoft thinks will sell more.

You can't make 5 sequels to a single game and keep the same feeling of mystery intact throughout all those different stories. Good games require story progression. Story progression means less mystery.

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 06:20 PM
AC1 and 2 feel different, but in no way better or worse. Assassin's Creed is one of the few, if not the only franchise in which the sequels don't only take place in a different location, but a different era alltogether, and each era has it's own unique spark.

Indeed, but only if it is explored and mixed with the assassin concept otherwise it is wasted potential and the spark quickly disappears.


You can't make 5 sequels to a single game and keep the same feeling of mystery intact throughout all those different stories. Good games require story progression. Story progression means less mystery.

I disagree. Only when you sell a game every year. If Ubisoft took their time to let people miss the assassin's creed concept they wouldn't feel forced to ditch it or twist it and turn AC into a whole other game to keep the novelty. They could also improve AC's core which would allow them to explore what AC1 and AC2 brought to the table creating a sense of novelty. The only thing stopping this is Ubisoft's greed and an audience that wants explosions, Hollywood moments, mindless violence and that is afraid of the smallest challenge.
Besides, I’m sure people already miss the old Assassin’s Creed. The problem is most people assume that a pure AC game has boring investigations and no novelty or fun to it. The truth is, now, a pure AC game would be a game that, improved the core mechanics to new heights, developed a world that feels mysterious, that lets the player conspire against the corrupt instead of putting him in the shoes of this new super strong and super cool protagonist like in all baby books. This essence never becomes old if handed properly because what must change in AC throughout its course are the cities, the time period, and the story along with the natural development of the mechanics but what mustn’t change is the overall feel, the franchise’s direction or the essence because that is what defines the franchise. See the difference?

lothario-da-be
11-10-2013, 06:31 PM
They can make mysterious games every year, if you try hard enough. But its not their focus anymore.

AdamPearce
11-10-2013, 07:13 PM
Old AC is dead, get used to that. Now we will only get Historic game with Assassins in it to keep the franchise.

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 07:23 PM
They can make mysterious games every year, if you try hard enough. But its not their focus anymore.

Why not? Also, this isn't simply a matter of mystery. The whole AC's essence seems to be lacking, if not pretty much gone.

Assassin_M
11-10-2013, 07:37 PM
It's called a different spark. You can't go looking for AC I and AC II in AC III and AC IV and expect to find eternal satisfaction. You can't look for AC II's atmosphere in AC III. You can't find Renaissance Florence in Revolutionary Boston, you can't find Crusades Damascus in 18th Century Havana or Kingston. it's called variety. if every game had the same atmosphere, same type of music..etc, then it'd get boring fast. AC I is my second favorite now and it's atmosphere and mystery remain a favorite of mine, but do I take a crap on other AC atmospheres for being different?? No, I don't...I don't assign a certain atmosphere or element to AC, except the cores of course (combat, stealth and Navigation) there's no such thing as "AC's atmosphere" I don't have to hear the Creed every time to realize that this is the Assassin faction, I don't have to see hoods all the time to realize those people are Assassins, The cities don't have to be Florence, Venice, Damascus every time for me to love the atmosphere. maybe the mystery aspect faded a bit, but that's only because we know A LOT. in AC I and II, we didn't know as much as we do now, so OBVIOUSLY, the mystery would feel like it's non-existent.

I'm sure I told you this before too, but when you feel the need to speak for "people" like when you say "i'm sure people miss the old AC" then you have a pretty weak case and I urge you to try and make it just a little bit stronger, since you can't rely on JUST your own views and find it necessary to feel like you're a part of this huge faction that wants the same thing as you. Just some friendly advice..

pacmanate
11-10-2013, 07:40 PM
I think they only way we can get mysterious settings is if we go back in time again, preferably between 1300-1500.

Assassin_M
11-10-2013, 07:43 PM
I think they only way we can get mysterious settings is if we go back in time again, preferably between 1300-1500.
Honestly, I don't think so..how does an earlier time margin add more mystery?

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 07:48 PM
Old AC is dead, get used to that. Now we will only get Historic game with Assassins in it to keep the franchise.

I agree but I can't get used to it. I think that we can bring it back. Sure there are many people who don't understand the essence of AC, who see the "evolution" of this franchise as being normal or even good, but I think that a real AC game could make these people see things differently. If I may ask, why would you visit this forum if you think AC is dead and that there is no return? (I don't mean this as an offense or anything)

Assassin_M
11-10-2013, 07:50 PM
Sure there are many people who don't understand the essence of AC
LOLOLOLOLOLO guide us, Oh master

You just lost any credibility you MIGHT have had..

SixKeys
11-10-2013, 07:53 PM
I'm not sure I agree that there's some One, True Assassin Concept and that it can be found in only the first two games. The purest AC experience is without a doubt the first game. It was all about the creed, had a lot of philosophy and was more about immersion than diverse activities. AC2 was basically GTA with horses. Do whatever you want: beat people up, rob banks, pickpocket people, parade around in public with some prostitutes, raid some tombs - all of it with hardly any consequences. Get notorious enough and they'll send "the cops" after you, but they'll give up and forget about you as soon as they lose sight of you. Don't get me wrong, I love AC2, but it's hardly the pure AC experience you're claiming. It actually removed some of the more essential AC elements (eavesdropping, gathering information, planning) in favor of more gamey ones.

As for the creed, it was hardly even touched on in AC2. Ezio wasn't inducted into the order until towards the end of the game (sequence 8 or 9, I think). Until that moment he was just a random vigilante who happened to wear white while going around killing people. He was motivated by a personal vendetta, not an adherence to an ancient creed he didn't even understand.

AC2 kind of started the Gump factor as well. While it was cool hanging around with famous figures, you've got to admit it did feel rather convenient that Ezio would be best pals with Leonardo da Vinci, Lorenzo de Medici and Niccolo Machiavelli. In AC1 it was a bit more subtle, as the most famous historical character was probably Richard the Lionheart and he only appeared in a couple of scenes. AltaÔr never palled around with him, never cared about him as a person; Richard was basically in his way when all AltaÔr wanted was to kill some of the people working for him. In AC1 the Crusades were the backdrop to an interesting philosophy and the characters discovering the meaning behind it; in AC2, the Renaissance was one of the main characters in its own right.

AC2 never gave me the same experience as AC1. It was a good and fun game, but far more Hollywood-ey in writing and execution. The atmosphere simply came nowhere near the level of AC1. So I don't know why you count both games as an example of some vaguely defined "assassin concept" and why you think it's been lost since the first two. If there was ever something that can be called a "pure" AC experience, it died after AC1. AC2 introduced a whole different experience and the other games have simply been copying it ever since, to varying degrees of success.

pirate1802
11-10-2013, 08:07 PM
It's called a different spark. You can't go looking for AC I and AC II in AC III and AC IV and expect to find eternal satisfaction. You can't look for AC II's atmosphere in AC III. You can't find Renaissance Florence in Revolutionary Boston, you can't find Crusades Damascus in 18th Century Havana or Kingston. it's called variety. if every game had the same atmosphere, same type of music..etc, then it'd get boring fast. AC I is my second favorite now and it's atmosphere and mystery remain a favorite of mine, but do I take a crap on other AC atmospheres for being different?? No, I don't...I don't assign a certain atmosphere or element to AC, except the cores of course (combat, stealth and Navigation) there's no such thing as "AC's atmosphere" I don't have to hear the Creed every time to realize that this is the Assassin faction, I don't have to see hoods all the time to realize those people are Assassins, The cities don't have to be Florence, Venice, Damascus every time for me to love the atmosphere. maybe the mystery aspect faded a bit, but that's only because we know A LOT. in AC I and II, we didn't know as much as we do now, so OBVIOUSLY, the mystery would feel like it's non-existent.

EXACTLY!

I got the "spark" while roaming the frontier in AC3, but a different kind of spark. Same with other ACs. And I'm sure I'll get another kind of spark in AC4.

pirate1802
11-10-2013, 08:08 PM
It's called a different spark. You can't go looking for AC I and AC II in AC III and AC IV and expect to find eternal satisfaction. You can't look for AC II's atmosphere in AC III. You can't find Renaissance Florence in Revolutionary Boston, you can't find Crusades Damascus in 18th Century Havana or Kingston. it's called variety. if every game had the same atmosphere, same type of music..etc, then it'd get boring fast. AC I is my second favorite now and it's atmosphere and mystery remain a favorite of mine, but do I take a crap on other AC atmospheres for being different?? No, I don't...I don't assign a certain atmosphere or element to AC, except the cores of course (combat, stealth and Navigation) there's no such thing as "AC's atmosphere" I don't have to hear the Creed every time to realize that this is the Assassin faction, I don't have to see hoods all the time to realize those people are Assassins, The cities don't have to be Florence, Venice, Damascus every time for me to love the atmosphere. maybe the mystery aspect faded a bit, but that's only because we know A LOT. in AC I and II, we didn't know as much as we do now, so OBVIOUSLY, the mystery would feel like it's non-existent.

EXACTLY!

I got the "spark" while roaming the frontier in AC3, but a different kind of spark. Same with other ACs. And I'm sure I'll get another kind of spark in AC4.

lothario-da-be
11-10-2013, 08:11 PM
i have a feeling the next ac
will be more of a "true" ac game. I hope so at least.

ArabianFrost
11-10-2013, 08:22 PM
i have a feeling the next ac
will be more of a "true" ac game. I hope so at least.

It's the French Revolution. Another pit of moral ambiguity, let's just hope the next team seizes that. Here's to hoping Jade Raymond sort of hints the return of the mentality of the first game.

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 08:30 PM
It's called a different spark. You can't go looking for AC I and AC II in AC III and AC IV and expect to find eternal satisfaction. You can't look for AC II's atmosphere in AC III. You can't find Renaissance Florence in Revolutionary Boston, you can't find Crusades Damascus in 18th Century Havana or Kingston. it's called variety. if every game had the same atmosphere, same type of music..etc, then it'd get boring fast. AC I is my second favorite now and it's atmosphere and mystery remain a favorite of mine, but do I take a crap on other AC atmospheres for being different?? No, I don't...I don't assign a certain atmosphere or element to AC, except the cores of course (combat, stealth and Navigation) there's no such thing as "AC's atmosphere" I don't have to hear the Creed every time to realize that this is the Assassin faction, I don't have to see hoods all the time to realize those people are Assassins, The cities don't have to be Florence, Venice, Damascus every time for me to love the atmosphere. maybe the mystery aspect faded a bit, but that's only because we know A LOT. in AC I and II, we didn't know as much as we do now, so OBVIOUSLY, the mystery would feel like it's non-existent.
I agree with some of this. However, although AC III’s world had a different spark, it wasn’t explored or mixed with the assassin concept. See the difference? I’m not expecting to find Florence in Boston, however I expected to find the assassin essence which existed in both Acre and Venice (two completely different cities in completely different time periods). It’s not about the city itself but about the assassin vibe (the music, the mystery, the purity, the impact, the fun, the beauty…). Who said I took crap just for being different? At least try to pretend to understand what I’m saying before acting so nasty. I also don’t assign an AC’s atmosphere. How could you even think that? I gave two different examples in my post: AC1 and AC2 with two completely different atmospheres. Naturally it wouldn’t make sense for me to say there is only one true atmosphere. Get your stuff together.
I agree, part of the mystery faded due to the knowledge we gathered but that is no excuse for its lack. History is filled with mystery, corruption, conspiracies, etc. The devs only have to capture it and maybe shape it to fit and include the assassins. As for mystery related to present day, it shouldn’t be too difficult to create.





I'm sure I told you this before too, but when you feel the need to speak for "people" like when you say "i'm sure people miss the old AC" then you have a pretty weak case and I urge you to try and make it just a little bit stronger, since you can't rely on JUST your own views and find it necessary to feel like you're a part of this huge faction that wants the same thing as you. Just some friendly advice..

Thank you so much for your friendly advice and for bringing that up.
I’m not sure if I told you this before but, when you feel the need to attack someone at least make sure you’re not attacking that someone’s opinions. You know, that is my opinion, the way I see reality. I can’t know for sure if people would like an AC game with the original premises unless Ubisoft actually makes one, but I have the right to think so. Are you trying to say my opinion is wrong or invalid?

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 08:36 PM
LOLOLOLOLOLO guide us, Oh master

You just lost any credibility you MIGHT have had..

Again, in my opinion. Do I need to keep adding "in my opinion" so that you understand that it is an opinion? Try not to lose any more credibillity, if that is possible.

DinoSteve1
11-10-2013, 08:37 PM
tbh 4 felt more like an Assassins Creed game than 3 did, and 4 barely felt like an Assassins Creed game.

Assassin_M
11-10-2013, 08:42 PM
I agree with some of this. However, although AC III’s world had a different spark, it wasn’t explored or mixed with the assassin concept. See the difference? I’m not expecting to find Florence in Boston, however I expected to find the assassin essence which existed in both Acre and Venice (two completely different cities in completely different time periods). It’s not about the city itself but about the assassin vibe (the music, the mystery, the purity, the impact, the fun, the beauty…). Who said I took crap just for being different? At least try to pretend to understand what I’m saying before acting so nasty. I also don’t assign an AC’s atmosphere. How could you even think that? I gave two different examples in my post: AC1 and AC2 with two completely different atmospheres. Naturally it wouldn’t make sense for me to say there is only one true atmosphere. Get your stuff together.
I agree, part of the mystery faded due to the knowledge we gathered but that is no excuse for its lack. History is filled with mystery, corruption, conspiracies, etc. The devs only have to capture it and maybe shape it to fit and include the assassins. As for mystery related to present day, it shouldn’t be too difficult to create.
This is the thing. I guess I can agree a bit with one element of your Assassin concept. the music. AC III's world felt so dead due to the lack of music and I loved that this returned in AC IV. the rest of your elements feel to me like just...aesthetics. The white color of their robes, the Creed and the subjective beauty. they're just not things i'd feel as adding anything to the vibe or atmospheres of the games. That's why I disagree with your post, it would seem like you're assigning, even though you say you're not so maybe i'm wrong. It just seems to me like there's something shared between AC I and AC II that is so superficial to me. something I don't care about as essential and that's what I'm arguing and disagreeing with you about. I'm sorry, I did not mean to refer to you as taking a crap on other settings, I was just talking in general. Alright, I explained why I thought that that's what you meant, so sorry again.



Thank you so much for your friendly advice and for bringing that up.
I’m not sure if I told you this before but, when you feel the need to attack someone at least make sure you’re not attacking that someone’s opinions. You know, that is my opinion, the way I see reality. I can’t know for sure if people would like an AC game with the original premises unless Ubisoft actually makes one, but I have the right to think so. Are you trying to say my opinion is wrong or invalid?

Well, i'm not attacking your opinion, I apologize if that's how it seemed, I only disagree with most of your opinions, I only attacked the one post were you basically said that people don't understand the essence of AC, which I thought was pretentious...

Assassin_M
11-10-2013, 08:44 PM
Try not to lose any more credibillity, if that is possible.
I'll try

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 08:56 PM
I'm not sure I agree that there's some One, True Assassin Concept and that it can be found in only the first two games.

I didnít say there is one true atmosphere. I gave two examples, AC1 and AC2. They have two completely different atmospheres and they both display the assassinís creed essence. So it wouldnít make sense for me to say there is only one true atmosphere. What I meant is that both those atmospheres blended perfectly with the assassin concept.



The purest AC experience is without a doubt the first game. It was all about the creed, had a lot of philosophy and was more about immersion than diverse activities. AC2 was basically GTA with horses. Do whatever you want: beat people up, rob banks, pickpocket people, parade around in public with some prostitutes, raid some tombs - all of it with hardly any consequences. Get notorious enough and they'll send "the cops" after you, but they'll give up and forget about you as soon as they lose sight of you. Don't get me wrong, I love AC2, but it's hardly the pure AC experience you're claiming. It actually removed some of the more essential AC elements (eavesdropping, gathering information, planning) in favor of more gamey ones.
I didnít claim that. I even said it has many faults. I agree with you. Why do you think I see AC2 as a pure AC game?


AC2 kind of started the Gump factor as well. While it was cool hanging around with famous figures, you've got to admit it did feel rather convenient that Ezio would be best pals with Leonardo da Vinci, Lorenzo de Medici and Niccolo Machiavelli. In AC1 it was a bit more subtle, as the most famous historical character was probably Richard the Lionheart and he only appeared in a couple of scenes. AltaÔr never palled around with him, never cared about him as a person; Richard was basically in his way when all AltaÔr wanted was to kill some of the people working for him. In AC1 the Crusades were the backdrop to an interesting philosophy and the characters discovering the meaning behind it; in AC2, the Renaissance was one of the main characters in its own right.
Again I agree. Look, Iím talking about the vibe, the cities, the secrets, the conspiracies, the world of AC and about how well it mixed with the assassins in games like AC1 or AC2. Iím also trying to understand why in other games such as AC3, the world seems so stripped of those factors and it even appears to clash with ACís original concepts (incompatibility) instead of blending well together.

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 09:44 PM
This is the thing. I guess I can agree a bit with one element of your Assassin concept. the music. AC III's world felt so dead due to the lack of music and I loved that this returned in AC IV.
Me too.

the rest of your elements feel to me like just...aesthetics. The white color of their robes, the Creed and the subjective beauty. they're just not things i'd feel as adding anything to the vibe or atmospheres of the games. That's why I disagree with your post, it would seem like you're assigning, even though you say you're not so maybe i'm wrong. It just seems to me like there's something shared between AC I and AC II that is so superficial to me. something I don't care about as essential and that's what I'm arguing and disagreeing with you about. I'm sorry, I did not mean to refer to you as taking a crap on other settings, I was just talking in general. Alright, I explained why I thought that that's what you meant, so sorry again.
Maybe it is just your way of playing AC but maybe I haven’t explained well enough what I want to convey with this thread so I’ll try to summarize my point.
I feel that both AC1 and AC2 portrayed those worlds incredibly well for they felt alive and unique (like AC4 or even AC3). However more than a game about history, they are assassin’s creed games. While AC1 and AC2 had the assassin vibe around them, AC3 and AC4 didn’t. Why? Well, like you said, in AC3 there was the lack of music, which ultimately made things unappealing even if they were pretty. The other points work, more or less in the same way:

The secrecy/ the mystery – the best part of AC (for me at least) isn’t the plain History (how things are said to have happened) but the history behind History (what really happened, the assassin twist, the mysteries). More interesting than Boston itself are the conspiracies, the corruption, and the society hidden in Boston, away from plain sight, which only an assassin can discover. It’s like discovering a whole other city inside a city we thought we knew. I felt that, behind people’s laughter in AC2, there were secrets and mysteries to be discovered (tombs, Templars, corruption, etc. And all that class and lush really emphasized this double reality, the two sides of the city and of the people that live in it. I hope I was clear.

The white/purity – like you said, it is an aesthetic detail, but it carries meaning and power (at least to me). The white of the robes contrasted with the stained world (and people) around the assassin. It conveyed the message of change, of rational ideals with the purpose of freedom, of peace. I know the robes where white to blend with monks (although being armed to the teeth kind of defeats that purpose), but the symbolism and the intensity of that pushed the whole vibe to another level.
The assassin’s concept used to blend so well with these aspects but now, it seems the cities and their vibe clash with it instead.
All of these things may seem like details, probably because I can’t explain them as well as I wanted to, but I assure you that these details are very important to the overall feel.


I only attacked the one post were you basically said that people don't understand the essence of AC, which I thought was pretentious...
That was not what I intended but that is your opinion so I respect it.

MnemonicSyntax
11-10-2013, 09:59 PM
Thank you so much for your friendly advice and for bringing that up.
I’m not sure if I told you this before but, when you feel the need to attack someone at least make sure you’re not attacking that someone’s opinions. You know, that is my opinion, the way I see reality. I can’t know for sure if people would like an AC game with the original premises unless Ubisoft actually makes one, but I have the right to think so. Are you trying to say my opinion is wrong or invalid?

The difference is, you're speaking YOUR opinion for everyone. As I told you in the ACIV thread, you're in the minority. People are by and large thrilled with ACIV for the very things that you don't want, like naval combat and "not being a true assassin."

I also mentioned that as time goes on, even in real life, the Assassin Order eventually dies out. You can't expect to see Assassin's everywhere as the game moves forward in time. Even Altair mentioned that keeping his Assassins in a huge fortress was just asking for trouble and instead they need to disperse world-wide.

And you have the right to an opinion, certainly. But you don't have the right to think for us, ironic that, since you seem to fight for the "true Assassin cause" in your posts. It's all about the freedom to think for oneself.

I'm actually glad that we're getting protagonists who join the Order for whatever reason, either force, revenge, to right the wrongs they've done, to defend their people, etc. instead of just someone being born and raised into it. Didn't you get that idea doesn't always work the best when you're force-fed the Creed from Desmond?

As times change, so do the way Templars go about their business. In 3, all the plots were done secretly, but yet in the faces of the citizens while having an ulterior motive. In 4, the same thing occurs, but instead of trying to take over a country, they're trying to acquire an artifact to help them do it.

What's your thought on Brotherhood and Revelations? You seem to leave those out often.

ACfan443
11-10-2013, 10:19 PM
I understand your idea behind this decline in the core AC essence. But initially, I felt AC2 was lacking just that. The very first time I played AC2 and stepped into Florence, my first thoughts were: what the hell...this isn't AC? What's up with this high spirited, melodic and vibrant atmosphere? Why does it all look so cartooney? Why are the city entrances so bland and empty compared to AC1's lively front gates, why aren't the guards and chase sequences capable of inducing a sense of thrill and fear like AC1's did? Why isn't there a central assassin stronghold with a mentor? Where are the bureaus? Why does the presence of the brotherhood feel so weak? ... And the list goes on. These are amongst the characteristics I felt defined an AC game, little did I know that AC2 would eventually go on to become my second favourite (almost first) AC game.

The one thing I can agree with you on is the lack of mystery and conspiracies in games post ACR, these two things I feel are essential in creating an alluring and captivating experience. Another feature I feel should be present in every AC game is a noticeable presence of assassins, and a strong connection to the brotherhood. Again, games post ACR sorely lack this, AC4:BF the most (the brotherhood may be visually present, but the involvement in their affairs is weaker than ever).

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 10:34 PM
The difference is, you're speaking YOUR opinion for everyone.
So when an opinion involves other people, it stops being an opinion or acceptable? Like, if someone says “I think you would really enjoy this…” then how dare he think that I would enjoy something or not. That doesn’t make sense…



As I told you in the ACIV thread, you're in the minority. People are by and large thrilled with ACIV for the very things that you don't want, like naval combat and "not being a true assassin."
Who said I’m not excited and thrilled with AC4? I’m not, but I could be. This is about the franchise and AC4 could use this a lot, however it doesn’t make it wrong to like AC4 like you’re trying to make it look like. And isn’t AC about being in the shoes of an assassin in the first place? Who said I don’t want naval? What I don’t want is developers to waste their time working on naval when the core mechanics are so underdeveloped.


I also mentioned that as time goes on, even in real life, the Assassin Order eventually dies out. You can't expect to see Assassin's everywhere as the game moves forward in time. Even Altair mentioned that keeping his Assassins in a huge fortress was just asking for trouble and instead they need to disperse world-wide.
Sure, a hideout doesn’t need to be a fortress. Also, the games aren’t forced to move forward in time, they do, mostly because there are more explosions and guns (which are very good for the franchise no doubt).


And you have the right to an opinion, certainly. But you don't have the right to think for us, ironic that, since you seem to fight for the "true Assassin cause" in your posts. It's all about the freedom to think for oneself.
Again with this…that is my opinion. I’m not talking for you, you were clearly not in the “most people” part. Anyway: “Sorry people for thinking most of you would like an old-school AC game!! I’m very sorry! Please forgive me…” Do you realize yet how nonsensical your point is?


I'm actually glad that we're getting protagonists who join the Order for whatever reason, either force, revenge, to right the wrongs they've done, to defend their people, etc. instead of just someone being born and raised into it. Didn't you get that idea doesn't always work the best when you're force-fed the Creed from Desmond?
What does that have to do with this thread? But yeah, sure, it’s nice that they all have their reasons to join the creed I guess.

MnemonicSyntax
11-10-2013, 10:56 PM
So when an opinion involves other people, it stops being an opinion or acceptable? Like, if someone says ďI think you would really enjoy thisÖĒ then how dare he think that I would enjoy something or not. That doesnít make senseÖ

No, your initial argument is that you think AC should go back to it's roots, and that most people will enjoy it instead of naval combat, etc. because the core is "underdeveloped", yet as said before, ACIV is being taken well by "most" people because of those mechanics you don't think they should spend any time on. Three's a difference when saying "most people will like it better this way" then saying "I believe that most people will like it this way." I'm telling you that your original point, is in fact wrong because of the changes Ubisoft has made.



Who said Iím not excited and thrilled with AC4? Iím not, but I could be. This is about the franchise and AC4 could use this a lot, however it doesnít make it wrong to like AC4 like youíre trying to make it look like. And isnít AC about being in the shoes of an assassin in the first place? Who said I donít want naval? What I donít want is developers to waste their time working on naval when the core mechanics are so underdeveloped.

I never even said you weren't excited about ACIV. I said you said that "naval combat" explosions, action scenes, etc. don't sell a game, as well as your comment that Ubisoft doesn't have to try to please everyone when they make an AC game in order to make money. Yes. They do. Otherwise it won't sell. If you make a specific game like over and over again, without adding to it, you'll end up with a COD series on your hands.



Sure, a hideout doesnít need to be a fortress. Also, the games arenít forced to move forward in time, they do, mostly because there are more explosions and guns (which are very good for the franchise no doubt).

They move forward, they move back. In the other thread, you said that explosions and actions scenes are not necessary to sell the game. For you, absolutely, based on your previous comments of wanting mystery. But here you're admitting it helps the franchise. Which is it?



Again with thisÖthat is my opinion. Iím not talking for you, you were clearly not in the ďmost peopleĒ part. Anyway: ďSorry people for thinking most of you would like an old-school AC game!! Iím very sorry! Please forgive meÖĒ Do you realize yet how nonsensical your point is?

It's not nonsensical though. If you go read the ACIV thread that you posted the same stuff I'm commenting on here, regarding their impressions of ACIV, MOST people (including myself) are happy with this new game. You're the one that's wants an old school AC game, while others seem to enjoy (except for 3) where the series is going in terms of playing as an ancestor. I am part of the MOST people, and by that thread and sales alone of this game, you're again in the minority. So when you say MOST people, you are wrong. That's not an opinion if there's MORE people loving the new stuff than not.



What does that have to do with this thread? But yeah, sure, itís nice that they all have their reasons to join the creed I guess.

Because by your posts, you want an AC that is old school. The Order isn't around as much as it used to be anymore. They lay in secret, hiding. Selecting those that are worthy. Old School AC didn't do that.

Again, what's your take on Brotherhood and Revelations? I'm curious to know.

AssassinHMS
11-10-2013, 11:34 PM
No, your initial argument is that you think AC should go back to it's roots, and that most people will enjoy it instead of naval combat, etc. because the core is "underdeveloped", yet as said before, ACIV is being taken well by "most" people because of those mechanics you don't think they should spend any time on. Three's a difference when saying "most people will like it better this way" then saying "I believe that most people will like it this way." I'm telling you that your original point, is in fact wrong because of the changes Ubisoft has made.
I never even said you weren't excited about ACIV. I said you said that "naval combat" explosions, action scenes, etc. don't sell a game, as well as your comment that Ubisoft doesn't have to try to please everyone when they make an AC game in order to make money. Yes. They do. Otherwise it won't sell. If you make a specific game like over and over again, without adding to it, you'll end up with a COD series on your hands.
They move forward, they move back. In the other thread, you said that explosions and actions scenes are not necessary to sell the game. For you, absolutely, based on your previous comments of wanting mystery. But here you're admitting it helps the franchise. Which is it?
It's not nonsensical though. If you go read the ACIV thread that you posted the same stuff I'm commenting on here, regarding their impressions of ACIV, MOST people (including myself) are happy with this new game. You're the one that's wants an old school AC game, while others seem to enjoy (except for 3) where the series is going in terms of playing as an ancestor. I am part of the MOST people, and by that thread and sales alone of this game, you're again in the minority. So when you say MOST people, you are wrong. That's not an opinion if there's MORE people loving the new stuff than not.
Because by your posts, you want an AC that is old school. The Order isn't around as much as it used to be anymore. They lay in secret, hiding. Selecting those that are worthy. Old School AC didn't do that.
Again, what's your take on Brotherhood and Revelations? I'm curious to know.

I could answer all of that but I realize it is pointless because you don’t really listen. However I did underline what I consider to be the most “important”.
To the first underlined segment: You don’t need to be a *****/courtesan to be rich.
To the second underlined segment: I’m not saying people don’t like AC4 BF (the new stuff). I’m saying most people would like an assassin’s creed game that develops the original premises of the franchise (an old-school AC game). Notice that I didn’t just say “I’m saying that I think that most people would (…)”. And is it still an opinion? Yes.
Anyway, I’m tired of this redundancy. In a way, your post is just like AC3.
If you do wish to talk about my behavior or if you think my statements aren’t displayed as opinions then, by all means, make a thread about it because I won’t be wasting mine for such trivialities.
If you want to know what my take is on Brotherhood and Revelations then you will need to ask very nicely because, right now, your curiosity isn’t reason enough to give myself the work.

Assassin_M
11-10-2013, 11:38 PM
Maybe it is just your way of playing AC but maybe I haven’t explained well enough what I want to convey with this thread so I’ll try to summarize my point.
I feel that both AC1 and AC2 portrayed those worlds incredibly well for they felt alive and unique (like AC4 or even AC3). However more than a game about history, they are assassin’s creed games. While AC1 and AC2 had the assassin vibe around them, AC3 and AC4 didn’t. Why? Well, like you said, in AC3 there was the lack of music, which ultimately made things unappealing even if they were pretty. The other points work, more or less in the same way:

The secrecy/ the mystery – the best part of AC (for me at least) isn’t the plain History (how things are said to have happened) but the history behind History (what really happened, the assassin twist, the mysteries). More interesting than Boston itself are the conspiracies, the corruption, and the society hidden in Boston, away from plain sight, which only an assassin can discover. It’s like discovering a whole other city inside a city we thought we knew. I felt that, behind people’s laughter in AC2, there were secrets and mysteries to be discovered (tombs, Templars, corruption, etc. And all that class and lush really emphasized this double reality, the two sides of the city and of the people that live in it. I hope I was clear.

The white/purity – like you said, it is an aesthetic detail, but it carries meaning and power (at least to me). The white of the robes contrasted with the stained world (and people) around the assassin. It conveyed the message of change, of rational ideals with the purpose of freedom, of peace. I know the robes where white to blend with monks (although being armed to the teeth kind of defeats that purpose), but the symbolism and the intensity of that pushed the whole vibe to another level.
The assassin’s concept used to blend so well with these aspects but now, it seems the cities and their vibe clash with it instead.
All of these things may seem like details, probably because I can’t explain them as well as I wanted to, but I assure you that these details are very important to the overall feel.

I agree with this. I really do think that AC I and AC II utilised their worlds and setting better than their successors, even though AC III was basically "American Revolution the game" it focused more on this one event instead of the full setting, Which is why I was so bummed when the fire of NY had to be cut. That event had a whole lot of conspiracy behind it and so much mystery, but oh well. I feel like a game that did this better was ACR. it didn't take advantage as much as AC II and I, but it it did it better than ACB and AC III imo. I also don't agree that AC IV didn't have it..well, maybe because it goes against the purity concept you mentioned as part of the essence, but like I said, I honestly don't care about that one.

I totally agree and understand now. I think the Mason tunnels COULD'V served this purpose, but the lack of more....context and fun gameplay to them made them harder to immerse in than the tombs for most people (I liked the tunnels) I also think another reason why this was not explored more was the fact that they wanted to explore the Revolution and its events more. it was more open...more to the public..the "OMG THEY'RE TEMPLARS BEHIND IT" doesn't fully cut it anymore...at least not on its own. It's a lot clearer now, thanks for explaining.

This makes me understand why you're excluding AC IV. I understand, though, but I don't necessarily agree, since I enjoyed the sacrifice of this aspect to adapt with the new story and Edward's character.


That was not what I intended but that is your opinion so I respect it.
Well, since you explained what you meant, I don't think that anymore, so thanks..

MnemonicSyntax
11-11-2013, 12:07 AM
I could answer all of that but I realize it is pointless because you don’t really listen. However I did underline what I consider to be the most “important”.
To the first underlined segment: You don’t need to be a *****/courtesan to be rich.
To the second underlined segment: I’m not saying people don’t like AC4 BF (the new stuff). I’m saying most people would like an assassin’s creed game that develops the original premises of the franchise (an old-school AC game). Notice that I didn’t just say “I’m saying that I think that most people would (…)”. And is it still an opinion? Yes.
Anyway, I’m tired of this redundancy. In a way, your post is just like AC3.
If you do wish to talk about my behavior or if you think my statements aren’t displayed as opinions then, by all means, make a thread about it because I won’t be wasting mine for such trivialities.
If you want to know what my take is on Brotherhood and Revelations then you will need to ask very nicely because, right now, your curiosity isn’t reason enough to give myself the work.

Your first "point" doesn't make sense. What does a courtesan have to do with selling video games and trying to appeal to as much of the crowd as possible?

If you asked people which they prefer, AC1 or AC4, they'll tell you 4. They'll tell you because it's for naval battles and sailing and exploration.

The funniest thing about your post is that you say I'm redundant, but AC1 was THE most redundant game in the series. It's certainly not a bad game, and great for what it is and as a start, but many people I know don't even finish it because of how redundant it is. Yet, you support it and want more games like it.

I don't need to ask you nicely because you're not my parent, my elder or any of the like. I asked you fairly. It wasn't rude or condescending like your post was. You're not better than me, so kindly come down off that pedestal of pretentiousness and join the rest of us in the conversation. I have not once insulted you, or berated you. I have tried to show you that your words are incorrect based on the other thread. Opinion or not, you are wrong. Being wrong isn't an insult.

If you have to work to tell me how you feel about Brotherhood and Revelations, and instead not provide a valid opinion of those games as well, then I'm not granted an opportunity to learn more about why you feel the way you do and your heart isn't really into this conversation and doesn't need to continue further. You could have instead said that, instead of trying to "put me in my place."

Get off your high horse.

D.I.D.
11-11-2013, 12:30 AM
I think a big part of the spark is the feeling that the games were providing so much, and you didn't quite know where they were going to go. Now, with hindsight, we know roughly what to expect from an AC game. I completely agree with you about the importance of a sense of romance, even for bleak locations like Forli. The games have proven how important that is. I'd say AC3 was technically a better game than Revelations, which I didn't like either, but it's sense of romance was rarely present. There was beauty in the wilderness, moments that made you just want to stop and take it all in, but the city had little of that. The tunnels had tons of potential for that though, and I really like the way those were built. I hope we'll see more of them.

Something I remember really strongly from AC2 is that when we were first given free-roam control of Ezio as a young adult, I took the game at its word. It told me that every guard was out to get me, along with the young Pazzi gang, and I discovered I couldn't buy weapons yet. So I made Ezio stick to the rooftops by and large, and there was this great tension there as I felt I needed to be very careful, imagining that this would be like being an unarmed Altair. I was seeing every potential enemy as being like a tar pit, and as a circle of enemies began to close in I would look for the gap to run through and escape. Any time that I've played the game since, of course, there's no tension in that sequence anymore. Ezio goes wherever he wants with confidence, and even though he's unarmed and inexperienced there is nobody on the streets who can defeat him.

And that's a problem for the whole series, once you're aware of the patterns. It's the main reason I keep arguing for not simply harder combat, but impossible combat. It would be a much more interesting game dynamic if you could take on one or two guards, but three or four would definitely kill you. It would transform the way you looked at a combat situation, and more importantly it would force you to inhabit the assassin's role and what makes his or her life exciting. You'd dodge more, you'd trick the AI into following you into narrower alleyways so that they'd be forced to fight you one on one. Batman's a superhero, and yet even Batman has to run and hide in the Arkham series more than any assassin in AC.

I'd also really like to see an AC in the future where you play as a literal assassin - not part of the creed, and your character never joins up either. I'd like to be free of all that so we can witness it, but not be part of it. I think it would be an interesting way to allow the story to comment on the two sides of this story without tying us to either one.

Shahkulu101
11-11-2013, 12:38 AM
I think a big part of the spark is the feeling that the games were providing so much, and you didn't quite know where they were going to go. Now, with hindsight, we know roughly what to expect from an AC game. I completely agree with you about the importance of a sense of romance, even for bleak locations like Forli. The games have proven how important that is. I'd say AC3 was technically a better game than Revelations, which I didn't like either, but it's sense of romance was rarely present. There was beauty in the wilderness, moments that made you just want to stop and take it all in, but the city had little of that. The tunnels had tons of potential for that though, and I really like the way those were built. I hope we'll see more of them.

Something I remember really strongly from AC2 is that when we were first given free-roam control of Ezio as a young adult, I took the game at its word. It told me that every guard was out to get me, along with the young Pazzi gang, and I discovered I couldn't buy weapons yet. So I made Ezio stick to the rooftops by and large, and there was this great tension there as I felt I needed to be very careful, imagining that this would be like being an unarmed Altair. I was seeing every potential enemy as being like a tar pit, and as a circle of enemies began to close in I would look for the gap to run through and escape. Any time that I've played the game since, of course, there's no tension in that sequence anymore. Ezio goes wherever he wants with confidence, and even though he's unarmed and inexperienced there is nobody on the streets who can defeat him.

And that's a problem for the whole series, once you're aware of the patterns. It's the main reason I keep arguing for not simply harder combat, but impossible combat. It would be a much more interesting game dynamic if you could take on one or two guards, but three or four would definitely kill you. It would transform the way you looked at a combat situation, and more importantly it would force you to inhabit the assassin's role and what makes his or her life exciting. You'd dodge more, you'd trick the AI into following you into narrower alleyways so that they'd be forced to fight you one on one. Batman's a superhero, and yet even Batman has to run and hide in the Arkham series more than any assassin in AC.

I'd also really like to see an AC in the future where you play as a literal assassin - not part of the creed, and your character never joins up either. I'd like to be free of all that so we can witness it, but not be part of it. I think it would be an interesting way to allow the story to comment on the two sides of this story without tying us to either one.

Agreed, to an extent. I don't want dark souls level combat in AC - just actually make it a challenge and not incredibly easy.

D.I.D.
11-11-2013, 01:00 AM
Agreed, to an extent. I don't want dark souls level combat in AC - just actually make it a challenge and not incredibly easy.

Well, this is the thing: I don't want Dark Souls combat either, because it's beatable. Eventually you're good enough at the game to handle the insane combat, and in the case of AC that means that sooner or later you're going to be scything through regiments of people.

I'd like something that's more about calculation - for instance, you're about to rush at two guards separated from the pack, but you have to back off as you notice a distant third guard about to join them. The Arkham games have lots of situations in the "Predator"-type of rooms where you simply cannot attack more than a very low number of guards because they will kill you in less than a second. I'd love it if you had to observe and think more, like Sean Harris's Micheletto in the Showtime version of The Borgias: deadly, but you rarely saw him in broad fights.

Rugterwyper32
11-11-2013, 01:06 AM
Well, this is the thing: I don't want Dark Souls combat either, because it's beatable. Eventually you're good enough at the game to handle the insane combat, and in the case of AC that means that sooner or later you're going to be scything through regiments of people.

I'd like something that's more about calculation - for instance, you're about to rush at two guards separated from the pack, but you have to back off as you notice a distant third guard about to join them. The Arkham games have lots of situations in the "Predator"-type of rooms where you simply cannot attack more than a very low number of guards because they will kill you in less than a second. I'd love it if you had to observe and think more, like Sean Harris's Micheletto in the Showtime version of The Borgias: deadly, but you rarely saw him in broad fights.

Truth be told? I'm not a fan of this idea unless we're talking about difficulty modes. Part of the enjoyment I get of this series is simply going for huge groups of guards from time to time and doing just that. And honestly, that part you mention of AC2? You felt tension, but my own experience was that it would have been more of a bother to try punching more enemies to death and even then I found no tension, as Florence was too welcoming anyway.
So basically, two ways I can see it working: A historical horror game (wouldn't that be interesting) or if we see that in the AC series having multiple difficulty levels. I, for one, would stick to the one that still allows combat to be a viable option and with enough practice you can slaughter through masses (I was playing AC1 recently, and going through Arsuf slaughtering every soldier along the way was so fun), but if the player so desires, it should be possible to go for a difficulty that makes things ACB levels of difficult (which is to say, pretty easy) or a difficulty like the one you mention where it's easy to die. That would solve it and make it viable for multiple kinds of players.

AssassinHMS
11-11-2013, 01:49 AM
Your first "point" doesn't make sense. What does a courtesan have to do with selling video games and trying to appeal to as much of the crowd as possible?
You don’t need to sell yourself to be successful. Don’t you see that, in order to be yourself, to have a personality you can’t expect to please everyone? There is always someone who won’t be pleased with your opinions, with who you are but that doesn’t mean you should act differently or to pretend to be someone you’re not just to please that set of people who doesn’t like your personality. In the same way AC shouldn’t try to be something it isn’t (mindless action, Hollywood moments, explosions…) and give up on what it is about (navigation, combat, stealth, mystery, philosophy, assassinations, investigations…) for the sake of sales. And if you don’t agree with this then post about it in a thread about the subject because mine isn’t about that.


If you asked people which they prefer, AC1 or AC4, they'll tell you 4. They'll tell you because it's for naval battles and sailing and exploration.
If you say so. And does that mean AC1 doesn’t have wasted potential, that AC4’s formula is better than AC1’s?


The funniest thing about your post is that you say I'm redundant, but AC1 was THE most redundant game in the series. It's certainly not a bad game, and great for what it is and as a start, but many people I know don't even finish it because of how redundant it is. Yet, you support it and want more games like it.
Now, now. I didn’t make this thread to discuss AC1. All I will say about that is that AC1 was a good start for the franchise (obvious right? Otherwise there would never be an AC2) and it had a lot of potential that was held back due to repetitiveness, due to underdeveloped stealth and lack of side missions (it could’ve used a harder combat system and some pace improvements). However all this potential was thrown away when Ubisoft decided that the problem was AC itself (that it wasn’t entertaining enough) and not the problems I mentioned above. So no open ended assassinations, no investigations, no philosophy, no improvements to the core mechanics, etc. Instead the original AC concepts were replaced by features that were purely introduced to appeal to the masses and the games became easier and easier and the core remained underdeveloped. Also, the assassin concept, the whole history behind History, the puzzles, the mysteries, the lore, the purity and the impact diminished greatly.
This is why I say this franchise is a *****, because it sold itself to please everyone, it lost its personality, its essence. This is what this thread is about. About the Assassin’s Creed essence. But pictures illustrate my purpose better. Watch “Altair Was Here” trailer and there you will find all of this clustered together (the vibe, the tension, the mystery, the conspiracies, the darkness, the light and the original AC). I don’t want an AC1 copy but a real successor that stands for Assassin’s Creed original purposes while building on the original and introducing novelty through new locations, new time period, some new mechanics and a new way to look at the whole assassin/Templar conflict (instead of forfeiting itself).
The best way to achieve greatness is to stick to what you believe in and never deny who you are in order to be accepted.

AssassinHMS
11-11-2013, 02:00 AM
I agree with this. I really do think that AC I and AC II utilised their worlds and setting better than their successors, even though AC III was basically "American Revolution the game" it focused more on this one event instead of the full setting, Which is why I was so bummed when the fire of NY had to be cut. That event had a whole lot of conspiracy behind it and so much mystery, but oh well. I feel like a game that did this better was ACR. it didn't take advantage as much as AC II and I, but it it did it better than ACB and AC III imo. I also don't agree that AC IV didn't have it..well, maybe because it goes against the purity concept you mentioned as part of the essence, but like I said, I honestly don't care about that one.
Precisely. Yeah I know the purity concept isn’t that much important but maybe I’m more of a romanticized kind of player (if that makes sense).


I totally agree and understand now. I think the Mason tunnels COULD'V served this purpose, but the lack of more....context and fun gameplay to them made them harder to immerse in than the tombs for most people (I liked the tunnels) I also think another reason why this was not explored more was the fact that they wanted to explore the Revolution and its events more. it was more open...more to the public..the "OMG THEY'RE TEMPLARS BEHIND IT" doesn't fully cut it anymore...at least not on its own. It's a lot clearer now, thanks for explaining.
No problem. Glad you find it important too.

This makes me understand why you're excluding AC IV. I understand, though, but I don't necessarily agree, since I enjoyed the sacrifice of this aspect to adapt with the new story and Edward's character.
I’m also excluding ACIV a bit because I never played it…I only saw videos on youtube. So I’m kind of asking if people saw any of this in ACIV because, even though I got the ideas behind it, I still never played it for myself.

MnemonicSyntax
11-11-2013, 02:16 AM
This is why I say this franchise is a *****, because it sold itself to please everyone, it lost its personality, its essence. This is what this thread is about. About the Assassin’s Creed essence. But pictures illustrate my purpose better. Watch “Altair Was Here” trailer and there you will find all of this clustered together (the vibe, the tension, the mystery, the conspiracies, the darkness, the light and the original AC). I don’t want an AC1 copy but a real successor that stands for Assassin’s Creed original purposes while building on the original and introducing novelty through new locations, new time period, some new mechanics and a new way to look at the whole assassin/Templar conflict (instead of forfeiting itself).
The best way to achieve greatness is to stick to what you believe in and never deny who you are in order to be accepted.

But it didn't! When Assassin's Creed was first debuted, they already had the Ezio trilogy in mind. It didn't lose any personality, it gained it!

And it's THEIR franchise. How can you tell Ubisoft that they don't know themselves when all they have done is improve on themselves? You notice how we don't have Den Defense in any other game but AC Revelations? Because it wasn't well received. You notice that we know have more naval combat? Because it was well received. If anything Ubisoft has grown and changed themselves to become what they are now.

I'm sorry that you feel that the series has "sold out." It hasn't. The Templar/Assassin story is still there, they secrets, the mystery, the history is still present. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Shame on Ubisoft for giving the majority of the people what they want!

Honestly, if you're not satisfied, create your own IP and run with it. What you want will NOT sell games, which in the end is what matters. From day one.

UKassassinsfan
11-11-2013, 06:16 AM
I think black flag is a really good game but I do agree to an extent that the series doesn't feel the same anymore. Like it has most it's essence as you put it. I think lack of mystery is a good point though, nothing has intrigued me more than the glyphs in 2. I do agree with your point about that city within a city idea I felt the cities in previous games had more than meets the eye. I don't think the game will be able to recapture the "essence" anytime soon but I am excited to see where in history the franchise will go.

roostersrule2
11-11-2013, 06:36 AM
It's goooooooooooooooooooooone

SixKeys
11-11-2013, 07:29 AM
But it didn't! When Assassin's Creed was first debuted, they already had the Ezio trilogy in mind. It didn't lose any personality, it gained it!

Um, no they didn't. Assassin's Creed itself started out as a trilogy: one game, one new protagonist. It was only when AC2 turned out to be such a success that Ubi came up with the idea of making more games with him.

phoenix-force411
11-11-2013, 07:56 AM
The Caribbean Seas gave a very lively feel to ACIV, and ACIV hasn't failed to amaze me. AC1 and AC2 had really great settings and feel, whereas ACIII really didn't, and so, AC3 felt pretty bland at times, but the game was still great nonetheless...

LoyalACFan
11-11-2013, 10:54 AM
I think a big part of the "spark" the OP talked about came from the settings. AC4 was great IMO, probably best of the series, but it didn't quite feel like an Assassin game. It was a DAMN good pirate game, but it didn't give off the same Assassin vibe AC1 did. Which is fine for one game, but they probably shouldn't stick with that model lest they slip further and further from the actual Assassin's Creed.

I feel like we need to go WAY back in history for the next one. Before guns and ships and the like. Maybe even before Altair's time.

AssassinHMS
11-11-2013, 12:33 PM
I think a big part of the "spark" the OP talked about came from the settings.
Indeed, the settings added a lot to the overall vibe (the raw and violent world of AC1 and the beautiful and sophisticated Renaissance Italy). However, the Caribbean is also beautiful and a masterpiece in its own way. So what is the difference? It’s not the cities themselves but the unknown, the mysteries, the vile and the corrupted city inside the apparently beautiful city. The conspiracies being planned inside the beautiful buildings, the secrets that dwell in the city (a secret passage in an alley, a glyph…), the cheerful people and the not so apparent violence and greed (the stunning parties with fireworks that are more than meets the eye). It’s not just the city (the historically accurate buildings) it’s the other face of the city (the history behind History), the assassin twist. This is what I think it is missing. The danger, the sense that you aren’t safe, that there is more than meets the eye, that behind the lush, the paintings, the windows of a cathedral, conspiracies are being plotted, mysteries were hidden, corruption is stained inside its walls and, once you discover this other side of the city (of its society) you don’t feel safe anymore (stalkers may attack you if you go wander alone in an alley, and Templars may strike at any moment). So you see, it’s the secrecy and the mystery that is lacking. Like in “Altair was here” he only found the Templars because he knows where to look, because he is aware of the web of plots and mischief inside the city, or else he would have never found them. Of course there are other things that are missing as well such as the assassin and Templar impact. Right now it seems more of: “These are the Assassins, they are here, see? And these are the Templars, they are there.” And there is no secrecy, no tension and the game doesn’t invite the player to explore the city and “think differently” in order to find them, it simply presents them and that’s it. For example, if you played Skyrim, the beginning of the thief quest line, has the player to simply be approached by this guy at a bar who notices how low on money you are or how much “stolen” money you have (depending on your progression) and the first missions are very “casual”. At first it seems just like another quest but, when he asks to find this secret place inside the city (in the sewers) and you discover the whole “city under the city”, you really get this vibe of more than meets the eye and the thrill of discovering the whole operation (the unveiling of part of the mystery).
The assassin is a conspirator after all, right? Then AC should let the player feel like a conspirator or a detective that stalks from the shadows and uncovers the secrets that lead to conspiracies, to corruption and to the Templars.


AC4 was great IMO, probably best of the series, but it didn't quite feel like an Assassin game. It was a DAMN good pirate game, but it didn't give off the same Assassin vibe AC1 did. Which is fine for one game, but they probably shouldn't stick with that model lest they slip further and further from the actual Assassin's Creed.

When I first heard AC4 was in the Golden Age of Piracy, I was really sad because, after AC3, I felt the franchise needed (more than ever) to return to the roots and regain its essence. However when I saw some concept art of Nassau I was digging the whole pirate, dark atmosphere and imagining the conspiracies and mysteries that could be there.
http://i42.tinypic.com/2wgr591.jpg

But, once I saw the trailers and gameplay, I realized that wasn’t what Ubisoft was aiming for.


I feel like we need to go WAY back in history for the next one. Before guns and ships and the like. Maybe even before Altair's time.
Perhaps. I still think mystery isn’t exclusive to the past but, if it means getting away from guns then I’m all in favor.

pacmanate
11-11-2013, 01:08 PM
Imo a good "Assassin" game is not just about mechanics, but also the setting. AC4 was a great pirate game, but also had great stealth elements. The only reason I didn't think it was a good Assassin game is because of the setting.

If we had all of AC4's mechanics but set say.. here:

http://d1bf3yubv3ozl5.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/660x360/ancient-persia-in-depth.jpg

then I would find Assassin's being plausible. Again this is my opinion but every time we move forward time I find the existence of Assassin's less and less probable. I always associate Assassin's existing hundreds and hundreds of years back.

AssassinHMS
11-11-2013, 04:17 PM
But it didn't! When Assassin's Creed was first debuted, they already had the Ezio trilogy in mind. It didn't lose any personality, it gained it!
Assassin’s Creed personality is what defines it and sets it apart from other franchises, from other games, the original concept. The ability to plan and elaborate elegant and breathtaking assassinations, the ability to eavesdrop on people, to pickpocket important documents, to investigate and learn about the conspiracies and details of a certain target is what defines AC. Beautiful music is also part of AC’s personality, stunning cities, the hidden blade (which is currently underrated and misused), the mystery, the free running mechanics, stealth as the assassin’s motto, the secrecy of the creed and playing with History (the assassin twist). All of this is what defines AC, not naval, not Hollywood moments, not explosions or action sequences. Many of these aspects didn’t survive the transition from AC1 to AC2 and so, the game lost a part of its personality. Get it?


And it's THEIR franchise. How can you tell Ubisoft that they don't know themselves when all they have done is improve on themselves? You notice how we don't have Den Defense in any other game but AC Revelations? Because it wasn't well received. You notice that we know have more naval combat? Because it was well received. If anything Ubisoft has grown and changed themselves to become what they are now.
Sure it is their franchise, it is the franchise that we helped getting started. We, older fans, allowed AC to continue so Ubisoft should aim to please us and not discard us in exchange for everyone else. They didn’t improve themselves, don’t you see? AC’s core (AC’s pillars) didn’t improve and many of the original premises were stripped away, which means the franchise hasn’t evolved or actually improved. What happened was that Ubisoft shoved the franchise in the corner and kept on adding features that don’t help the franchise evolve and that actually compete against it.
You’re not listening to what I’m saying. It’s alright to try to please people except when that means you have to give up on yourself. In the same way, Ubisoft shouldn’t have given up on AC and striped the franchise away from the original premises, from AC’s personality. See what I mean?


Shame on Ubisoft for giving the majority of the people what they want!
But not what older fans want. All Ubisoft has done so far is either to ignore our requests or to do some slight improvements to stealth in order to shut us up. This is not enough. I want the AC essence back. Like AdamPearce said, AC isn’t simply a game about History that also includes assassins.

luckyto
11-11-2013, 04:32 PM
It's called a different spark. You can't go looking for AC I and AC II in AC III and AC IV and expect to find eternal satisfaction. You can't look for AC II's atmosphere in AC III. You can't find Renaissance Florence in Revolutionary Boston, you can't find Crusades Damascus in 18th Century Havana or Kingston. it's called variety. if every game had the same atmosphere, same type of music..etc, then it'd get boring fast. AC I is my second favorite now and it's atmosphere and mystery remain a favorite of mine, but do I take a crap on other AC atmospheres for being different?? No, I don't...I don't assign a certain atmosphere or element to AC, except the cores of course (combat, stealth and Navigation) there's no such thing as "AC's atmosphere" I don't have to hear the Creed every time to realize that this is the Assassin faction, I don't have to see hoods all the time to realize those people are Assassins, The cities don't have to be Florence, Venice, Damascus every time for me to love the atmosphere. maybe the mystery aspect faded a bit, but that's only because we know A LOT. in AC I and II, we didn't know as much as we do now, so OBVIOUSLY, the mystery would feel like it's non-existent.


^This.

Assassin's Creed has been my favorite. Or was. But you have to expect that the tone of the game and atmosphere will change with the historical time period. And that's what this is: "historical tourism" for gamers and that makes it unique. As long as they stay in interesting time periods and focus on the pillars (combat, stealth, and navigation, open-ended assassinations/mission structure) ... then it will deliver exactly what anyone should expect from an AC.

ACIV had tons of mystery. There were left turn and twists at every turn and the Obseratorie is an entirely new concept in the AC Universe. And they brought the Assassin'Templar conflict back in focus.


The ability to plan and elaborate elegant and breathtaking assassinations, the ability to eavesdrop on people, to pickpocket important documents, to investigate and learn about the conspiracies and details of a certain target is what defines AC. Beautiful music is also part of AC’s personality, stunning cities, the hidden blade (which is currently underrated and misused), the mystery, the free running mechanics, stealth as the assassin’s motto, the secrecy of the creed and playing with History (the assassin twist). All of this is what defines AC,

Assassin's Creed is about historical tourism in a big open world with combat, stealth, free-running (navigation) and assassinations. In the background, Assassin's fight for freedom and Templars fight for control. That's it.

To be honest, this is the first time since AC1 that I was able to plan my assassination. I eavesdropped, I pickpocketed, I found manuscripts about the Observatory. It was filled with stealth missions, and working with Assassins to take out Templars. It had free-running and a whole host of other things to that are associated with the time period. And fantastic music. It met all of your requirements.

The franchise is better than it has been in four years.

AssassinHMS
11-11-2013, 05:51 PM
Something I remember really strongly from AC2 is that when we were first given free-roam control of Ezio as a young adult, I took the game at its word. It told me that every guard was out to get me, along with the young Pazzi gang, and I discovered I couldn't buy weapons yet. So I made Ezio stick to the rooftops by and large, and there was this great tension there as I felt I needed to be very careful, imagining that this would be like being an unarmed Altair. I was seeing every potential enemy as being like a tar pit, and as a circle of enemies began to close in I would look for the gap to run through and escape. Any time that I've played the game since, of course, there's no tension in that sequence anymore. Ezio goes wherever he wants with confidence, and even though he's unarmed and inexperienced there is nobody on the streets who can defeat him.
And that's a problem for the whole series, once you're aware of the patterns. It's the main reason I keep arguing for not simply harder combat, but impossible combat. It would be a much more interesting game dynamic if you could take on one or two guards, but three or four would definitely kill you. It would transform the way you looked at a combat situation, and more importantly it would force you to inhabit the assassin's role and what makes his or her life exciting. You'd dodge more, you'd trick the AI into following you into narrower alleyways so that they'd be forced to fight you one on one. Batman's a superhero, and yet even Batman has to run and hide in the Arkham series more than any assassin in AC.
This what I keep saying. Combat is a joke as it is. AC’s combat is not about challenge or about the actual act of defeating an opponent but about the blood and violence. I find that pathetic.
Not only that but how can I develop my assassin skills if the game doesn’t encourage me to push them to the limit? Also, how are players supposed to feel tension when undetected or thrill when escaping if it is possible to kill waves of enemies? Not only it breaks immersion it also doesn’t make the player plan and think like an assassin and fighting becomes boring. Does anyone enjoy killing ants? Because that is AC’s combat. I can’t feel like an assassin if the protagonist is as powerful as Hulk. Besides what is the point of stealth if combat is always a viable option? Realism mustn’t be restricted to visuals, the gameplay must be realistic as well or else the game feels like a game (a boring one by the way due to newborn difficulty) and not like a real virtual world. I’m not saying to take things to the extreme like Thief where it is a torture to defeat two enemies but, 3 enemies at once should be the limit. More than that and it will take a lot of skill and luck to win (needless to say fighting 7 enemies at once should be impossible). And for those who think that this is bad or boring, don’t forget there are alternatives to combat. If you got spotted and find yourself in a situation where you’re up against 5 enemies, you run, you run for your life and this is where the fun begins. Navigation, in this case escape, should be more intractable and let the player dodge attacks, bump civilians causing them to lose balance and block nearby pursuers or drop their goods and merchandise in their heads. This is where the fun and thrill of AC lays, not on being an overpowered sadistic blood killer.


I'd also really like to see an AC in the future where you play as a literal assassin - not part of the creed, and your character never joins up either. I'd like to be free of all that so we can witness it, but not be part of it. I think it would be an interesting way to allow the story to comment on the two sides of this story without tying us to either one.
Sure, that could be interesting. Perhaps you could be given the choice to join the Assassins or the Templars.



^This.
Assassin's Creed has been my favorite. Or was. But you have to expect that the tone of the game and atmosphere will change with the historical time period. And that's what this is: "historical tourism" for gamers and that makes it unique. As long as they stay in interesting time periods and focus on the pillars (combat, stealth, and navigation, open-ended assassinations/mission structure) ... then it will deliver exactly what anyone should expect from an AC.
ACIV had tons of mystery. There were left turn and twists at every turn and the Obseratorie is an entirely new concept in the AC Universe. And they brought the Assassin'Templar conflict back in focus.
Have you read the following posts? Because you are missing my point and so was the person you quoted at the time.


Assassin's Creed is about historical tourism in a big open world with combat, stealth, free-running (navigation) and assassinations. In the background, Assassin's fight for freedom and Templars fight for control. That's it.
AC isn’t simply about historical tourism, it is about retelling History, about the history behind History. The conspiracies, the corruption and the plots are AC’s motifs and the assassin is the one who learns about those conspiracies and fights against them, while acting and plotting in secrecy as well.
Besides, I’m talking about AC’s essence as a whole: The clash of philosophies, the corruption, the two sides of the cities and of its people, the secrecy of the assassins who work on the dark to serve the light. The music, the atmosphere. In AC4 these things seem to go against the assassin concept while in older games they worked together and completed each other.
What I want is that sense of purity and transcendence that assassins emanate, the sense that there is much more than what meets the eye to the city, to follow a web of mischief and corruption that leads to the Templars…it’s hard to explain.

luckyto
11-11-2013, 06:15 PM
See, you are making up your own stuff to add to it's mythos. But no game director has ever said the stuff you are saying. It is about historical tourism. Has been since Day One.

Besides that, in AC4, it perfectly fits the Creed from AC1. In fact, Edward learns the Creed better than Connor and faster than Ezio. It's takes Ezio to 50 to get it; and Edward has it figured out by the end of the game. Like Governor Torres says, "It suits him." This game is full of twists and a deeper sense of journey and meaning. Edward's story is just a different arc than we've seen, and that's good. But all that stuff is there, and in many ways, it's much more subtle and complex than in past AC's.


---

I will grant you that combat took a step back. But that's not what this post was about per se.

EaglePrince25
11-11-2013, 07:02 PM
]I think a big part of the "spark" the OP talked about came from the settings.[/B] AC4 was great IMO, probably best of the series, but it didn't quite feel like an Assassin game. It was a DAMN good pirate game, but it didn't give off the same Assassin vibe AC1 did. Which is fine for one game, but they probably shouldn't stick with that model lest they slip further and further from the actual Assassin's Creed.

I feel like we need to go WAY back in history for the next one. Before guns and ships and the like. Maybe even before Altair's time.

Completely agree, and I feel that once the setting changes to something completely different, like the Revolutionary War or the Golden Age of Pirates, its naturally going to have a different type of "spark" or feel to it. It's natural.

Gi1t
11-11-2013, 09:14 PM
Well, this is the thing: I don't want Dark Souls combat either, because it's beatable. Eventually you're good enough at the game to handle the insane combat, and in the case of AC that means that sooner or later you're going to be scything through regiments of people.

I'd like something that's more about calculation - for instance, you're about to rush at two guards separated from the pack, but you have to back off as you notice a distant third guard about to join them. The Arkham games have lots of situations in the "Predator"-type of rooms where you simply cannot attack more than a very low number of guards because they will kill you in less than a second. I'd love it if you had to observe and think more, like Sean Harris's Micheletto in the Showtime version of The Borgias: deadly, but you rarely saw him in broad fights.

Yeah, maybe action game combat isn't exactly the right flavor for AC combat since good action combat revolves around a system where players can potentially win just about any fight if they practice enough. But if you're going to make it so you can't fight too many guards at once, it has to be convincing. If they make it so that guards just bum-rush you or something cheap and easy like that, people will feel like it's still the same combat system and yell about the fact that you suddenly can't fight a bunch of guards anymore. To make it work, they need options guards can only use when there's more than a certain number of them. They need special coordinated attacks you can't normally defend against that LOOK coordinated so people don't think the combat is just sloppy.

Now, what SHOULD you do if you can't fight more than two or three guards at once? Well, like I said, apart from being perfectly stealthy and being a one man army, there's another option that I think is critical to the AC formula: the escape. They need to make the escape cool again. I mean look at what Altair and Ezio do in their trailers--they don't kill every guard in the area and then go after the target. They take out one or two guys and then break out and go for the target, then run like hell and disappear, and it's really cool. And that's how I always played AC, as much as I could. But what they need to update, maybe, is the act of breaking away from groups of guards and escaping, because it's a perfect bridge between combat and stealth. If you're trying to be stealthy and you accidentally get spotted, you won't be stuck having to sit there and kill all the guards; you can disappear again and go back to being stealthy. So what I think they need are functions/moves designed to help this action. Give the player abilities that, instead of just killing guards, actually save you a ton of time and knock them out of your way somehow and abilities that allow you to transition smoothly between running and fighting. That's what needs to be really smooth is that transition. Escaping should be fun so people will actually play that way because they want to use the cool escaping maneuvers you can use. If you want to kill all the guards, go ahead, hunt them all down two and three at a time. :D I think there's too much stuff designed around killing guards and it's becoming redundant.

IceHot100
11-11-2013, 09:30 PM
It's called a different spark. You can't go looking for AC I and AC II in AC III and AC IV and expect to find eternal satisfaction. You can't look for AC II's atmosphere in AC III. You can't find Renaissance Florence in Revolutionary Boston, you can't find Crusades Damascus in 18th Century Havana or Kingston. it's called variety. if every game had the same atmosphere, same type of music..etc, then it'd get boring fast. AC I is my second favorite now and it's atmosphere and mystery remain a favorite of mine, but do I take a crap on other AC atmospheres for being different?? No, I don't...I don't assign a certain atmosphere or element to AC, except the cores of course (combat, stealth and Navigation) there's no such thing as "AC's atmosphere" I don't have to hear the Creed every time to realize that this is the Assassin faction, I don't have to see hoods all the time to realize those people are Assassins, The cities don't have to be Florence, Venice, Damascus every time for me to love the atmosphere. maybe the mystery aspect faded a bit, but that's only because we know A LOT. in AC I and II, we didn't know as much as we do now, so OBVIOUSLY, the mystery would feel like it's non-existent.

I'm sure I told you this before too, but when you feel the need to speak for "people" like when you say "i'm sure people miss the old AC" then you have a pretty weak case and I urge you to try and make it just a little bit stronger, since you can't rely on JUST your own views and find it necessary to feel like you're a part of this huge faction that wants the same thing as you. Just some friendly advice..

I think you didn't completely get what the OP said. I think what he meant was that, even though the inital two games were set in two completely different time periods, but they had a "common" uniqueness (I know it sounds contradictory :nonchalance: ). As for the mystery part, yes I fully agree with you that the more you uncover the mystery the less mysterious it starts to get. But they could have still invented a new mysterious plot or subplot. After AC Revelations, they didn't really bring anything new into the game in terms of the story. (especially in the modern part)

AssassinHMS
11-12-2013, 12:20 AM
See, you are making up your own stuff to add to it's mythos. But no game director has ever said the stuff you are saying. It is about historical tourism. Has been since Day One.
I’m not making stuff up. You may have not noticed it but it was definitely there. AC3 was more about historical tourism than the others but it still had mystery and conspiracies.
And what exactly am I making up? I think you didn’t understand this thread since Day One.


Besides that, in AC4, it perfectly fits the Creed from AC1. In fact, Edward learns the Creed better than Connor and faster than Ezio. It's takes Ezio to 50 to get it; and Edward has it figured out by the end of the game. Like Governor Torres says, "It suits him." This game is full of twists and a deeper sense of journey and meaning. Edward's story is just a different arc than we've seen, and that's good. But all that stuff is there, and in many ways, it's much more subtle and complex than in past AC's.
What does that have to do with my post?



Yeah, maybe action game combat isn't exactly the right flavor for AC combat since good action combat revolves around a system where players can potentially win just about any fight if they practice enough. But if you're going to make it so you can't fight too many guards at once, it has to be convincing. If they make it so that guards just bum-rush you or something cheap and easy like that, people will feel like it's still the same combat system and yell about the fact that you suddenly can't fight a bunch of guards anymore. To make it work, they need options guards can only use when there's more than a certain number of them. They need special coordinated attacks you can't normally defend against that LOOK coordinated so people don't think the combat is just sloppy.

Now, what SHOULD you do if you can't fight more than two or three guards at once? Well, like I said, apart from being perfectly stealthy and being a one man army, there's another option that I think is critical to the AC formula: the escape. They need to make the escape cool again. I mean look at what Altair and Ezio do in their trailers--they don't kill every guard in the area and then go after the target. They take out one or two guys and then break out and go for the target, then run like hell and disappear, and it's really cool. And that's how I always played AC, as much as I could. But what they need to update, maybe, is the act of breaking away from groups of guards and escaping, because it's a perfect bridge between combat and stealth. If you're trying to be stealthy and you accidentally get spotted, you won't be stuck having to sit there and kill all the guards; you can disappear again and go back to being stealthy. So what I think they need are functions/moves designed to help this action. Give the player abilities that, instead of just killing guards, actually save you a ton of time and knock them out of your way somehow and abilities that allow you to transition smoothly between running and fighting. That's what needs to be really smooth is that transition. Escaping should be fun so people will actually play that way because they want to use the cool escaping maneuvers you can use. If you want to kill all the guards, go ahead, hunt them all down two and three at a time. :D I think there's too much stuff designed around killing guards and it's becoming redundant.
I really like your ideas. This would improve combat and navigation and give room for stealth to improve while bringing back the AC spirit displayed in older trailers and end the whole kill everyone nonsense. This is what Ubisoft should’ve done in the first place.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-12-2013, 01:41 AM
I agree with a lot of this post. It has lost it's spark and I'm not sure why though I believe it stems from a few things -- Ubi's directive to release one game per year, the settings they've had, etc.

For me...the spark really left with ACIII though I did like some of the things it did.

For AC, I was pulled in by the setting: the misery, the hope that the Assassin's presented in their white hooded robes, the intrigue, the mystery of Abstergo, and then the cliffhanger. It was brilliant.

ACII took things up a notch and introduced a protagonist who was more relatable, a setting more vibrant. It was the Renaissance and the misery wasn't as painfully obvious as it was before. The Templars now controlled the populace, how they acted, what they thought, everything. Ezio was pulled into this great mystery he does not fully comprehend but tries his hardest. For almost 20 years he thought he lived in a normal family until everything is ripped away and then he sees the Truth. The Templars, the Assassins. We watch him grow as he seeks vengeance and ultimately brings justice. Ezio learned of Altair...the great Assassin... he met with "gods" and could not comprehend what they were after. He was confused when they spoke of Desmond but he knew he was apart of something larger than himself. Meanwhile, it set up Desmond to take on the mantle that Altair and Ezio had gained before... he'd be the hero the world needed.

Brotherhood kept the feeling of ACII intact as it was essentially just a straight continuation and felt more or less like it had originally been planned to be a part of ACII but for various reasons had to be delayed. Much like the first game...we see him grow and finally fulfill his "destiny" so to speak. ACII showed us a young Ezio being thrust into a world he didn't comprehend, seeking vengeance. We see him helped and guided and learn through experience and see him grow into a young man who steps up, head high, into the role of Assassin despite whatever doubts lingered in his mind. In Brotherhood, we see the culmination of all of those years as he steps up into the role of Master Assassin.

Revelations started to lose the spark somewhat but the environment was still vibrant (if a little too reddish for my tastes) and much like Brotherhood...still felt like a piece of Ezio's story. It felt a little more tacked on than Brotherhood which just naturally flowed well whereas this one starts off many years after ACB. But much like ACB, we see him grow...he's now a wise mature old man who seeks answers. He has already brought justice to those who wronged his family, he has already assumed the mantle of Master Assassin in Rome. He knows though...that something deeper than Templars vs Assassins has been happening for a long time...and will continue to do so. This game gave us a nice and fitting end to both Altair, a sad one filled with remorse, betrayal, corruption, and loss... and Ezio, a happier one filled with peace, love, and acceptance.

ACIII really lost it for me. The setting was just...bad, plain and simple. Part of the spark from AC came from the setting and whole the story itself wasn't bad... I would have preferred the story to be in a book or comic of some sort instead of a game. The setting didn't mix well with the classic AC gameplay...the two towns were much too similar providing almost no differentiation between them, the frontier was cool the first few times and eventually just got boring. It was large, sure, but there wasn't anything to DO. Connor's story is sad but interesting and while he wasn't as likable as Ezio, he still had a good story. It was the first time we truly got to experience Templar motives first hand. AC provided a nice balance of showing the Templar and Assassin ideals and why they each do what they do. But in ACII, they had become straight up villains for the most part. which was fine -- it completely and totally worked and you know some Templars would be after the power and some would be in it for the ideal of a better world. So that was good but then after 4 games of setting up Desmond...finally playing with him as an Assassin was anti-climactic and the culmination of everything was just....really weird and lame. It was like "we had worked all the way up to...that??"

With ACIV... I can't give an honest opinion as I have yet to play it. The environment looks a little more vibrant but that's partially due to the more jungle environment of the various islands looking prettier than the frontier but aside from hunting, I doubt there's much else to do. I haven't gotten to see good videos of the cities but Havana looks like it might be similar fun to parkour around like Venice, Florence, and Rome were. But I know one city is also kind of lame like the ones in ACIII so idk. As for story...can't really say but I have to say that the whole pirate thing...while interesting, is again, something that I think would have been cooler for a book or comic. They made that Indian (I think he was Indian...) Assassin for a comic book and I think that would have been much better than pirates for a game. I think it should've been swapped. Another thing is that this is essentially the same time period. Whereas AC 1 and 2 were separated by a long time and felt vastly different (same as ACII/B/R to ACIII) this game feels very similar to ACIII because it's set during a similar time period. It just smacks of lazy design. Especially since back in '11, they had polled fans of AC where they'd like the series to go and had things ranging from Ancient Rome to Feudal Japan to Ancient China, etc. There was the Revolutionary War which they had to have already been working on and included it on the list because they were working on it and stuff BUT...no where was there a pirate setting. Even if it was... I would expect Feudal Japan or China to have more votes as people have wanted that since the first game. So what did Ubi do? Completely disregarded that and went with pirates.

It just... it seems to have lost it's way. It's like they couldn't figure out how to end Desmond's story so they just did it abruptly. They weren't sure what to do with the modern story so they just made it separate from the original modern characters, and then went "pirates are cool right? let's make a pirate game...and smack assassins and templars into it." Again...it's not bad as an expanded universe concept IMO but it just... Idk how it works but I can't say for sure if it did or didn't as I haven't played the game.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-12-2013, 01:49 AM
FEUDAL JAPAN. Or China. I don't want any guns (though they could fit it into an asian one since they had gun powder first)

The aesthetic of asian culture mixed with Assassin robes would be awesome. Anyone know how the cities were compared to Damascus, Jerusalem, Acre, Rome, Venice, and Florence? Would Feudal Japan or Ancient China have similar cities to the first two games (in terms of how tall the buildings are) or would they be more akin to Boston and New York from ACIII?

I'm sure they'd have buildings similar to this
http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/129642693.png

But...what were their cities actually like?

Kagurra
11-12-2013, 02:00 AM
FEUDAL JAPAN. Or China. I don't want any guns (though they could fit it into an asian one since they had gun powder first)

The aesthetic of asian culture mixed with Assassin robes would be awesome. Anyone know how the cities were compared to Damascus, Jerusalem, Acre, Rome, Venice, and Florence? Would Feudal Japan or Ancient China have similar cities to the first two games (in terms of how tall the buildings are) or would they be more akin to Boston and New York from ACIII?

I'm sure they'd have buildings similar to this
http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/129642693.png

But...what were their cities actually like?

While I'd love that aswell, I'm pretty sure they've said that it's unlikely. :/ But hopefully they still do it one day.

luckyto
11-12-2013, 02:03 AM
he assassin concept reached new heights when mixed with such a vibrant and lush environment but it was never matched. AC gradually lost the mystery (glyphs, conspiracies, secrets…), the beauty, the purity (the white, the atmosphere, the impact…) and the assassin concept. Not only that but AC2’s music is unmatched and really adds the feel of a beautiful society dominated by religion, ruled by conspiracy and striped off of their own identity that can only be set free by the assassins.

So: Did you feel any of this while playing AC1 and AC2? Do you think AC’s spark is still alive in games like AC3 or AC4? If so, in what form? If not, what can be done to revive it?

Yes. I understood and answered. It is still alive. More alive than ever. It's just different. There is still mystery and conspiracies - entirely new ones. Surprises and twists. Philosophical discussions, the works. There's still darkness to the society - and the struggle between Assassins and Templars to rectify it in their own ways. Lush and vibrant environments, check. Black Flag's music is superior. It's all there.

But even so - that's not what Assassin's Creed is. It's exactly as M described it, it's historical tourism with combat, stealth, free-running and open-ended assassinations. The rest is all color.

The spark is still alive and well. Best it's been in three years - at least. Different, but alive.

AssassinHMS
11-12-2013, 02:51 AM
I agree with a lot of this post. It has lost it's spark and I'm not sure why though I believe it stems from a few things -- Ubi's directive to release one game per year, the settings they've had, etc.

For me...the spark really left with ACIII though I did like some of the things it did.

For AC, I was pulled in by the setting: the misery, the hope that the Assassin's presented in their white hooded robes, the intrigue, the mystery of Abstergo, and then the cliffhanger. It was brilliant.

ACII took things up a notch and introduced a protagonist who was more relatable, a setting more vibrant. It was the Renaissance and the misery wasn't as painfully obvious as it was before. The Templars now controlled the populace, how they acted, what they thought, everything. Ezio was pulled into this great mystery he does not fully comprehend but tries his hardest. For almost 20 years he thought he lived in a normal family until everything is ripped away and then he sees the Truth. The Templars, the Assassins. We watch him grow as he seeks vengeance and ultimately brings justice. Ezio learned of Altair...the great Assassin... he met with "gods" and could not comprehend what they were after. He was confused when they spoke of Desmond but he knew he was apart of something larger than himself. Meanwhile, it set up Desmond to take on the mantle that Altair and Ezio had gained before... he'd be the hero the world needed.

Brotherhood kept the feeling of ACII intact as it was essentially just a straight continuation and felt more or less like it had originally been planned to be a part of ACII but for various reasons had to be delayed. Much like the first game...we see him grow and finally fulfill his "destiny" so to speak. ACII showed us a young Ezio being thrust into a world he didn't comprehend, seeking vengeance. We see him helped and guided and learn through experience and see him grow into a young man who steps up, head high, into the role of Assassin despite whatever doubts lingered in his mind. In Brotherhood, we see the culmination of all of those years as he steps up into the role of Master Assassin.

Revelations started to lose the spark somewhat but the environment was still vibrant (if a little too reddish for my tastes) and much like Brotherhood...still felt like a piece of Ezio's story. It felt a little more tacked on than Brotherhood which just naturally flowed well whereas this one starts off many years after ACB. But much like ACB, we see him grow...he's now a wise mature old man who seeks answers. He has already brought justice to those who wronged his family, he has already assumed the mantle of Master Assassin in Rome. He knows though...that something deeper than Templars vs Assassins has been happening for a long time...and will continue to do so. This game gave us a nice and fitting end to both Altair, a sad one filled with remorse, betrayal, corruption, and loss... and Ezio, a happier one filled with peace, love, and acceptance.

ACIII really lost it for me. The setting was just...bad, plain and simple. Part of the spark from AC came from the setting and whole the story itself wasn't bad... I would have preferred the story to be in a book or comic of some sort instead of a game. The setting didn't mix well with the classic AC gameplay...the two towns were much too similar providing almost no differentiation between them, the frontier was cool the first few times and eventually just got boring. It was large, sure, but there wasn't anything to DO. Connor's story is sad but interesting and while he wasn't as likable as Ezio, he still had a good story. It was the first time we truly got to experience Templar motives first hand. AC provided a nice balance of showing the Templar and Assassin ideals and why they each do what they do. But in ACII, they had become straight up villains for the most part. which was fine -- it completely and totally worked and you know some Templars would be after the power and some would be in it for the ideal of a better world. So that was good but then after 4 games of setting up Desmond...finally playing with him as an Assassin was anti-climactic and the culmination of everything was just....really weird and lame. It was like "we had worked all the way up to...that??"

With ACIV... I can't give an honest opinion as I have yet to play it. The environment looks a little more vibrant but that's partially due to the more jungle environment of the various islands looking prettier than the frontier but aside from hunting, I doubt there's much else to do. I haven't gotten to see good videos of the cities but Havana looks like it might be similar fun to parkour around like Venice, Florence, and Rome were. But I know one city is also kind of lame like the ones in ACIII so idk. As for story...can't really say but I have to say that the whole pirate thing...while interesting, is again, something that I think would have been cooler for a book or comic. They made that Indian (I think he was Indian...) Assassin for a comic book and I think that would have been much better than pirates for a game. I think it should've been swapped. Another thing is that this is essentially the same time period. Whereas AC 1 and 2 were separated by a long time and felt vastly different (same as ACII/B/R to ACIII) this game feels very similar to ACIII because it's set during a similar time period. It just smacks of lazy design. Especially since back in '11, they had polled fans of AC where they'd like the series to go and had things ranging from Ancient Rome to Feudal Japan to Ancient China, etc. There was the Revolutionary War which they had to have already been working on and included it on the list because they were working on it and stuff BUT...no where was there a pirate setting. Even if it was... I would expect Feudal Japan or China to have more votes as people have wanted that since the first game. So what did Ubi do? Completely disregarded that and went with pirates.

It just... it seems to have lost it's way. It's like they couldn't figure out how to end Desmond's story so they just did it abruptly. They weren't sure what to do with the modern story so they just made it separate from the original modern characters, and then went "pirates are cool right? let's make a pirate game...and smack assassins and templars into it." Again...it's not bad as an expanded universe concept IMO but it just... Idk how it works but I can't say for sure if it did or didn't as I haven't played the game.

I agree with you. I am still trying to understand why the spark isn't there anymore, this whole thread was no more than an attempt at that. However, I think I know what is missing. You said that AC4, in terms of time period, was too close to AC3 so the world didn't feel that new and I agree. The screenshot from the "Altair Was Here" trailer in my post, was actually what made me realize the absence of the assassin essence in the first place. What I wanted right now, was an AC game set way before the American Revolution, before guns and closer to the raw and harsh world of AC1. However, this wouldn't be enough to bring back the spark by itself, because there is more to the assassin's creed essence than the time period and the location. There was something to AC1, AC2 and even ACB that mixed so well with being an assassin. The tombs, the glyphs, the Templars (in AC1), the codex pages and the assassination targets, all of these things gave the feeling of mystery and of danger as if there was a whole new world inside the city we thought we knew. The dark and vibrant atmosphere (the music, the cities and the NPCs) contrasted so well with the whole purity and mission of the assassin.

Assassinating felt like an art, like a challenge that had to be planned and executed with stunning and precise moves that required calm and patience. Being an assassin felt like being a detective that followed a web of conspiracies to gain the knowledge to be able to see, behind people’s laughter and behind the city’s beauty, the conspiracies and the darkness that haunted its streets.
Now there is no fear and no sense of danger since the cities don’t feel like there is more to them than what meets the eye and the combat is so pathetically easy that there is no thrill or fear which means there is no real immersion. There is no longer the sense of purity and the assassins don’t “shine” as they used to. They feel bland, as if there is no more mystery to them, not because of the number of AC games that exist but because the developers haven’t really taken their time to develop the mystery and secrecy around both the assassin ways and the creed.
I just feel like playing as a mysterious hooded figure like the one you see in the screenshot from “Altair Was Here” and explore this violent and corrupted world in order to help it fight back, whether by standing in the dark and spy on meetings and on the people in general or by assassinating the ones behind all the darkness. That, plus fitting music, a hard combat system, breathtaking assassinations, random events, tombs, the ability to explore the inside of buildings (like using an open window to slip inside a house and search for anything valuable or that might lead to some conspiracy or Templar agent) would make the perfect AC game for me.

AssassinHMS
11-12-2013, 03:00 AM
The spark is still alive and well. Best it's been in three years - at least. Different, but alive.

I don't think I get it...what is AC's spark in your opinion?

xx-pyro
11-12-2013, 03:03 AM
I don't think I get it...what is AC's spark in your opinion?

I know this wasn't directed at me but my opinion is that rush you get when you execute a perfect assassination while remaining undetected, as well as the rush you get when climbing viewpoints and looking across the beautiful world Ubisoft creates in each game.

Obviously, some games are better than others at the above in this series, but to me AC4 does it best.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-12-2013, 05:38 AM
It's weird.

The games had a brilliance that seems lost. Again, can't say much about ACIV as I've not played it but I'm not too optimistic considering the time period just isn't unique. We've gotten this time period already with ACIII and unlike ACB and ACR, this is supposed to be a full fledged sequel and is not about the same character from ACIII. I always figured each numbered AC installment would be a vastly different time period. So right off the bat, ACIV seems like "been there, done that" even though the Caribbean is very different from Boston or New York...the redcoats are there, british accents abound, it features a Kenway, etc.

The only city that seems fun to freerun around is Havana and lest we forget that AC started with a solid parkour base and was fun to explore through dense streets and decently tall buildings with large looming structures to climb as well. Go too close to present day and you get cities incapable of exploring fully (skyscrapers are much too tall to reasonably climb for example), and go to the wrong setting and it's simply not fun (ACIII fell victim to this as Boston and New York were far to wide open and low instead of dense and tall)

Prior to ACIII, we had two games which only had one city to explore...then we finally got multiple cities in ACIII and the cities were virtually identical to one another. ACIV looks like the cities might at least seem visually different and feel different but the only one that seems fun to explore is Havana and I'm not even sure how fun it'd be and how large it is.

MnemonicSyntax
11-12-2013, 06:27 AM
It's weird.

The games had a brilliance that seems lost. Again, can't say much about ACIV as I've not played it but I'm not too optimistic considering the time period just isn't unique. We've gotten this time period already with ACIII and unlike ACB and ACR, this is supposed to be a full fledged sequel and is not about the same character from ACIII. I always figured each numbered AC installment would be a vastly different time period. So right off the bat, ACIV seems like "been there, done that" even though the Caribbean is very different from Boston or New York...the redcoats are there, british accents abound, it features a Kenway, etc.

The only city that seems fun to freerun around is Havana and lest we forget that AC started with a solid parkour base and was fun to explore through dense streets and decently tall buildings with large looming structures to climb as well. Go too close to present day and you get cities incapable of exploring fully (skyscrapers are much too tall to reasonably climb for example), and go to the wrong setting and it's simply not fun (ACIII fell victim to this as Boston and New York were far to wide open and low instead of dense and tall)

Prior to ACIII, we had two games which only had one city to explore...then we finally got multiple cities in ACIII and the cities were virtually identical to one another. ACIV looks like the cities might at least seem visually different and feel different but the only one that seems fun to explore is Havana and I'm not even sure how fun it'd be and how large it is.

The golden age of piracy is not even remotely related to the Revolution. Even though it's a few decades apart, it hardly has anything to do with the British or the redcoats (they are there) as much as it does with other countries like Portugal and Spain. You hear more people speaking Spanish than any other language in 4.

Everything you've said is incorrect regarding how it relates to 3. It is a different time period. The only thing really correct was that it has a Kenway in it. By that logic, you could say that AC had a Miles in it too.

Free running is better in 4, but I did enjoy it in 3. The trees that Connor can navigate through really help to get from building to building without touching the ground. In 4, we have people actually doing something in the streets instead of just walking around aimlessly.

I think you should try it. Rent it from a Redbox, or a video store, borrow it from a friend. It's a great romp and the best Creed game to date.

And this is coming from an "older fan" regardless of who speaks for me or not.

Hans684
11-12-2013, 06:28 AM
The concept of AC as a whole is what makes AC, so yes the 'spark' you speak of is still alive and well.

doogsy91
11-12-2013, 10:52 AM
Patrice saw the writing on the wall and that's why he left. AC was essentially his brainchild and he was so heavily invested in it that his departure brought with it the departure of this "spark". If only Ubi had not told him to start milking his baby with the Ezio spin-offs and had let him finish his Desmond trilogy with ACIII before having their way with it. I believe the franchise would still be as beloved as it was after ACII and each instalment would be hugely anticipated by the entire gaming industry.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-12-2013, 11:01 AM
The golden age of piracy is not even remotely related to the Revolution. Even though it's a few decades apart, it hardly has anything to do with the British or the redcoats (they are there) as much as it does with other countries like Portugal and Spain. You hear more people speaking Spanish than any other language in 4.

Everything you've said is incorrect regarding how it relates to 3. It is a different time period. The only thing really correct was that it has a Kenway in it. By that logic, you could say that AC had a Miles in it too.

Free running is better in 4, but I did enjoy it in 3. The trees that Connor can navigate through really help to get from building to building without touching the ground. In 4, we have people actually doing something in the streets instead of just walking around aimlessly.

I think you should try it. Rent it from a Redbox, or a video store, borrow it from a friend. It's a great romp and the best Creed game to date.

And this is coming from an "older fan" regardless of who speaks for me or not.

I understand that piracy =/= revolutionary war but what I mean is the technology is all the same, the mentalities are the same, etc. It's like if AC2 had instead been set only a few decades prior to AC1... sure it might be a little different but it's not as drastic a change as going from Crusades to Renaissance is. Nor is it even as drastic as Renaissance to Revolution.

The freerunning is one of the coolest aspects of 3 and it sucked in that game because the cities were really subpar. Havana in AC4 however looks a lot better and more fun to navigate than Boston or New York since it uses the animations of 3, tree running, etc. but in a setting similar to that of Venice from AC2. Kingston looks more akin to Boston or New York...unfortunate, but I expected that to be the case, and NAssau looks the weakest of the bunch from what I've seen. Despite that, just having one city like AC2's already makes the game better than AC3. The only reason I haven't gotten it yet is because I'm waiting for next gen which...won't be for awhile. It kinda sucks because I DO think it looks like a good game. My only fears is how it holds up to AC2/ACB. Those are my two favorite AC games (IMO, ACB is really just a part of 2 and thus I actually consider them one and the same). So, like I said... I'm skeptical about the modern day story since they scrwwed it up in AC3, idk what to expect from the historical story... I'm sure it'll at least be decent as every AC's historical story has been good thus far, and the gameplay looks at least better than AC3 though that's not saying much. Havana looks good, the other cities look meh, I'm glad sailing is more like a full fledged mecahnic and doesn't seem as tacked on -- it's free roam now, you can stop piloting it whenever you want, board enemy ships, etc. Plus the game world is huge but... on the flip side... I don't really play AC for hunting on islands so i'm not sure how much that extra space in the game world will really matter to me if I'll only ever want to spend most of my time in Havana (x

luckyto
11-12-2013, 04:20 PM
to the above poster, I expected the same as you. Nassau was a pleasant surprise. It's actually a fairly cool town to wander because of the mix of trees, buildings, and fort.

--------------------------------

What is AC's spark? I said it in my first post and the same post you quoted:
Assassin's Creed is historical tourism with combat, stealth, free-running and open-ended assassinations colored with mystery, sci-fi and conspiracies.. Surprises and twists. Philosophical discussions, the works. There's still darkness to the society - and the struggle between Assassins and Templars to rectify it in their own ways. It's about visiting a past time period and place and immersing yourself in a sandbox that allows you to experience. And in Black Flag, it's all there.


I agree with you. I am still trying to understand why the spark isn't there anymore, this whole thread was no more than an attempt at that. However, I think I know what is missing. You said that AC4, in terms of time period, was too close to AC3 so the world didn't feel that new and I agree. The screenshot from the "Altair Was Here" trailer in my post, was actually what made me realize the absence of the assassin essence in the first place. What I wanted right now, was an AC game set way before the American Revolution, before guns and closer to the raw and harsh world of AC1. However, this wouldn't be enough to bring back the spark by itself, because there is more to the assassin's creed essence than the time period and the location. There was something to AC1, AC2 and even ACB that mixed so well with being an assassin. The tombs, the glyphs, the Templars (in AC1), the codex pages and the assassination targets, all of these things gave the feeling of mystery and of danger as if there was a whole new world inside the city we thought we knew. The dark and vibrant atmosphere (the music, the cities and the NPCs) contrasted so well with the whole purity and mission of the assassin.

Assassinating felt like an art, like a challenge that had to be planned and executed with stunning and precise moves that required calm and patience. Being an assassin felt like being a detective that followed a web of conspiracies to gain the knowledge to be able to see, behind people’s laughter and behind the city’s beauty, the conspiracies and the darkness that haunted its streets.
Now there is no fear and no sense of danger since the cities don’t feel like there is more to them than what meets the eye and the combat is so pathetically easy that there is no thrill or fear which means there is no real immersion. There is no longer the sense of purity and the assassins don’t “shine” as they used to. They feel bland, as if there is no more mystery to them, not because of the number of AC games that exist but because the developers haven’t really taken their time to develop the mystery and secrecy around both the assassin ways and the creed.
I just feel like playing as a mysterious hooded figure like the one you see in the screenshot from “Altair Was Here” and explore this violent and corrupted world in order to help it fight back, whether by standing in the dark and spy on meetings and on the people in general or by assassinating the ones behind all the darkness. That, plus fitting music, a hard combat system, breathtaking assassinations, random events, tombs, the ability to explore the inside of buildings (like using an open window to slip inside a house and search for anything valuable or that might lead to some conspiracy or Templar agent) would make the perfect AC game for me.

One, ACB was the 'easiest' combat ever - so I don't understand how you can fault AC3 and ACIV for their combat when ACB's combat is the easiest thing I've ever played in thirty years of gaming. My kid has Dora games which are harder. Lego is harder. AC2 is not far behind. AC1 is the only one of the bunch with superior combat to today, but combat has been suffering since AC2 was released; and took a nose-dive with ACB and chain-killing. Black Flag, has, at least, a progression system. I would love to see you go into some of those bigger battles with the one health upgrade and the base swords they give you. Good luck :)

Two, all these things you say aren't in Black Flag, ARE in Black Flag. "all of these things gave the feeling of mystery and of danger as if there was a whole new world inside the city we thought we knew. The dark and vibrant atmosphere (the music, the cities and the NPCs) contrasted so well with the whole purity and mission of the assassin." That's all in the mix. There's secrets (letters), collectibles (chests, mayan stones, Templar keys), Tombs (Shipwrecks), and tons of danger and plot twists. Edward is mutinied upon twice, dropped on an island, imprisoned, almost killed by Assassin's and Templars, shipwrecked and the lot - and your first person character has an IT guy blackmailing him and then try to stick a needle in your face. The Templars are after something, but you don't know why. And Juno is after something, and you don't know why. Just like Altair, Edward starts out lost and confused, but he eventually learns the Creed on his own.

Last, what this really comes down to ... this lack of "Spark" .. is that you don't like the time period. It's not what you want. You want the crusades, or medieval times, or some ancient time period. Understandable, I wasn't crazy about the American Revolution. Constantinople, while interesting, wasn't exactly my favorite time period either. Personally, I do love the Caribbean. So I enjoyed every bit of it.

But let's stop saying the "spark is gone" and really cut to the chase --- the time period isn't everybody's cup of tea.

MnemonicSyntax
11-12-2013, 06:44 PM
to the above poster, I expected the same as you. Nassau was a pleasant surprise. It's actually a fairly cool town to wander because of the mix of trees, buildings, and fort.

--------------------------------

What is AC's spark? I said it in my first post and the same post you quoted:
Assassin's Creed is historical tourism with combat, stealth, free-running and open-ended assassinations colored with mystery, sci-fi and conspiracies.. Surprises and twists. Philosophical discussions, the works. There's still darkness to the society - and the struggle between Assassins and Templars to rectify it in their own ways. It's about visiting a past time period and place and immersing yourself in a sandbox that allows you to experience. And in Black Flag, it's all there.



One, ACB was the 'easiest' combat ever - so I don't understand how you can fault AC3 and ACIV for their combat when ACB's combat is the easiest thing I've ever played in thirty years of gaming. My kid has Dora games which are harder. Lego is harder. AC2 is not far behind. AC1 is the only one of the bunch with superior combat to today, but combat has been suffering since AC2 was released; and took a nose-dive with ACB and chain-killing. Black Flag, has, at least, a progression system. I would love to see you go into some of those bigger battles with the one health upgrade and the base swords they give you. Good luck :)

Two, all these things you say aren't in Black Flag, ARE in Black Flag. "all of these things gave the feeling of mystery and of danger as if there was a whole new world inside the city we thought we knew. The dark and vibrant atmosphere (the music, the cities and the NPCs) contrasted so well with the whole purity and mission of the assassin." That's all in the mix. There's secrets (letters), collectibles (chests, mayan stones, Templar keys), Tombs (Shipwrecks), and tons of danger and plot twists. Edward is mutinied upon twice, dropped on an island, imprisoned, almost killed by Assassin's and Templars, shipwrecked and the lot - and your first person character has an IT guy blackmailing him and then try to stick a needle in your face. The Templars are after something, but you don't know why. And Juno is after something, and you don't know why. Just like Altair, Edward starts out lost and confused, but he eventually learns the Creed on his own.

Last, what this really comes down to ... this lack of "Spark" .. is that you don't like the time period. It's not what you want. You want the crusades, or medieval times, or some ancient time period. Understandable, I wasn't crazy about the American Revolution. Constantinople, while interesting, wasn't exactly my favorite time period either. Personally, I do love the Caribbean. So I enjoyed every bit of it.

But let's stop saying the "spark is gone" and really cut to the chase --- the time period isn't everybody's cup of tea.

Nailed it.

My 7 year old beat Brotherhood and Revelations. Let's talk about how simple the combat is again. :D

Number_Six_1967
11-13-2013, 04:52 AM
The spark is less to do with the setting and perhaps more to do with having a game that focusses in many way on the reverence to the cause of the Assassins. The last two games, or three you could argue, have been more about resolution (Revelations), a relationship of convenience (AC3) and well, piracy and opportunism (AC4) and in that sense there has been no cause but for the individual. AC:r had the last sips of Assassin blood but the last two years have seen that go missing. It's true what was said about Italy. It nailed the whole struggle on the head with those lovely cities and oh-so-climb-able landmarks. It just added a stark aesthetic to the purpose. AC4 has the aesthetic and the story is decent, but yes, it's not strictly an AC game. In future I can imagine the series being steered back towards its roots. It would just take a bit of a clear up of some of the more ethereal story points now left hanging in the air.