PDA

View Full Version : Is Ubi distancing itself away from the previous games? NO AC4 SPOILERS!



BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-18-2013, 11:51 PM
It may sound weird but I've been feeling for awhile that Ubi is steering away from the previous games both in terms of story, direction, gameplay, etc. It may be little things but it's just something I've noticed. Obviously spoilers ahead for AC1, AC2, Brotherhood, Revelations, and AC3. No spoilers for AC4 please. Also... this is a long read so I understand if most people don't read it lol

For instance... AC1 and AC2 were both overseen or guided by Patrice if I understand correctly. It seems his influence carried over into Brotherhood as well considering he worked on it briefly. But then he left and it seems they lost where they were going. Story-wise, it seems he had an intended story arc involving Desmond, utilizing the knowledge had had gained from Altair and more specifically, Ezio, to fulfill his role as both Assassin and savior of the world. Think about it... in AC1, we were introduced to Altair and the world of Assassins vs Templars. We also met Desmond, Lucy and Warren; modern Assassins and Templars...the Animus...Abstergo...etc. It seemed like Altair's story was mostly historical fiction, using a fictional character of Altair was a killer of famous people at the time but then a twist comes when the Apple's power is truly shown...was it akin to magic/sorcery like the Ark of the Covenant in Indiana Jones? Well no... it looked pretty alien what with the golden holographic globe at the end. The cryptic messages left behind by the mysterious Subject 16. Also at the end, we're informed that people are there to free Desmond.

Then in AC2, Desmond and Lucy escape the compound and meet up with other assassins and use their own version of the Animus to relive Ezio's memories. This was a twofold benefit as Ezio had memories about the Apple and other things that will help them and it would help train Desmond at the same time via the bleed effect. We see the ones who came before for the first time...they speak directly to Desmond, it's mysterious and some apocalyptic event is coming. Desmond starts free running and then at the end, they're attacked by Templars! They have to get into the back of a truck and escape! Gameplay wise, they refined the combat slightly, provided a few new ways to assassinate enemies, and allowed us to blend in any crowd of people. The game was larger, had more to do, etc. Most importantly, it got rid of the repetitive "eavesdrop, pickpocket, beat up guy, do informant challenge, then get permission, then do assassination" that made up a lot of the first game. It lost a bit (or a lot depending on how you feel) of the assassin roleplay that the first game provided but the streamlining was enough to give us more freedom and give us more reason to explore. We had puzzle rooms akin to short bite sized chunks of Prince of Persia-esque tombs, customization of our robes from dyes to armor, alternate outfits, stores to buy weapons and other things from, the Truth, etc. The world felt more alive as a result.

Then came the annualization of the franchise. Brotherhood continued the story of AC2 and felt VERY much like a natural continuation to the point of feeling like it had originally intended to be part of AC2 but was chopped off at the end. To this end, it still felt like it had been crafted under the eye of Patrice (also, I know he's not the SOLE person responsible for the AC series but the creation is attributed to him and it does seem like it lost it's way once he left.) No one knows the specifics of what went on but considering he worked on it initially and that it feels very close to AC2... I'd say that they used the outline and or story he provided. So now Desmond and co. ho to the Auditore villa to hide from the Templars in the modern day story and for the first time we get to free run around rooftops with Desmond...that is, deserted rooftops in a small space but still! It was a taste of what was in store for Desmond. When navigating the underground areas of the villa it seemed like he was truly becoming a full fledged Assassin, even taking part in similar puzzles like Ezio. Gameplay wise...not much was added or changed -- economic system was altered, combat streamlined, etc. The biggest addition was being able to call in Assassins to take out enemies. Overused, it made the game too easy and resulted in having to do less... used sparingly and only in certain moments... it could be awesome. For instance, the point of no return when the game prevents you from doing anything but the last missions... there's a battle in rome near a gate that is made epic if you call in all your Assassin's to battle with you as it makes it feel very much like the first game with the massive Templar and Assassin armies. It also added in the ability to send Assassins out on missions and the like but as for core gameplay...very little changed: dyes and armor, puzzle tombs and the like, the Truth, etc. It all seemed very familiar to AC2. So far, so good. In the end however, Desmond gets a hold of the Apple, time stops, Lucy is killed as Juno controls his body. I feel as if this was done because they couldn't get her to return for the next game and thus her story arc seems...strange to say the least. Desmond goes into shock and that's not good!

Then came Revelations. The first game that had no input from Patrice as far as I know. It is here that I feel the first signs of "we don't know what to do now" started. Don't get me wrong... I actually enjoy this game. I didn't enjoy it as much as Brotherhood at the time and felt it just wasn't as good but replaying it, it's not as bad as I remember but it still isn't as good as Brotherhood for a few reasons. Namely...Ezio's story doesn't feel as naturally connected. In Brotherhood, it continued on directly after AC2, had the villa, had memories that gave us a glimpse of AC2-era memories we never saw involving Cristina from AC2 or the final goodbye to his father and brothers, etc. This time around...it just begins with him on a journey to Masyaf, he's a bit older now, mother is dead presumably from old age but we never see this as it's already happened, etc. In fact, this time around, he's not even after Borgias, the people who killed his family as that is all done. It didn't feel tacked on per se but in hindsight..it seems like they were stalling and didn't know what to do. Case in point: Desmond. Whereas AC1, AC2, and ACB all had a natural progression...this was the first time it just dead ends. He's trapped in the Animus on a small island where he can walk or run around..no parkour, no anything. He can relive past memories but that's about it. It makes sense given the context but it seems like they wrote the story while trying to figure out what to DO with the plot. Think about it...having a full game of having the protagonist trapped in the Animus with no outside glimpses seems like an awfully convenient tactic to employ when one is trying to think of where to take the story. Now that Patrice was gone... it's my theory that his ideas and what he wanted to do with the characters was lost. They decided to make Lucy a Templar without any real indication that this was ever originally the case and seems more a way of justifying killing her off since they couldn't really get her back... Ezio's story was nice though and it was cool to get closure on Altair and Ezio at the same time. Now we get to some minor things: first of all, this was the first time the outfit was not white. It may seem trivial and it may very well have been the same color WITH Patrice but for the first time...an Assassin's robes were not white. You instead had to purchase the classic coloring from a tailor. It just seems odd to me. I know some have always thought the white robes were dumb and only made sense with Altair but it was an established precedent that Assassin's wore white and red no matter the era: Russian WWI assassins, modern day assassins like Desmond, Crusades Assassins, Renaissance, etc. So to suddenly have this shift seems weird. Gameplay wise, still not much was added aside from bombs that didn't really do much and a very out of place den defense mini-game. The biggest change to core gameplay was the hook blade this time making traversal much faster. I both love and hate this weapon. After acquiring the leaping glove... I never really felt climbing was too slow. It wasn't even that bad without it. But now the hookblade makes scaling a HUGE tower ridiculously quick and kind of muddles the experience of climbing things. I enjoy the zipline mechanic of it though and thought that was a good addition to making traversal quicker without sacrificing parkour and climbing.

Then came AC3... this is where it really seemed to start losing its way. Desmond and co. now hole up in an ancient first civilization underground bunker thing and access the memories of Connor Kenway...half native, half european who is forced to become an Assassin. I enjoyed the story they made for the historical timeline but...the modern day story suffered. A lot IMO... This was supposed to be the culmination of everything Desmond ever learned and what did we get? A handful of Desmond missions..one of which is literally climbing a skyscraper under construction and that's it. Yes, I know Desmond can free run and climb now...we did that in AC2 and Brotherhood! We got a mission to an MMA fight which was admittedly, a fun mission as it felt like a modern version of standard AC gameplay only understandably linear. We also got a mission to Abstergo...to return to where the series began and it was woefully anticlmactic. Where was the infiltration using a crowd of hoodie-wearing IT guys who work for Abstergo and are shuffling into the building to go to their offices? Where were the missions involving Desmond actually BEING an Assassin like he learned to be with the bleed effect? I don't know quite what I was expecting but I feel like Desmond should have FELT like an Assassin after all that build up... going off to kill a Templar in Europe who was having a party at his mansion. Dressing up as a guest and then sneaking into the upper floors and free running onto a chandelier before air assassinating him and having a talk with him similar to the memory corridor assassination. Desmond saying "requiescat in pace" because that's what he knows, it's what Ezio said and he learned everything he knows FROM Ezio thanks to the bleed effect... what about a Templar in US Congress that we have to assassinate in D.C.? I feel like...they should have at least found a way to make it so that at least 5 Templars had some first civilization artifact that Desmond and co. needed and that the missions themselves were actual assassination missions and involved similar set-ups to the assassinations to previous games. In fact.. I think it would have been an amusing nod if the first mission involved having to eavesdrop on a conversation, pickpocket someone, and the like as a throwback to AC1's assassinations. And then...AND THEN...when it came to fulfilling his role of saving everything...it just unleashes Juno onto the world. GREAT. So now I feel like Desmond's entire story arc was entirely pointless. Seriously...THAT was the thing that 4 games and part of a fifth game were building towards? It just...FIZZLES out. It's like they didn't know what they should do with Desmond... what to have him do...after cryptic messages of him being important, it's like they were like "what important thing should Desmond do?" And then someone said "How about he sacrifices himself to save the world? Jesus did that and all good heroes are willing to do that so yeah, that should be okay!" And then someone ELSE said "Yeah! And like...how about instead of saving the world, his sacrifice just unleashes an evil deity upon the world!" And then they all high fived and said "writing is easy and this story makes sense as a logical conclusion to everything that came before!"

Like I said...historical story about the Revolution...fine. Modern day story? BAD. Now...onto the other things. Connor's outfit: this time it's white unlike Revelations but yet again.... they did away with the white/red combination of previous AC games. I suppose this was done because they didn't want him looking like he was fighting for the British. But uhhh...the story also points out that he's definitely not fighting for the colonists either and it just HAPPENS that his goals match theirs from time to time. He FIGHTS colonials and gets upset with them TOO...and yet he's wearing their colors? Sure, okay. If they didn't want to show allegiance to anything but Assassins and more importantly his people...it should have either been all white or white with something like brown or black. Either way, the blue doesn't REALLY make sense either and besides, Assassin's claimed white and red long before the Brit's used redcoats. If we're using that logic...one could even say they should have given Altair a blue sash instead of red because having the white and red makes him look like a Templar. Anyway...again though... it was at least possible to acquire the white/red outfit. As for gameplay..it was the first time since AC2 that core gameplay was heavily altered. Even in AC2, the parkour felt more or less the same just easier to do but this time around... completely overhauled animations which look nice but the run and sprint/free run buttons were now one meaning you only needed to hold right trigger to climb. parkour was a lot more FLUID but felt a little less weighty. Playing AC2 or ACB back to back with AC3...it just feels like it has less oomph. That's arguably a good or bad thing and depends more on what you like...do you want more fluidity or do you want it to feel like the character has weight? I would prefer a balance of both. I would have preferred to have the old right trigger+A button system instead of just the right trigger. The puppeteering was always fun being able to walk or slow/fast walk (slow in AC1, fast in all the others), run or sprint. I know you can still run or sprint by pulling RT more or less but it's not as easy to maintain a normal run without slipping into a sprint and I don't always want to sprint everywhere. Now...I do LOVE the vaults that they added as it was something we could never do...we'd always jump onto the rail and then back off to get over but now we can do that OR simply vault it fluidly.

However...parkour just wasn't as fun and why was that? Well...the setting. I mentioned I liked the historical story of the revolution but that doesn't mean the gameplay was good. Each previous AC had unique cities.. Jerusalem, Acre, and Damascus of the first AC all felt different from one another and were dense cities with small, almost alley-like streets and the occasional LARGE building to climb. AC2 had Florence and Venice plus Forli and Tuscanny... again, each had their own feel but each was pretty dense with narrow streets between buildings. ACB was the first time AC felt "lazy" and this was due to it being made in about a year but even then Rome was large and fun to explore and if you pretend Brotherhood is simply apart of AC2 like it feels like it is -- then Roma is just another city alongside Venezia and Firenze. Revelations had Constantinople which was a city with lots of hillsand tight alley-like streets... ziplines felt natural here due to the sloped nature of the city and again... the city was dense. But then came AC3 where both Boston and New York feel pretty much the same and look pretty much the same, the streets are wide, the buildings low, and overall the cities were just bland. It fit the time period and made sense but even with that in mind...it still isn't as FUN. Another HUGE addition was naval combat but to me...this felt tacked on as you go to your boat, cycle through a menu, select a mission, and then you're suddenly in the middle of the ocean and fighting a handful of boats and then you're done and back at your house.

As for more minor things, the white/red outfit can STILL be purchased but the amount of customization dropped immensely. No more armor (which makes sense), no more dyes (only a handful of "outfits" instead even though they're literally just dyes), for the first time ever the unlockable outfits of previous Assassins were lame -- Ezio's outfit was colored wrong with the interior of the hood being white instead of red and same with the cape...the cape didn't work properly in water and Altair's robes were a disgrace! His robes have always flowed even in the first game which came out 6 years ago! In each game that it returned (all of them), the robes flowed just the same. In fact... they looked their best IMO in Revelations considering that game had Altair as semi-main character but the outfit was more detailed than ever before instead of just being taken directly from the first game. But in AC3? Noooope. The robes are pinned or glued or whatveer to his legs meaning they move like pants instead of robes. How do you mess something like this up? Connor's robes move the most realistically out of any Assassin's Creed game and they couldn't bother giving Altair at least BASIC robe physics? The coloring of the brown is also strange and offputting. It was the outfit worn by the progenitor of the series and it seems like it was made in some guy's lunch break. I mean seriously...you'll even notice the red sash is actually fused to the outfit as well and the bottom actually stretches when Connor's stance has his legs wide apart meaning the red sash is actually just the outfit colored red there. I mean what the heck!?

Now... I haven't played AC4 so I can't give an accurate opinion but these are my thoughts regarding it when considering the points above. The default outfit is once again, no longer the classic white/red outfit and is actually primarily white and blue. A lot of the white however is covered up by dark leather armor. There are a bunch of outfits this time around unlike AC3 but not one has a truly white and red outfit even though Assassins in the game apparently have white/red. So customization is still down since we can't dye the robes whatever we want (remember Ubi how people loved that in AC2 and stuff?) and now there's not even an outfit like the Jamestown outfit which gives us traditional AC robe colors like in AC3 or ACR. The closest we get is the Explorer outfit which has white robes with red highlights but the back robe flaps have black on them with red trimming (why not make the black part red??) and the leather still makes the arms and torso darker. Even further...the hood doesn't even feature a BEAK anymore? What happened?! Gameplay wise, I believe parkour is the same as AC3 so again.. either good or bad depending on your view. This time though.. there's Havana which is supposedly like Florence and Venice. The streets do look much smaller and the city looks a lot more dense which is good and it has at least one or two large buildings but Florence, Venice, and Rome had more it feels like but maybe not as I've only seen a little gameplay and haven't played it myself yet so it's not fair to say one way or the other. The other major city is Kingston which looks....well like a prettier Boston/NY. The streets are wider, buildings lower, but there are more trees between buildings. Plus it's not varying shades of brown and looks more lush so it's visually nicer. As for Nassau...it looks the worst to free run around and seems more like this game's Montegerrioni so I can't even consider it a real city in the same vein.

Then the rest of the game world is a LOTTA water and a BUNCHA islands. Naval aspects look much better as they're now incorporated into a seamless transition from land to sea gameplay with no loading screens , no disconnected nature since now we decide where we go with our boat. We don't select a mission and begin already there...we can just explore, avoid a naval battle we don't want to partake in OR actively hunt for other seafaring vessels. So it looks much nicer but once again...to me this isn't what AC is about.

Someone made a post about AC's spark a while aho which dealt with similar issues but this is less about the "magic" or "spark" and where it went and more about the devs seemingly forgetting what AC is about story and gameplay wise and because of not knowing WHAT to DO. With Patrice leaving... it seems like his ultimate idea for Desmond disappeared...but that's just what it seems like. Heck, IDEK if he wrote the plot, stories, outlines or if he ONLY came up with the idea. Maybe he did and he always intended for the same thing to happen to Desmond...maybe someone else wrote all of the games and thus is what they wanted but it just SEEMS like they weren't sure what to do. Even now...the world obviously hasn't ended as far as we know which means Juno hasn't really set out upon the world yet which seems odd. I don't want any spoilers as I AM planning on picking it up but these are just my thoughts. It seems like after Patrice left...Ubi went "erm...now where do we take the plot?" And with each step dug themselves deeper and deeper into not knowing what to do.

Rugterwyper32
11-19-2013, 12:49 AM
Ok, I'll just address a few points here that I disagree with:

Colors of robes and whatnot: This is down to aesthetics, I feel. I, for once, liked the white and red back in AC1, but AC2 onwards I kept feeling the robes were a little ridiculous and the idea of blending with those over-the-top AC2 robes in the middle of everyone didn't really strike me as well. That's why I was excited when I first played as Haytham in AC3, actually, for once I felt "wow, assassins have finally figured out those robes don't cut it any longer!". Alas, he was a templar. But I digress. I feel the robe itself is what really matters in this, and the color combination is more to reflect the personality and objectives of the assassin in some ways. Altair was out for blood in AC1, he was doing his job. Ezio in AC2 was out for blood, for revenge, and in ACB he was gonna kill however many he needed to remove the Borgia from Rome. ACR, the grey robe actually kinda reminded me of Al-Mualim, having a darker tone, showing wisdom and a burdened mind. In AC3, Connor seeks justice and peace, he's loyal to those who are close to him, tries to take the peaceful option if possible (not killing William Johnson is the first example), and if you read up on color psychology of blue, it fits. Still don't know about Edward so I owe you that one. As for the beak, it's not there in AC4 as Edward can't really be considered an assassin at least early on from all I know, and considering his calling his ship "Jackdaw" and the tale of the Eagle and the Jackdaw, it seems fitting to me he wouldn't have it: He looks similar to an assassin, he wears their robes, but he's not one.

As for cities: I really liked AC3's cities. I personally enjoyed seeing something that was rather different from what I was used to, and it was a completely different take from what I knew of the United States before. Or almost completely new, I had visited my girlfriend in Philadelphia the year before but that's beside the point. But then comes my problem with it, compared to other cities in the series, namely AC1 and what AC4 did now: The cities in AC1 wouldn't have had some of their notable landmarks at the point the game took place in. So what did they do? Historical inaccuracies on purpose. Say, Acre, which would have lacked a central landmark, had this fictional huge Gothic cathedral. And there was Damascus which had the Ummayad Mosque with all 3 minarets, even though the third one was completed almost 300 years later! And the problem is, a Patrice game, AC2, started making that more difficult with the introduction of the Database and ignoring what his prior game said about how the history you know isn't what really happened. AC2 had an advantage: The cities had enough landmarks by that point to work with, and you still had all those viewpoints that weren't part of any landmark but were there for gameplay purposes. And while Boston and New York seem like great recreations of the locations at the time, there are not enough artistic liberties to make them more fun from a gameplay standpoint, which is the problem. The amount of viewpoints was small and it was all stuff that actually would have been there. No random towers coming out from houses at the end of a street for no good reason, no landmarks that didn't exist at that point in time but because of the concept of the series they could get away with it... you get what I mean. And also, in previous AC games, you had planks hanging over the streets, platforms, beams coming out from buildings that had no reason to, all for the sake of making freerunning more fun and navigating in cities more fluid, but that was forgotten during this game. Sure, there were trees, but they were underused, and that's part of the problem. And seeing gameplay from Kingston in this game, they actually used them a lot more effectively. The city, from what I could see, looks REALLY fun. A lot more than I expected. And you can see there's more they worked with when it comes to historical inaccuracies on purpose. The Havana Cathedral is there even though it was finished almost 60 years later, for instance. Things like that would have helped the cities in AC3. And regarding the Caribbean, I've seen it as basically what I wanted the Kingdom in AC1 to be, just that rather than horses and crusaders, you have a ship and enemy ships. But it gives me the same feeling I had of the Kingdom, without the emptiness of the Kingdom and how the drive for exploration is simply killed because there's basically nothing to do there.

Freerunning: I much prefer the AC3 style freerunning, as I find it a lot more comfortable and I feel I have more control of speed rather than 4 basic speeds (walk, fast walk, jog, sprint). Pressure sensitive triggers are a fantastic thing, let me tell you (which explains why the Gamecube controller is still one of my favorites). However, I've noticed a few things: A lot of people mention climbing up walls accidentally a lot, and how fast and easy it is to climb things. I feel that, while freerunning should remain mostly as it is, wall climbing should be activated with the old RT+A combo, wall climbing should work as AC2 through ACR (fast enough, bring back the upwards jump and grip move, map gripping after a jump back to B) and the rest can remain as it is. I much prefer having control of the camera while I run around the city than having to stop, change camera angle and move there, but I believe climbing should be slightly more complex and viewpoints should be a little more puzzle-y.

And regarding modern day, I've personally only been engaged in AC1 and during the glyphs in AC2 (some of the rifts in ACB got ridiculous to solve so I tended to ignore them) so it was no big deal for me, though I can agree AC3 could have done a better job with it. But admittedly, by the point it was over, I admittedly thought to myself "Good riddance". I'm actually kinda interested again in AC4's modern day, as dealing with Abstergo covering up their Templar-ness as a gaming company sounds like a fun concept, but honestly I'm not sure how interested I'm about it. To me, modern day is the plot device to explain the videogame elements in the game so it's consistent, and things like the introduction of medicine in AC2 didn't exactly help that consistency, but it's still there. So that's the one reason for me to care about modern day, it allows for things like historical inaccuracies the devs make on purpose to actually work with no complaints on my end, at least.

phoenix-force411
11-19-2013, 01:00 AM
Simple answer: Judge and see for yourself when you play Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. I hate it when people come into the forums and start bashing on the game once they're done stating that they "haven't played it yet".

Every AC game has its own atmosphere to it....

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-19-2013, 02:01 AM
Simple answer: Judge and see for yourself when you play Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. I hate it when people come into the forums and start bashing on the game once they're done stating that they "haven't played it yet".

Every AC game has its own atmosphere to it....

Simple reply: I wasn't bashing. I hate it when people either don't read and assume something or read and don't have reading comprehension.

I simply stated that it feels that Ubi has progressively seemed to lose what they initially started in AC. The bulk of this post was about games I *have* played and a brief comment on things. Most of which were compliments such as them finding a way to make naval aspects feel more natural and look more fun.

Yes, every AC game has its own atmosphere. I wasn't talking about atmosphere as much as I was discussing what seems like a lack of direction in where to take the story such as what seems like, upon reflection, stalling in Revelations and a lack of the core ideals of AC... which to be fair, have slowly been slipping since AC2. How is sailing and plundering at all related to assassin work? I'm not saing it's not cool or needed. In fact, it'd be odd to have a pirate AC game without it...but when you add TOO MUCH, you spread yourself too thin and that's definitely something that needs to be looked at. Now...obviously, seeing as its a free roam game, there needs to be plenty of things to do which is why AC1 is one of the least replayable AC games due to not having enough things in it. but AC3 lost something which AC4 looks to get back, at least somewhat.

I remember being completely excited for the first game as it looked completely unique in a sea of generic, homogenized games. It was set during the Crusades which made for a dark and dreary atmosphere which was cool. I was excited for AC2 because it added in customization which is great for third person games, got rid of the repetitious aspects, and was set during the Renaissance -- a time in history that I love. I mean it was a time when human advanced in intellectual thought since the Dark Ages. I was excited for Brotherhood AND Revelations and I was excited for AC3. AC3 was far from terrible or even bad but it wasn't as fun as AC2, ACB, or ACR. I'm not sure if I prefer AC1 or AC3 or not. Visually, AC3 is obviously superior but I loved the cities in AC1 better and both had good historical stories. That said, AC1's modern day story was far superior to AC3.

AdamPearce
11-19-2013, 02:19 AM
I remember being completely excited for the first game as it looked completely unique in a sea of generic, homogenized games. It was set during the Crusades which made for a dark and dreary atmosphere which was cool. I was excited for AC2 because it added in customization which is great for third person games, got rid of the repetitious aspects, and was set during the Renaissance -- a time in history that I love. I mean it was a time when human advanced in intellectual thought since the Dark Ages. I was excited for Brotherhood AND Revelations and I was excited for AC3. AC3 was far from terrible or even bad but it wasn't as fun as AC2, ACB, or ACR. I'm not sure if I prefer AC1 or AC3 or not. Visually, AC3 is obviously superior but I loved the cities in AC1 better and both had good historical stories. That said, AC1's modern day story was far superior to AC3.

<3

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-19-2013, 02:30 AM
Ok, I'll just address a few points here that I disagree with:

Awesome, agree or disagree -- I like discussions.


Colors of robes and whatnot: This is down to aesthetics, I feel. I, for once, liked the white and red back in AC1, but AC2 onwards I kept feeling the robes were a little ridiculous and the idea of blending with those over-the-top AC2 robes in the middle of everyone didn't really strike me as well. That's why I was excited when I first played as Haytham in AC3, actually, for once I felt "wow, assassins have finally figured out those robes don't cut it any longer!". Alas, he was a templar. But I digress. I feel the robe itself is what really matters in this, and the color combination is more to reflect the personality and objectives of the assassin in some ways. Altair was out for blood in AC1, he was doing his job. Ezio in AC2 was out for blood, for revenge, and in ACB he was gonna kill however many he needed to remove the Borgia from Rome. ACR, the grey robe actually kinda reminded me of Al-Mualim, having a darker tone, showing wisdom and a burdened mind. In AC3, Connor seeks justice and peace, he's loyal to those who are close to him, tries to take the peaceful option if possible (not killing William Johnson is the first example), and if you read up on color psychology of blue, it fits. Still don't know about Edward so I owe you that one. As for the beak, it's not there in AC4 as Edward can't really be considered an assassin at least early on from all I know, and considering his calling his ship "Jackdaw" and the tale of the Eagle and the Jackdaw, it seems fitting to me he wouldn't have it: He looks similar to an assassin, he wears their robes, but he's not one.

True and I personally never really used the dyes. I know people liked them but I always enjoyed the default white and red robes best so the only games I relied on dyes was ACR to get Masyaf White and AC3 for the Jamesown outfit. I agree that the idea of blending in with people while wearing bright white and red robes is ridiculous but it was something I could forgive. Had AC2 not given Ezio white and red robes and din't make the white and red an iconic outfit, then yeah I wouldn't give a foop haha. But they did and following that, they continued the trend in Brotherhood despite giving him a new outfit. Plus They gave Desmond a white and red hoodie (instead of just white) in Brotherhood, further cementing that idea. I was also not against his robes being colored differently in ACR originally especially since I was able to switch to white and red anyway. It's only upon reflection that it seems odd to coincide with the first game to not have input from Patrice is all I was saying. And then following that...Connor's default outfit wasn't white and red, Aveline's wasn't white and red either. Connor was white and blue but had the Jamestown outfit for those who want the classic colors. Aveline wore a lot of brown and didn't even have a hood but also had an alternate outfit with both a hood and primarily white outfit with red highlights for those who want it. But come AC4...that option is all but absent which seems odd. Almost like they've been phasing it out which, like I said, had they not decided to make an iconic design with AC2, would be a-okay with me but that's not what they did.

As for Edward... I totally get it. And to be fair, the Explorer outfit isn't TOO far off but it seems weird to have "Templar Armor" as an unlockable outfit and not include an "Assassin Robes" outfit for us to wear if we really want to look like an Assassin. I don't know much about Edward either but I doubt he's truly an ally for either the Assassins or Templars but I still don't get not including the option, yknow? It's always been there and some liked to have the outfit reflect Altair's, well at least I did.


As for cities: I really liked AC3's cities. I personally enjoyed seeing something that was rather different from what I was used to, and it was a completely different take from what I knew of the United States before. Or almost completely new, I had visited my girlfriend in Philadelphia the year before but that's beside the point. But then comes my problem with it, compared to other cities in the series, namely AC1 and what AC4 did now: The cities in AC1 wouldn't have had some of their notable landmarks at the point the game took place in. So what did they do? Historical inaccuracies on purpose. Say, Acre, which would have lacked a central landmark, had this fictional huge Gothic cathedral. And there was Damascus which had the Ummayad Mosque with all 3 minarets, even though the third one was completed almost 300 years later! And the problem is, a Patrice game, AC2, started making that more difficult with the introduction of the Database and ignoring what his prior game said about how the history you know isn't what really happened. AC2 had an advantage: The cities had enough landmarks by that point to work with, and you still had all those viewpoints that weren't part of any landmark but were there for gameplay purposes. And while Boston and New York seem like great recreations of the locations at the time, there are not enough artistic liberties to make them more fun from a gameplay standpoint, which is the problem. The amount of viewpoints was small and it was all stuff that actually would have been there. No random towers coming out from houses at the end of a street for no good reason, no landmarks that didn't exist at that point in time but because of the concept of the series they could get away with it... you get what I mean. And also, in previous AC games, you had planks hanging over the streets, platforms, beams coming out from buildings that had no reason to, all for the sake of making freerunning more fun and navigating in cities more fluid, but that was forgotten during this game. Sure, there were trees, but they were underused, and that's part of the problem. And seeing gameplay from Kingston in this game, they actually used them a lot more effectively. The city, from what I could see, looks REALLY fun. A lot more than I expected. And you can see there's more they worked with when it comes to historical inaccuracies on purpose. The Havana Cathedral is there even though it was finished almost 60 years later, for instance. Things like that would have helped the cities in AC3. And regarding the Caribbean, I've seen it as basically what I wanted the Kingdom in AC1 to be, just that rather than horses and crusaders, you have a ship and enemy ships. But it gives me the same feeling I had of the Kingdom, without the emptiness of the Kingdom and how the drive for exploration is simply killed because there's basically nothing to do there.

Agreed wholeheartedly. The random things hanging off buildings to make free running really disappeared with AC3 which made the freerunning not as fun. Not because the system was bad (I may prefer the older style but I don't dislike the new one as it's more fluid so it's a toss up) but because the environments just didn't have the same oomph! Which is why Havana looks much better and Kingston, like I mentioned, looks like Boston or NY but with trees used more effectively to connect the city together like rooftops in Havana do. So I think we're in agreement about the cities in AC3 being *interesting* just not as fun to free run around.


Freerunning: I much prefer the AC3 style freerunning, as I find it a lot more comfortable and I feel I have more control of speed rather than 4 basic speeds (walk, fast walk, jog, sprint). Pressure sensitive triggers are a fantastic thing, let me tell you (which explains why the Gamecube controller is still one of my favorites). However, I've noticed a few things: A lot of people mention climbing up walls accidentally a lot, and how fast and easy it is to climb things. I feel that, while freerunning should remain mostly as it is, wall climbing should be activated with the old RT+A combo, wall climbing should work as AC2 through ACR (fast enough, bring back the upwards jump and grip move, map gripping after a jump back to B) and the rest can remain as it is. I much prefer having control of the camera while I run around the city than having to stop, change camera angle and move there, but I believe climbing should be slightly more complex and viewpoints should be a little more puzzle-y.

Again...thisthisthis! Pressure sensitive triggers are great! The reason disliked the parkour was because RT did EVERYTHING. I'd love to have the jump and grip move return and have wall climbing more complicated and same with initiating wall climb -- RT+A combo. Then use RT to determine running speed from a jog to sprint utilizing different pressures. Like you said, that would be the best of both worlds.


And regarding modern day, I've personally only been engaged in AC1 and during the glyphs in AC2 (some of the rifts in ACB got ridiculous to solve so I tended to ignore them) so it was no big deal for me, though I can agree AC3 could have done a better job with it. But admittedly, by the point it was over, I admittedly thought to myself "Good riddance". I'm actually kinda interested again in AC4's modern day, as dealing with Abstergo covering up their Templar-ness as a gaming company sounds like a fun concept, but honestly I'm not sure how interested I'm about it. To me, modern day is the plot device to explain the videogame elements in the game so it's consistent, and things like the introduction of medicine in AC2 didn't exactly help that consistency, but it's still there. So that's the one reason for me to care about modern day, it allows for things like historical inaccuracies the devs make on purpose to actually work with no complaints on my end, at least.

I agree somewhat but I did like the overarching Desmond story and was hoping something would come of it and then...nothing. IT just went...nowhere. I am interested in the modern story again even if it sounds cheesy with Abstergo making video games (within a video game haha) but I know there are computers to hack so I hope it helps flesh out just what the heck happened in AC3 and hopefully find a way to make it not suck so bad lol. That said... I grew to like Shaun and Rebecca so it'll be weird to get used to not having any of the familiar faces from modern times. Heck, we don't even know how Shaun, Rebecca, and Desmond's dad acted after Desmond died!! I'm not sure if AC4 will answer hat but I also find it hard for it to do so considering no one at Abstergo was there when it happened. But yeah.

Kagurra
11-19-2013, 02:54 AM
So, I read the whole thing, but all I really have to say is...

I really, really love the non-beaked hood and hope to see it again.

AC2_alex
11-19-2013, 03:01 AM
I'm glad that they are distancing themselves. As long as they don't forget the core that made AC originally great, then I encourage this.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-19-2013, 03:03 AM
So, I read the whole thing, but all I really have to say is...

I really, really love the non-beaked hood and hope to see it again.

I like hoods of all variety. In AC3: Liberation.. I read you could purchase a hood for Aveline to wear instead of the hat. My question is why not let us have more variety. I thought with AC2, we'd start to se more customization what with armor and dyes and it continued in ACB allowing us to dye the cape separately and then went back in ACR as there was no cape nor any "black" dye that I recall which is strange because people love the black outfits. Then it went further back in AC3 giving us only a handful of outfit colors and went kind of back up in AC4 by giving us cloaks, british official outfits, and a couple color alterations to the default robes.

Why not let us select different types of hoods to really flesh out what we want to look like. For instance.. Altair's hood was really closed... it was essentially a hood with an oval opening and was really tight around the head...it really obstructed view. Then Ezio had an open but ornate hood in each of his games which made sense . Connor had a hood with a STRONG beak and was open but looked almost like a separate part of the outfit where as Altair and Ezio's looked more like it was part of it. Aveline and Achilles wore hats with beaks in the front and now Edward uses a non-beaked hood. Why not let us choose to have a non-beaked hood, a beaked open hood like Ezio or Connor, or a beaked closed hood like Altair? More aesthetics are always welcome!

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-19-2013, 03:07 AM
I'm glad that they are distancing themselves. As long as they don't forget the core that made AC originally great, then I encourage this.

That's just it though... I don't need them constantly name dropping Altair or Ezio every game but they already established a universe that is inherently connected throughout time. Assassins and Templars have both existed since prehistoric times according to this game, there are aliens, certain individuals have alien-like blood allowing them to have abilities above those of ordinary humans, etc.

The series is about Assassins v. Templars, assassinations, parkour, and a modern day framework to help bring about the historical bulk of the games. But when parkour suffers because the cities are bad or when visual motifs are ignores or forgotten or not even included as an option... it's just odd.

AdamPearce
11-19-2013, 04:08 AM
Why not let us select different types of hoods to really flesh out what we want to look like. For instance.. Altair's hood was really closed... it was essentially a hood with an oval opening and was really tight around the head...it really obstructed view. Then Ezio had an open but ornate hood in each of his games which made sense . Connor had a hood with a STRONG beak and was open but looked almost like a separate part of the outfit where as Altair and Ezio's looked more like it was part of it. Aveline and Achilles wore hats with beaks in the front and now Edward uses a non-beaked hood. Why not let us choose to have a non-beaked hood, a beaked open hood like Ezio or Connor, or a beaked closed hood like Altair? More aesthetics are always welcome!

They don't have enough time to do that because of the crappy annual realeaseof the games.

SpiritMuse
11-19-2013, 04:48 AM
That's just it though... I don't need them constantly name dropping Altair or Ezio every game but they already established a universe that is inherently connected throughout time. Assassins and Templars have both existed since prehistoric times according to this game, there are aliens, certain individuals have alien-like blood allowing them to have abilities above those of ordinary humans, etc.

As I understand it the First Civ aren't aliens. They originate from earth, and were simply the first human-like species to evolve. They created humans as I think essentially a simpler version of themselves that they could put to work doing menial labour. And apparently cross-breeding was possible, leading to some humans having First Civ DNA. Or maybe they tried creating hybrids, I'm not sure.

The hackings in AC4 get you some really interesting extra bits of lore, some that give a new perspective on things that have happened in previous games. Also, AC Initiates is a really nice site to gain some more lore. Though stay away from the "up to date surveillance" part, as it will spoil some things for the modern day part of AC4.


They don't have enough time to do that because of the crappy annual realeaseof the games.

Actually, they do work on these things for much longer than a year. Ubisoft have some 24 production offices around the world, they can work on more than one game at a time. :)

Landruner
11-19-2013, 04:58 AM
@BoBwUzHeRe1138: I will be short & I won't explain my opinion since a lot of people above resumed a lot what I could say and even in better way I could explain it myself.
I believe they do!
While, I am glad about the pirate gameplay and it is actually really cool and I would like more of this -
The down side is that the Assassin part and gameplay is pretty shallow and it needs to be reviewed, re- balanced, improved & enhanced in a lot of points if not from scratch. A lot of people are actually asking why they did not called it "Pirate's Creed"?, and they are right because the Assassin parts are almost gone.

AdamPearce
11-19-2013, 06:00 AM
Actually, they do work on these things for much longer than a year. Ubisoft have some 24 production offices around the world, they can work on more than one game at a time. :)

Well it`s clearely not enough for a game that huge. Plus, they probably don't even have the money to do it because of the completely stupid Ubisoft's marketing that takes half of the f***ing budget of the game!!!!

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-19-2013, 09:30 AM
As I understand it the First Civ aren't aliens. They originate from earth, and were simply the first human-like species to evolve. They created humans as I think essentially a simpler version of themselves that they could put to work doing menial labour. And apparently cross-breeding was possible, leading to some humans having First Civ DNA. Or maybe they tried creating hybrids, I'm not sure.

The hackings in AC4 get you some really interesting extra bits of lore, some that give a new perspective on things that have happened in previous games. Also, AC Initiates is a really nice site to gain some more lore. Though stay away from the "up to date surveillance" part, as it will spoil some things for the modern day part of AC4.



Actually, they do work on these things for much longer than a year. Ubisoft have some 24 production offices around the world, they can work on more than one game at a time. :)

How do you figure that they're from Earth? I always assumed they were aliens who settled on Earth though they easily could have originated here. Maybe there was something in one of the games I missed? Regardless, I do believe it was crossbreeding and not lab-created hybrids that resulted in people like Altair and Ezio.

Yeah, I;ll definitely hit up the computers and that site once I have AC4.


@BoBwUzHeRe1138: I will be short & I won't explain my opinion since a lot of people above resumed a lot what I could say and even in better way I could explain it myself.
I believe they do!
While, I am glad about the pirate gameplay and it is actually really cool and I would like more of this -
The down side is that the Assassin part and gameplay is pretty shallow and it needs to be reviewed, re- balanced, improved & enhanced in a lot of points if not from scratch. A lot of people are actually asking why they did not called it "Pirate's Creed"?, and they are right because the Assassin parts are almost gone.

Agreed. I'll be getting it eventually as Havana looks way better than Boston or NY from AC3 and even Kingston is like a prettier and more fun looking version of Boston. I just wish... I just wish they'd step back and realize that we don't need "assassin but also ______", the series only needs "Assassin."

Edward is an Assassin... but he's a pirate first. Even Connor to a degree is "a native first, Assassin second" though not as much as Ed it seems. Again... the next AC does NOT need sailing and plundering. It simply needs to focus on the lore and give us a compelling Assassin character. Give us more to do and not just in a ridiculous sized game world of water. I'm not bashing the naval stuff, I'm saying it's not CORE to AC.

For instance... the next AC would be so much better IMO if...

-They cut out naval stuff
-Instead of sea combat, they give us more to do on land: rescuing citizens from guards, catching muggers and returning purses to people, chasing down bank robbers, recruiting Assassins, random Assassination Contracts (instead of a set number of contracts -- the game could have randomly generated ones that NEVER run out so we never get to a point where there's nothing new to do), etc.
-give us new and more ways to blend, assassinate, etc.
-Incorporate a cooperative multiplayer mode allowing two or more players to run around and explore the cities together (perhaps they could make an online version of the single player game world and make a multiplayer mode similar to what GTA V did...)
-Look at the parkour and find a nice balance of old and new: have the speed of running determined by pressure on the trigger but have climbing walls activated only by holding RT and A, bring back the leap and grab buttons to make climbing less...automatic and more like the old games.
-Bring back the customization and make it better than ever: different dyes, different outfits, different PARTS of outfits (beaked and non-beaked hoods), etc.
-Let us unequip things like armor and acquired weapons and let us go to an Assassin Den-type thing or at various stores to equip ourselves... do we want to take the crossbow on our next mission? No? Okay, leave it behind. Do we want smoke bombs? Yes? Take them!
-Bring back Assassin and Templar Dens and make it so they can be attacked but rather than switching to a Den Defense mini-game.. keep the core mechanics and have a big fight between Templars and Assassins, including the player, take place. Kill all the attacking Templars to keep the Den. Don't let dens lock so that way Templars will always attack to give us something to do post-game.
-Update the Notoriety Bar and bring in "popular opinion" of the player in a civilian Influence system: Make it so that there are different sections of the cities and each section has it's own notoriety for you. Pickpocket to many civilians and perhaps next time you're being chased by guards, they will throw rocks at you, preventing you from climbing to escape. Save civilians from guards and perhaps next time they will come to your aid. If your influence is high enough in a particular section, you can start riots like in AC3.
-Bring back the various factions and like Assassination Contracts, have randomly generating Thief and Merc and Prostitute assignments so they never end.
-Make blending more robust and have the character do whatever the crowd is doing. for instance, stand near a person playing an instrument, the character will clap when the other civilians do while blending. If the character is using prostitutes to blend, have him talk to them and flirt with them instead of just standing there like Ezio did.
-Keep the fast walk from AC3 where it does NOT pickpocket people automatically and have it be like AC3 which streamlined fast walking, pickpocketing, and pushing people out of the way gently very well -- instead of B being used to push people out of the way and A being used for fast walking and auto-pickpocketing, A is both the fast walk and the gentle push while B is pickpocketing. I don't care if it's like AC1 or AC3 pickpocketing which is slow and takes a bit or like AC2-ACR style where it's instant so long as the buttons that control it and fast walk are separate.
-Remember to have intentional historical inaccuracies to have buildings that may not have been there to be there anyway so the exploration is fun.

None of that involves boats because the series doesn't HAVE to. If they think of an interesting setting...it doesn't HAVE to be a setting which would have a lot of sailing. If they try and stick only to places where sailing was a large aspect of culture...they'll woefully limit themselves. Likewise, they shouldn't try to shoehorn a sailing component to a setting where it doesn't really fit and instead focus on the above. Even FOR places where sailing works, they should make sure things like the above are done first and then worry about including the sailing system. Don't get too spread out or you'll be too thin. Do what the series does best AND THEN if you have the time and resources...spread out. The original games sold well without the need of sailing mechanics... it's not NECESSARY. Is it fun? Most likely... if you want to have a series that always has that.. make a new Pirate franchise. If you want to continue AC, please look at what it does best.

SpiritMuse
11-19-2013, 01:02 PM
How do you figure that they're from Earth? I always assumed they were aliens who settled on Earth though they easily could have originated here. Maybe there was something in one of the games I missed? Regardless, I do believe it was crossbreeding and not lab-created hybrids that resulted in people like Altair and Ezio.

Yeah, I;ll definitely hit up the computers and that site once I have AC4.

It is admittedly vague, but it's never stated that they are not originally from earth. None of them ever said anything to the effect of "we came to earth", just that they were there before humans, and created the humans as essentially a "simpleminded" slave labor force, controlled by the Apples. Hybrid humans with First Civ DNA were immune to the Apples' effects, and it's not clear how they came to be.

I do think the next AC should be "going back to basics". After all the deviation and evolution of the concept I think it's time.

Farlander1991
11-19-2013, 04:37 PM
Darby once said that AC4 is the first AC game that doesn't have absolutely any Patrice in it.

Lucy being a Templar was originated in AC2 and heavily hinted at in ACB - that wasn't something ACR devs pulled out out of nowhere.
American Revolution was also a setting that Patrice thought would've been interesting.

And, you know, while I respect the hell out of Patrice, I think that... well... people have very pink-tinted glasses when it comes to his hypothetical involvement in AC post AC2/ACB.

For example: the modern day part clearly couldn't sustain two main plots at the same time - the satellite Templar vs. Assassin plot and the save the world from the flare plot. Which games those plots were introduced in? That's right, AC1 and AC2 (with AC2 being the trouble maker).

And let's not forget that AC was supposed to be a trilogy. Here's a question. How the hell would AC3 resolve the Subject 16 subplot, the Lucy subplot, and both the main Templar vs. Assassins and Solar Flare plots, as well as give Desmond a noticeable character arc? AC1, AC2 and ACB were just 'set up, set up, set up, set up, set up', with no resolution to anything when it came to the modern day plot, and AC3 as it is had enough troubles with the two main plots and a single subplot (father/son relationship introduced in ACR, alluded to in AC1 though maybe that also was an idea from the get go).

What I'm saying is, while annualization of the franchise didn't do that much good to the modern day plotline (parallel development really did a number on things... for example, we know that ACR wasn't an intended game at all and ACB ended with a coma, so AC3 HAD to start with a coma and then suddenly it had to give some of its stuff to ACR, and so on), but let's not fool ourselves here: objectively speaking the famous AC2 end twist had sealed the fate of the AC Desmond Saga modern day plot not being resolved in any proper way (MAYBE if it were just a pure modern day game, but there's no confirmation that a modern day game was planned at all beyond the wishes of some people, and we also know that Patrice thought of American Revolution for AC3, so, yeah...). Had it been just the stop the satellite plot (with one/two subplots, like let's say Lucy subplot and Desmond arc, with Subject 16 just being a part of the Lucy plot and not setting up for something bigger), things could have been so much easier.

AdamPearce
11-19-2013, 04:58 PM
What I'm saying is, while annualization of the franchise didn't do that much good to the modern day plotline (parallel development really did a number on things... for example, we know that ACR wasn't an intended game at all and ACB ended with a coma, so AC3 HAD to start with a coma and then suddenly it had to give some of its stuff to ACR, and so on), but let's not fool ourselves here: objectively speaking the famous AC2 end twist had sealed the fate of the AC Desmond Saga modern day plot not being resolved in any proper way (MAYBE if it were just a pure modern day game, but there's no confirmation that a modern day game was planned at all beyond the wishes of some people, and we also know that Patrice thought of American Revolution for AC3, so, yeah...). Had it been just the stop the satellite plot (with one/two subplots, like let's say Lucy subplot and Desmond arc, with Subject 16 just being a part of the Lucy plot and not setting up for something bigger), things could have been so much easier.

If ACR didn't existed at all, AC3 would have had 4 writers, and two of em would've been familiar to the franchise (Darby and May, since Yohalem is on FC3, he could not have showed up: he did the whole enigmas and S16 plot I think). Anyway, the whole ACR team could've become a Modern Day team developement, I mean, they did ACR in like a year and a half, and ACR is freaking huge, I'm sure they could've come up with an awesome modern day part. Corey could've done the Connor story, Darby the modern day story and the two others would've solve the S16 and Lucy subplots. I still think that the dream team (Patrice, Corey & Jade) could do something to redress the serie and get back on road but, meeh, that's not gonna happen...

Landruner
11-19-2013, 05:33 PM
How do you figure that they're from Earth? I always assumed they were aliens who settled on Earth though they easily could have originated here. Maybe there was something in one of the games I missed? Regardless, I do believe it was crossbreeding and not lab-created hybrids that resulted in people like Altair and Ezio.

Yeah, I;ll definitely hit up the computers and that site once I have AC4.



Agreed. I'll be getting it eventually as Havana looks way better than Boston or NY from AC3 and even Kingston is like a prettier and more fun looking version of Boston. I just wish... I just wish they'd step back and realize that we don't need "assassin but also ______", the series only needs "Assassin."

Edward is an Assassin... but he's a pirate first. Even Connor to a degree is "a native first, Assassin second" though not as much as Ed it seems. Again... the next AC does NOT need sailing and plundering. It simply needs to focus on the lore and give us a compelling Assassin character. Give us more to do and not just in a ridiculous sized game world of water. I'm not bashing the naval stuff, I'm saying it's not CORE to AC.

For instance... the next AC would be so much better IMO if...

-They cut out naval stuff
-Instead of sea combat, they give us more to do on land: rescuing citizens from guards, catching muggers and returning purses to people, chasing down bank robbers, recruiting Assassins, random Assassination Contracts (instead of a set number of contracts -- the game could have randomly generated ones that NEVER run out so we never get to a point where there's nothing new to do), etc.
-give us new and more ways to blend, assassinate, etc.
-Incorporate a cooperative multiplayer mode allowing two or more players to run around and explore the cities together (perhaps they could make an online version of the single player game world and make a multiplayer mode similar to what GTA V did...)
-Look at the parkour and find a nice balance of old and new: have the speed of running determined by pressure on the trigger but have climbing walls activated only by holding RT and A, bring back the leap and grab buttons to make climbing less...automatic and more like the old games.
-Bring back the customization and make it better than ever: different dyes, different outfits, different PARTS of outfits (beaked and non-beaked hoods), etc.
-Let us unequip things like armor and acquired weapons and let us go to an Assassin Den-type thing or at various stores to equip ourselves... do we want to take the crossbow on our next mission? No? Okay, leave it behind. Do we want smoke bombs? Yes? Take them!
-Bring back Assassin and Templar Dens and make it so they can be attacked but rather than switching to a Den Defense mini-game.. keep the core mechanics and have a big fight between Templars and Assassins, including the player, take place. Kill all the attacking Templars to keep the Den. Don't let dens lock so that way Templars will always attack to give us something to do post-game.
-Update the Notoriety Bar and bring in "popular opinion" of the player in a civilian Influence system: Make it so that there are different sections of the cities and each section has it's own notoriety for you. Pickpocket to many civilians and perhaps next time you're being chased by guards, they will throw rocks at you, preventing you from climbing to escape. Save civilians from guards and perhaps next time they will come to your aid. If your influence is high enough in a particular section, you can start riots like in AC3.
-Bring back the various factions and like Assassination Contracts, have randomly generating Thief and Merc and Prostitute assignments so they never end.
-Make blending more robust and have the character do whatever the crowd is doing. for instance, stand near a person playing an instrument, the character will clap when the other civilians do while blending. If the character is using prostitutes to blend, have him talk to them and flirt with them instead of just standing there like Ezio did.
-Keep the fast walk from AC3 where it does NOT pickpocket people automatically and have it be like AC3 which streamlined fast walking, pickpocketing, and pushing people out of the way gently very well -- instead of B being used to push people out of the way and A being used for fast walking and auto-pickpocketing, A is both the fast walk and the gentle push while B is pickpocketing. I don't care if it's like AC1 or AC3 pickpocketing which is slow and takes a bit or like AC2-ACR style where it's instant so long as the buttons that control it and fast walk are separate.
-Remember to have intentional historical inaccuracies to have buildings that may not have been there to be there anyway so the exploration is fun.

None of that involves boats because the series doesn't HAVE to. If they think of an interesting setting...it doesn't HAVE to be a setting which would have a lot of sailing. If they try and stick only to places where sailing was a large aspect of culture...they'll woefully limit themselves. Likewise, they shouldn't try to shoehorn a sailing component to a setting where it doesn't really fit and instead focus on the above. Even FOR places where sailing works, they should make sure things like the above are done first and then worry about including the sailing system. Don't get too spread out or you'll be too thin. Do what the series does best AND THEN if you have the time and resources...spread out. The original games sold well without the need of sailing mechanics... it's not NECESSARY. Is it fun? Most likely... if you want to have a series that always has that.. make a new Pirate franchise. If you want to continue AC, please look at what it does best.

You know they could have made a good Pirate and Assassin 's game at the same time, and find the right balance between the two - they just did not pick that direction for whatever reasons they had or any excuse they may come with...

I read your post above, and I agree and support most of suggestions - For the pirates naval story; here is my conclusion and I believe its what is going to happen.
They are going to exploit the "Black Flag" label and turn it into its own franchise, which will be independent from the next ACs - I talk about that with some others and that is more and less the general consensus about it.
However; I believe they are going to rebalance the AC series based upon the feedback they recently got, I am sure they will...
So, hopefully the next assassin' creed should be more assassin' oriented in term of gameplay. (???)

Farlander1991
11-19-2013, 05:44 PM
If ACR didn't existed at all, AC3 would have had 4 writers, and two of em would've been familiar to the franchise (Darby and May, since Yohalem is on FC3, he could not have showed up: he did the whole enigmas and S16 plot I think). Anyway, the whole ACR team could've become a Modern Day team developement, I mean, they did ACR in like a year and a half, and ACR is freaking huge, I'm sure they could've come up with an awesome modern day part. Corey could've done the Connor story, Darby the modern day story and the two others would've solve the S16 and Lucy subplots. I still think that the dream team (Patrice, Corey & Jade) could do something to redress the serie and get back on road but, meeh, that's not gonna happen...

If ACR didn't exist, Darby would've been the writer on AC: Lost Legacy. Darby was responsible for the handheld game scripts at the time, and was invited to ACR mainly because ACR originated from a handheld game he wrote the outline for. And if AC:Lost Legacy would've been cancelled and ACR didn't exist, there's no guarantee that Darby would've been brought in for AC3.

Also, ACR was done in 10 months, not a year and a half. HOWEVER. ACR had the advantage of a huge base already being infront of them (and if you look closely enough, you may notice that Constantinople uses a lot of retextured models from previous games including AC1, so there's that). AC3 had tons of new technologies that were a hurdle. Additional people would've made the hurdles easier to cross, but AC3 still would've been problematic.

Landruner
11-19-2013, 05:52 PM
If ACR didn't existed at all, AC3 would have had 4 writers, and two of em would've been familiar to the franchise (Darby and May, since Yohalem is on FC3, he could not have showed up: he did the whole enigmas and S16 plot I think). Anyway, the whole ACR team could've become a Modern Day team developement, I mean, they did ACR in like a year and a half, and ACR is freaking huge, I'm sure they could've come up with an awesome modern day part. Corey could've done the Connor story, Darby the modern day story and the two others would've solve the S16 and Lucy subplots. I still think that the dream team (Patrice, Corey & Jade) could do something to redress the serie and get back on road but, meeh, that's not gonna happen...

@Adam - Darby started working on the PSP & DS AC games before ACR, which was supposed to be a DS version originally as well - ACR was its first real writing for an AC game and he was the head writer - The modern day had been a let down because it was not part of the original story for the DS version and the feedback for the modern day started becoming negative because of ACB's ending...Corey May as a co-writer did not have time to come with something more for the modern day and they found that idea to trap Desmond in limbo in the animus because they had not idea where to go, and some executives told them to be care less because the feedback were negative - that is that simple.

Darby has not been involved in AC3 only Corey May as head writer was, logically Darby started to work on a project for AC3 that became AC4. I am not sure that Yohalem is any longer working for the AC's games since Brotherhood, but more involved in the Far Cry's series now.

Landruner
11-19-2013, 06:21 PM
If ACR didn't exist, Darby would've been the writer on AC: Lost Legacy. Darby was responsible for the handheld game scripts at the time, and was invited to ACR mainly because ACR originated from a handheld game he wrote the outline for. And if AC:Lost Legacy would've been cancelled and ACR didn't exist, there's no guarantee that Darby would've been brought in for AC3.

Also, ACR was done in 10 months, not a year and a half. HOWEVER. ACR had the advantage of a huge base already being infront of them (and if you look closely enough, you may notice that Constantinople uses a lot of retextured models from previous games including AC1, so there's that). AC3 had tons of new technologies that were a hurdle. Additional people would've made the hurdles easier to cross, but AC3 still would've been problematic.

We wrote almost the same explanation at the same time LOL!!!;)

AC2_alex
11-19-2013, 08:12 PM
That's just it though... I don't need them constantly name dropping Altair or Ezio every game but they already established a universe that is inherently connected throughout time. Assassins and Templars have both existed since prehistoric times according to this game, there are aliens, certain individuals have alien-like blood allowing them to have abilities above those of ordinary humans, etc.

The series is about Assassins v. Templars, assassinations, parkour, and a modern day framework to help bring about the historical bulk of the games. But when parkour suffers because the cities are bad or when visual motifs are ignores or forgotten or not even included as an option... it's just odd.

I agree, Ezio and Altair don't need to be name dropped.

All I mean by "core AC" is the gameplay elements, and as you said, it still has to be a story about Assassin's vs. Templars with a modern day thread.

pirate1802
11-19-2013, 08:12 PM
It is admittedly vague, but it's never stated that they are not originally from earth. None of them ever said anything to the effect of "we came to earth", just that they were there before humans, and created the humans as essentially a "simpleminded" slave labor force, controlled by the Apples. Hybrid humans with First Civ DNA were immune to the Apples' effects, and it's not clear how they came to be.

I do think the next AC should be "going back to basics". After all the deviation and evolution of the concept I think it's time.

Wasn't there an Abstergo dossier in ACR MP that stated the TWCB were children of this earth just like us, shaped by evolution...? (paraphrased)

Rugterwyper32
11-19-2013, 08:14 PM
Darby once said that AC4 is the first AC game that doesn't have absolutely any Patrice in it.

Lucy being a Templar was originated in AC2 and heavily hinted at in ACB - that wasn't something ACR devs pulled out out of nowhere.
American Revolution was also a setting that Patrice thought would've been interesting.

And, you know, while I respect the hell out of Patrice, I think that... well... people have very pink-tinted glasses when it comes to his hypothetical involvement in AC post AC2/ACB.

For example: the modern day part clearly couldn't sustain two main plots at the same time - the satellite Templar vs. Assassin plot and the save the world from the flare plot. Which games those plots were introduced in? That's right, AC1 and AC2 (with AC2 being the trouble maker).

And let's not forget that AC was supposed to be a trilogy. Here's a question. How the hell would AC3 resolve the Subject 16 subplot, the Lucy subplot, and both the main Templar vs. Assassins and Solar Flare plots, as well as give Desmond a noticeable character arc? AC1, AC2 and ACB were just 'set up, set up, set up, set up, set up', with no resolution to anything when it came to the modern day plot, and AC3 as it is had enough troubles with the two main plots and a single subplot (father/son relationship introduced in ACR, alluded to in AC1 though maybe that also was an idea from the get go).

What I'm saying is, while annualization of the franchise didn't do that much good to the modern day plotline (parallel development really did a number on things... for example, we know that ACR wasn't an intended game at all and ACB ended with a coma, so AC3 HAD to start with a coma and then suddenly it had to give some of its stuff to ACR, and so on), but let's not fool ourselves here: objectively speaking the famous AC2 end twist had sealed the fate of the AC Desmond Saga modern day plot not being resolved in any proper way (MAYBE if it were just a pure modern day game, but there's no confirmation that a modern day game was planned at all beyond the wishes of some people, and we also know that Patrice thought of American Revolution for AC3, so, yeah...). Had it been just the stop the satellite plot (with one/two subplots, like let's say Lucy subplot and Desmond arc, with Subject 16 just being a part of the Lucy plot and not setting up for something bigger), things could have been so much easier.

Now that you mention it, I can agree with that. In fact, what I've been wondering is what if the focus had remained the satellite plot, Those Who Came Before and Subject 16 remaining as mysterious presences (TWCB were mentioned by Vidic and you can figure out the Pieces of Eden aren't exactly realistic; 16 as a reminder of what Desmond could have become and the one who learned too much to the point of madness). I'm trying to think about a "what-if" scenario where the events of ACB (with the exception the fall of Monteriggioni) happened in AC2, including the modern day parts, and TWCB had remained as something beyond comprehension. See, I almost feel that, without the part of TWCB not showing up (because they would have anyway) the events of ACB would have fit perfectly into AC2. I'm pretty convinced the assets for Rome were already there, just locked as was the case with the southern part of Florence or the one island in Venice you can see south of the district where the carnival takes place but you can't get to. So that much has me wondering.

Well, guess we'll never know.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-19-2013, 10:43 PM
Okay, see you guys know a bit more than me. I had no idea that ACR was never originally intended but like I said, upon reflection...it does seem to just be sitting there, twiddling its thumbs as it waits for AC3 to finish the modern day story. The issue was they introduced too many subplots.

Character relationships aside.... each game had to have both a modern story as a framing device and a historical one to place most of the game play in and as a means of uncovering clues to help in the modern story. That's already TWO stories but then they decided to have both the solar flare AND Templar satellite plot points in the modern story meaning "uhhh....wtf, we don't know"

I feel they should have scrapped one or the other. If they were going to have both, they could have found a better way to do it: Make it so the sun flare won't occur as long as the satellite isn't launched (the piece of eden inside the satellite would be closer to the sun and once activated the satellite would become super powerful and thus something causes a flare in the sun. That way, Desmond's goal is to stop the satellite from launching which will 1. prevent Templar domination and 2. save the world. OR Have the Assassins and Templars have a temporary cease fire, come together and find a way to stop the flare.

The mysterious satellite launch was cool but the introduction of the flare complicates the story but given enough time, they could have found a good way of finishing up both points...

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-19-2013, 10:48 PM
Oh as for Lucy -- see I wasn't aware they had planned it from AC2. The only suspicious thing I could think of is when the Templars find them at the end of AC2 but that could easily have just been the Templars utilizing their resources to track them. I forgot the hints in ACB (other than her getting killed which we'd later find out was because she was a Templar.)

What I mean to say is that it seems like they originally wanted to do something else with her (love interest seems likely) but then decided to make her a Templar working for the Assassins to infiltrate the Templars. I mean, it's all just...idk. I feel they should have given more of a set-up but maybe I'm just not remembering the hints.

I hate twists for that reason. If they're set up well and it's possible to figure it out prior without simply guessing -- then I'm all for it BUT I hate when twists just do something like "WHOA! BET YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT!!" And it's like "well no, I didn't because you clearly just threw that in."