PDA

View Full Version : Is Ubisoft getting lazy on the Assassin's Creed series?



Pizzaboi2013
11-24-2013, 08:09 AM
Seriously, if you've played all the way from Altair to Edward, you know what I'm talking about. I recently just finished playing the storyline for Assassin's Creed IV, and I have to say, the storyline, ship combat, free-roaming on land, and weapons/tools have been very disappointing. And here's why...

1) I'll start with naval combat. I believe that Ubisoft became EXTREMELY lazy with the ship combat, even though they knew that ship combat would be a major part of Black Flag. If you played AC3 naval missions, the broadsides, cannons, and crew member animations were pretty real and thorough right? Now compare that with Black Flag's animations. See the difference? The difference should be obvious (sorry for sounding ignorant): in Black Flag there is no reload animations for cannons, no crew members handling the cannons and on top of that the cannons don't even sound like they're firing on their own! In AC3 you can actually hear your cannons going off one-by-one, while in AC4 you just hear a sound loop for broadsides. Same thing for the swivels, accept there are actually people arming them. Remember in AC3 you could change your ammo to grapeshot, chainshot, heavy shot, or round shot? Black Flag dissed that, and thus, naval combat is less strategical. IN ADDITION, AC4 naval combat is just spamming R1 and triangle 24/7 until you incapacitate the ship or sink it. It gets too repetitive throughout the game.

2) FREE ROAMING ON LAND SUCKS SO MUCH BALLS. If you watched the gameplay of AC4, you might remember the director wanting to show off how big the AC4 world was. Well, that was rather false advertisement. When you get into one of the main cities in the game, you might think "WOW! Look at how much land there is to explore, who knows how long it'll take to fully synchronize this part!?" But in reality, about only 7% of the land in AC4 is explorable, and the rest is just for show. In addition, Ubisoft added courtesans into AC4, which you will probably never ever use.However, there was an improvement for parkouring throughout the maps. Remember in AC3 all the buildings were connected together which prohibited a lot of parkour? Ubisoft even had the nerves to introduce parkour vaults into AC3. Ubisoft made a great improvement to parkouring.

3) THE STORYLINE WAS ****ING RUSHED! Truth be told, the AC3 storyline was the first time Ubisoft ever disappointed me, even though I knew they worked hard and long for it (that's what she said). Well, Assassin' Creed 4 storyline was so short, so fast, and so disappointing (that's what she said) that I was shocked. Probably Ubisoft relied more on free roaming than the storyline, which is a HUGE mistake. (SPOILERS AHEAD! READ ALONG THIS PARAGRAPH AT YOUR OWN RISK) For example, you meet all these infamous pirates, and the next hour or two of playing the storyline they all die?! DAFUQ!!!! Their personalities where so vaguely represented. Like seriously, when Edward's brig got stolen by whatever his name was (another example), you guys didn't even bother letting us get back his brig, only just a cutscene then BAM! Our brig is back! The ending, however, was rather good and heart warming in my opinion.

4) Another thing that was trash about this game was the amount of upgrades on the Jackdaw and Edward. I'll start off with the Jackdaw. THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER UPGRADES THAT CAN BE PUT ON THE JACKDAW AND EDWARD!!!!! When I finished the game and fully upgraded the Jackdaw, I thought to myself "Why are there such limited amount of upgrades not the Jackdaw?" I can think of so many other upgrades for he Jackdaw. Here are my ideas: Cannon strength upgrade, grapeshot, another deck for cannons, gunpowder strength upgrade, improved rudder, and improved sails. For Edward, I believe that Ubisoft did all that they can for his upgrades, accept for the fact that he can only hold 4 pistols, which I believe should be raised to at least 6 or 8. Something that sucks is the fact that you can buy skins to craft Instead of having to go hunt or fish for it.

5) THE TOOLS AND WEAPONS ARE SO LIMITED!!!!!!! The one tools you get in AC4 are the roped arts, blowpipe, and smoke bomb, which was a big downfall in Black Flag. Ubisoft should've added a whole bunch of other tools from AC Revelations, even if it would've been copied and pasted. Now for the weapons; why is there such a limited amount of swords? There are only about 8 sword sets (I think) for AC4 that you didn't have to wait for. In addition, the single-sword was removed from AC4, not unless you disarm a soldier. There were only I believe 6 pistol sets. It was easy to acquire the most lethal weapon in Black Flag due to low cost and the fact that you can make money easily in the game.

6) Also, the ships were also limited. There were only 5 main types of ships: Man O' War, Frigate, Brig, Schooner, and the gunboat. To AC4 ship developers, I know you guys know that there were way more ships other than those 5. Why not add the trading ships too? A galleon is one, a cargo ship, merchant ship, and much much more. Also, there wasn't just one type of frigate. There was the first rate frigate, second rate frigate, and etc all the way down to 5. In addition to this, Black Flag should've had other pirate enemy ships.


Telling from the downfall of AC3 and AC4, we, fans of Assassin's Creed, can conclude that Ubisoft is getting lazy on the Assassin's Creed series.
Please don't let the next Assassin's Creed game be disappointing, thank you.
I also want to thank you all for reading my giant complaint post :p

roostersrule2
11-24-2013, 08:18 AM
I agree with 1, 3 and 5.

I have no idea why they removed the extra animations and sounds of the ship, you would have thought they would add more.

Free-roaming it back to it's best in AC4 IMO, it's just fun to go around Havana and the Islands to cause mischief.

I totally agree with this point, the story was AC4's worst part.

There were an adequate amount of upgrades IMO.

Indeed, there are only two main weapons in AC4, that just isn't enough and the tools weren't that diverse either.

didn;t care about the amount of ships as I just had fun plundering them but there were merchant ships and there are different levels for each ship to give it diversity.

Thayin2012
11-24-2013, 08:27 AM
In all honesty, I think that you're being very harsh on a game that most people have enjoyed and has got an aggregate rating of around 85.

Ubisoft are working really hard to put out many games. If you're going to complain about all these things, rather calm down, think about the game in the whole realm of things, and buy Ghosts or something.

You definitely have some valid points, but things like not being able to change your ammunition are minuscule. The mortar is more effective than any of the other upgrades you could buy for the Aquila, and I'd rather have the heavy shot than the flaming cannonballs.

The amount of upgrades are definitely a huge amount, but if you think about it, they all seem realistic. You can either go slowly and upgrade your Hull piece by piece, or you can save up and do it all at once, which seems quite realistic to me.

You definitely have some very valid complaints, but I think you are overreacting slightly.

It's just my opinion on it, don't take it personally, I don't mean to anger you or anything.

phoenix-force411
11-24-2013, 08:55 AM
First of all, don't say "we", not all of us agree...

My opinions...

1) Naval Combat was a step up from ACIII's naval combat. ACIII made it too easy, because it wasn't entirely based on the seas most of the time. The storms made fighting a lot harder since you had to worry about the other environmental hazards. ACIV utilized more of the AnvilNext Engine much more than ACIII. While I do agree that Grapeshot was a great weapon to use, it was extremely overpowered. From my standing point, the Aquila is a stronger ship, it probably can hold more cargo and more space for the additions that the Aquila has, but the Jackdaw is very limited in space from the looks of it. And also, the Jackdaw has to house a bigger crew than the Aquila.

The sound effects and animations within ACIII, while it's disappointing that they weren't good enough in ACIV, it's not a huge part within the game that Ubi had to concern themselves with. And about spamming the trigger button, that's exactly what you do in ACIII as well!

2) It would have been nice if the cities were bigger, yes, but as the game does revolve around both, and they require you to explore other places in the West Indies, the game does a good job at both, but mainly for sea. This game was a pirate theme, and from what I'm seeing, not a whole lot of people really seem to care about the lack of cities. The diving quests were really cool and challenging, sometimes scary...

3) I don't agree that it was rushed, but I do wish it was longer. Going through the main story line ONLY, will make it that much shorter. That's what side quests and all that other good stuff are there for. I didn't bother to rush the story at all, I did it at my own pace, and it felt pretty rewarding that I did take it at a very slow pace.

4) As I said, there's only so much you can do with a Frigate. The Jackdaw in size is the size of a Frigate. If it were a Man O' War, sure, but the Jackdaw needs its balance too. Upgrading everything for pure damage would make the Jackdaw too overpowering. Improved rudder? Sure. Improved sails? Sure.

Edward's gun upgrades were balanced, 8 is too much, but I thought this was possible before release. Buying skins/Hunting for skins is completely optional. Whichever way you choose to go at it. Buying stuff costs Reales, and so, the bigger the prey, the more it costed.

5) I was more disappointed in the lack of weapon options. I hated fighting with double swords most of the time as the kill animations for some streak and combo kills were pretty long. I didn't really care about the amount of swords I could get, I have more than 8 sets of swords, and I don't even use most of them. I do agree that there should have been more pistol sets.

6) Yes, ships were pretty limited. You had Civilian, Schooner, Gunboat, Brig, Frigate, Man O' War, and Legendary Ships(I count them as their own category). Ambushing trading and merchant ships would have been fun and a great addition to the pirate theme.

Hans684
11-24-2013, 09:07 AM
Intro: Your opinion.

1. Your opinion.

2. Your opinion.

3. Your opinion.

4. Your opinion.

5. Your opinion.

6. Your opinion.

End: Your opinion.

pacmanate
11-24-2013, 09:33 AM
I also agree with 1,3 (kinda) and 5.

MnemonicSyntax
11-24-2013, 09:35 AM
When was Edward's Brig stolen? I don't recall that.

Hans684
11-24-2013, 10:06 AM
Secodly, you do know AC is bigger than just the games alone, right? It's a trancmedia franchise, so juggling 'the story' on just the games is kinda a broken judgment. AC has more that just one story, modern day is one but there is a lot of stories within modern day. Daniel Cross, Desmond ect. Gameplay on the other hand is always meant to change, if they do a AC game but fist person with a tuch of Mirror's Edge it would still be AC or if they take the mission design/stealth ect from Hitman at every main assassination it would still be AC or if they take the mission design/stealth ect of the Splinter Cell it would still be AC.

sopen4
11-24-2013, 10:49 AM
i agree on point 1, 4 and 6
the other points were good if you ask me

D.I.D.
11-24-2013, 11:36 AM
I disagree with everything you're saying.

AC4 is better in just about every conceivable way. I haven't even completed the whole story yet because I'm on PC.

The writing is so much better now. Granted, I haven't seen the whole story yet, but they knew from the start with this one that you'd be playing a very spaced-apart, incremental story. The writing is perfect for that. It's not trying to be a big epic tale, and I really appreciate the way that the focus is on nice touches in the writing.

AC3 and ACR were bad, really bad. The variety of weapons, especially in ACR, was meaningless when they were all auto-aim/instakill. I don't need a range of weapons - I just want to feel like I'm in control, and AC4 does this better than any AC game yet. I love the amount of aiming, in particular. It's nice that we've still got the last resort of spamming the pistols if we need to do that once in a while, and that's balanced nicely by the lengthy reload time. As for the naval guns, there IS variety. They just sensibly put one ammo type on each gun, which is more realistic and makes for better gameplay.

Free-roam is astonishing. There's such a massive range of different sizes and types of landscape now, and then the seas of course. I don't want a massive amount of land. These islands and cities are just right. What would I do with an immense area? I don't think I'd enjoy that, if it was just big for the sake of it. The routes through the rooftops and trees are beautifully done this time.

How you can call this game "lazy" is beyond me. It's by far the best game. If this is the standard for AC now, thank God for that, because the quality was plummeting and I was really losing hope for this series.

killzab
11-24-2013, 11:43 AM
Intro: Your opinion.

1. Your opinion.

2. Your opinion.

3. Your opinion.

4. Your opinion.

5. Your opinion.

6. Your opinion.

End: Your opinion.


Most uninteresting post ever ....

LoyalACFan
11-24-2013, 12:30 PM
I disagree with everything you're saying.

AC4 is better in just about every conceivable way. I haven't even completed the whole story yet because I'm on PC.

The writing is so much better now. Granted, I haven't seen the whole story yet, but they knew from the start with this one that you'd be playing a very spaced-apart, incremental story. The writing is perfect for that. It's not trying to be a big epic tale, and I really appreciate the way that the focus is on nice touches in the writing.

AC3 and ACR were bad, really bad. The variety of weapons, especially in ACR, was meaningless when they were all auto-aim/instakill. I don't need a range of weapons - I just want to feel like I'm in control, and AC4 does this better than any AC game yet. I love the amount of aiming, in particular. It's nice that we've still got the last resort of spamming the pistols if we need to do that once in a while, and that's balanced nicely by the lengthy reload time. As for the naval guns, there IS variety. They just sensibly put one ammo type on each gun, which is more realistic and makes for better gameplay.

Free-roam is astonishing. There's such a massive range of different sizes and types of landscape now, and then the seas of course. I don't want a massive amount of land. These islands and cities are just right. What would I do with an immense area? I don't think I'd enjoy that, if it was just big for the sake of it. The routes through the rooftops and trees are beautifully done this time.

How you can call this game "lazy" is beyond me. It's by far the best game. If this is the standard for AC now, thank God for that, because the quality was plummeting and I was really losing hope for this series.

This guy knows what's up.

I HATE when people call the devs "lazy." The developers want these games to be the absolute best they can be. Compare AC to other franchises that come out every year with teeny little incremental improvements, i.e. COD or FIFA. Ubi devs put out a game as huge and detailed as Black Flag ONE YEAR after putting out a game as huge and detailed as AC3, and you're calling them "lazy?" That's a smack in the face, man. Ubisoft has some of the best creative staff in the gaming industry, and while the series has been hurt by moronic execs who insist on churning out AC games every year, I have an infinite amount of respect for the actual creators of the games for keeping the quality as high as it's been.

killzab
11-24-2013, 12:53 PM
This guy knows what's up.

I HATE when people call the devs "lazy." The developers want these games to be the absolute best they can be. Compare AC to other franchises that come out every year with teeny little incremental improvements, i.e. COD or FIFA. Ubi devs put out a game as huge and detailed as Black Flag ONE YEAR after putting out a game as huge and detailed as AC3, and you're calling them "lazy?" That's a smack in the face, man. Ubisoft has some of the best creative staff in the gaming industry, and while the series has been hurt by moronic execs who insist on churning out AC games every year, I have an infinite amount of respect for the actual creators of the games for keeping the quality as high as it's been.

Truth, but something that could explain all this is the budget. I am pretty sure ACIV's budget wasn't anywhere close ACIII's.

roostersrule2
11-24-2013, 01:15 PM
Truth, but something that could explain all this is the budget. I am pretty sure ACIV's budget wasn't anywhere close ACIII's.Or a short dev cycle.

Hans684
11-24-2013, 01:23 PM
Or a short dev cycle.

They used 3 years on it like AC3.


Most uninteresting post ever ....

Most uninteresting reply ever.....

roostersrule2
11-24-2013, 01:28 PM
They used 3 years on it like AC3.It was 2 actually and how much of that time was just for planning out the story and whatnot? The actual game development time would have only been 1 and 1/2 years.

DetroitPlaya
11-24-2013, 01:33 PM
I hate when people who have no knowledge of game development (but of course think they do) call developers lazy.

AssassinHMS
11-24-2013, 02:00 PM
I agree with some of your points, however I donít think Ubisoft is getting lazy. They spent a lot of time and resources working on naval, on underwater, on creating this huge, pretty much seamless, open world and on all the cutscenes and stuff.
On the other hand, I also understand why you call them lazy. I think this apparent laziness has more to do with the bad direction they took with the series. Yes, the navigation, the combat and the stealth are immensely underdeveloped but this isnít as due to laziness as much as it is due to Ubisoftís poor choices. I was watching AC4 the other day and I just couldnít understand how a game, with such a beautiful world, with such astonishing graphics and animations, could be a dinosaur in terms of gameplay. ACís stealth is bad when compared to stealth games from 15 years ago! There have been 5 different Assassinís Creed games so far and the core mechanics are still this bad and underdeveloped. Navigation is completely automatic and wasted. Combat isnít actual combat and stealth is nothing when compared to ďrealĒ stealth games.
In other words, ACís core is hugely underdeveloped to a point that I just consider unacceptable. On the other hand, what is well developed? The additions (naval, hunting, underwater, crafting, etc.), the graphics and the animations.
This is why, after seeing how underdeveloped the actual AC part of AC is, Ubisoft may seem lazy when in fact theyíre simply ditching the series and working on things to replace the actual franchise that allow them to throw assassins into the mix so that they can call it Assassinís Creed.
If Ubisoft made a Pirate game without assassins in it or Assassinís Creed elements then, perhaps, the animations would be better, the number of upgrades would be bigger, the naval could be less repetitive and so on. On the other hand, Assassinís Creed could be worthy of the title of stealth game and the core mechanics could actually be well developed.

xCHEMISTx
11-24-2013, 02:22 PM
If you are 100% sync player I think you will really appreciate this AC. There is so much to do in order to get 100% in this AC. I have played them all and Black flag is by far the best in my opinion. So no I don't think Ubisoft are being lazy at all. The reviews of Black Flag are all high.

Landruner
11-24-2013, 02:59 PM
They used 3 years on it like AC3.



Most uninteresting reply ever.....

3 years on it?! you are joking right?!

For the OP, well some parts can represent his opinion, but also it apparently includes the opinion I heard or I could read somewhere else outside this forum, so that user can use a "We" for talking about a general opinion from of people since the complaints there are not random and do not only reflect the only opinion of the OP. People of this forum had to considered that you have Zillion of AC fans that don't post anything there, and concretely users there must represent 10 to 20% of the fan base of this franchise.

Now where I disagree is calling the Devs "Lazy", no I don't think they were, they had probably a budget restraint and a time to push the product out the door very restraint as well, and I believe they try to do the best they could, with the assets they had and we the time they had.

Hans684
11-24-2013, 03:37 PM
3 years on it?! you are joking right?!

For the OP, well some parts can represent his opinion, but also it apparently includes the opinion I heard or I could read somewhere else outside this forum, so that user can use a "We" for talking about a general opinion from of people since the complaints there are not random and do not only reflect the only opinion of the OP. People of this forum had to considered that you have Zillion of AC fans that don't post anything there, and concretely users there must represent 10 to 20% of the fan base of this franchise.

Now where I disagree is calling the Devs "Lazy", no I don't think they were, they had probably a budget restraint and a time to push the product out the door very restraint as well, and I believe they try to do the best they could, with the assets they had and we the time they had.

No, i'm not joking. They started the development in the summer of 2011 and the development of AC3 started in 2010.

I know some parts are opinion like the downfall and i know there are more people that have the(we are over 7 billion people) same opinion, but my maim point is that it is an opinion.

The developers are far from lazy, just like any other developer from COD to GTA it does take time and money to make games no matter the time limit and money. It is hard work, the gamers are far more lazy, just sitting at home playing, discussing in one of many forums ect.

roostersrule2
11-24-2013, 03:44 PM
They started in August of 2011.

With AC3 they started in Janurary 2010, they had 6-7 months of extra time,a bigger budget and bigger team.

Landruner
11-24-2013, 04:03 PM
No, i'm not joking. They started the development in the summer of 2011 and the development of AC3 started in 2010.

I know some parts are opinion like the downfall and i know there are more people that have the(we are over 7 billion people) same opinion, but my maim point is that it is an opinion.

The developers are far from lazy, just like any other developer from COD to GTA it does take time and money to make games no matter the time limit and money. It is hard work, the gamers are far more lazy, just sitting at home playing, discussing in one of many forums ect.

@Hans684 - 2011 summer up to Oct/Nov 2013, it make it 2 years and "3ish" months, not 3 like you wrote? That was actually the only question to you, the rest was for the OP of this thread and not to you, and I made it clear that I disagreed with the "lazy" Devs" part that the OP wrote - Anyhow, I do not to argue you think what you want and I respect your opinion.


I just post it again for the OP in order to prevent further misunderstandings
--------------------
@PizzaBi2013 (Original Poster) Some of your critics were interesting, but where you blew it is that you should not have used "Lazy Devs" in your title (which I believe was representing an all for Ubisoft), since it prevent people from reading your rant and critics about the game thinking that it is just a random troll or hater that is writing this.

Devs teams were not Lazy they just tried to do the best with the time and assets they had, and I believe they need a bit more respect for this, even if you were disappointed by the final product - Next time If you want to focus on a rant about this, try to call after the executives from Ubisoft rather the Devs teams.

Hans684
11-24-2013, 04:50 PM
@Hans684 - 2011 summer up to Oct/Nov 2013, it make it 2 years and "3ish" months, not 3 like you wrote? That was actually the only question to you, the rest was for the OP of this thread and not to you, and I made it clear that I disagreed with the "lazy" Devs" part that the OP wrote - Anyhow, I do not to argue you think what you want and I respect your opinion.


I just post it again for the OP in order to prevent further misunderstandings

Never misunderstood stod anything. And the years on the games is an error of mine, so that on me. I know it was not for me i just "expanded" it with my own words instead of saying the simple 'I agree the Devs are not lazy'. Doing this, this or this does not make it more valid, but i don't want argue either, so why not end it here like proper gentlemen.

Megas_Doux
11-24-2013, 05:00 PM
Greedy executives, that is......

SixKeys
11-24-2013, 06:00 PM
I don't know what y'all are complaining about. This is the best AC game in years.

I don't care about lack of weapons as it always looks stupid when the assassin has a whole arsenal hanging off him. At its most ridiculous, we could carry an axe, butcher knife, crossbow, hidden blades, poison darts, hidden gun and 25 throwing knives all at the same time, yet nobody in the city questioned it. Of course, this could be solved if only devs would allow us to choose which weapons to carry and remove them at will, but we've been asking for that since AC2. As long as that option doesn't exist, I'm much happier just having 3 main weapons hanging off my persona (swords, guns, blowpipe). There is more balance in the weapons now, too. Guns don't all have the same reach, so you can't always headshot a sniper, you have to risk moving in closer, making it possible that you'll be seen or heard when the explosion goes off. Blowpipes have longer reach and are silent, but sleep darts don't kill the enemy, and berserker darts may cause the target to attack you if you're too close or raise the other guards' alertness level once the effect wears off and the affected person drops down dead.

If you think freeroaming on land sucks, I don't even know what to say to you. I haven't had this much fun freeroaming on land since ACB, three years ago. I'm finding myself walking everywhere instead of running, just because of the atmosphere. Havana is the perfect size for a city. The buildings are varied and well spaced for freerunning. The only thing I wish is that there were more assassination contracts to keep you coming back.

AC3 was able to have more advanced animations for the ship's crew because the naval missions were linear. I don't know about you, but if I have to choose between having open-world naval missions with limited animations or closed-off, linear missions with impressive animations but no variety (boarding, assassinating, sniping etc.), I know what I will choose.

As for limitations on ship types, I honestly hadn't even noticed. I'm having too much fun boarding everything in sight. With current-gen limitations the game already has an amazing amount of variety. One or two more ship types wouldn't have made the experience much different.

Malevolence97
11-24-2013, 07:38 PM
I don't think its laziness... Those were just options that were cut out of the game. For example yes, they did have single animations for the sword when you disarm, so why not the option to equip a single blade when the work is already there?

That's not laziness since it was there they just didn't implement it. Like you I agree these were some options I believe should have been made accessable to the player, the important part at least is that the games still fun, if lacking in full versatility that could easily have been implemented but was otherwise overlooked for whatever reason.

I just don't like the color filter while hiding and I want the option to put my hood on. They got rid of the notoriety system so I cant even cheat to put my hood on that way!

I think Im going to hack... It is a 'pirate' game after all... DOWN WITH ABSTERGO ENTERTAINMENT!

Malevolence97
11-24-2013, 07:41 PM
@Hans684 - 2011 summer up to Oct/Nov 2013, it make it 2 years and "3ish" months, not 3 like you wrote? That was actually the only question to you, the rest was for the OP of this thread and not to you, and I made it clear that I disagreed with the "lazy" Devs" part that the OP wrote - Anyhow, I do not to argue you think what you want and I respect your opinion.


I just post it again for the OP in order to prevent further misunderstandings
--------------------
@PizzaBi2013 (Original Poster) Some of your critics were interesting, but where you blew it is that you should not have used "Lazy Devs" in your title (which I believe was representing an all for Ubisoft), since it prevent people from reading your rant and critics about the game thinking that it is just a random troll or hater that is writing this.

Devs teams were not Lazy they just tried to do the best with the time and assets they had, and I believe they need a bit more respect for this, even if you were disappointed by the final product - Next time If you want to focus on a rant about this, try to call after the executives from Ubisoft rather the Devs teams.


Why do you forum guys get so intense into the specifics of argument? Relax Jeez We all love AC <3

poptartz20
11-24-2013, 08:07 PM
Great answer SixKeys! *starts clapping*

EnzuigiriUK
11-24-2013, 10:10 PM
I love the game, my preference would have been for a more land based game with more explorable land content and less of the ships but it is still fantastic. Also going so much further with the initiates site and the companion app for iPad means that to me this is the largest of all the games so far and I cannot wait to see what they come up with next (please let it be a Ripper period London :)

RinoTheBouncer
11-24-2013, 10:51 PM
I agree with you 100% although I don’t have a problem with ramming the R1 button because since naval battles take the most of the game, they better not be too complicated or frustrating. But with the story, i agree 100% that the game lacks any relevant story. We have a story of a guy looking for The Observatory, but what does that have to do with modern day? nobody knows. Somebody wants us to play the game so we can learn about the Observatory for their own uses. In AC1, we didn’t know much about the Apple but it was the start and it was something intriguing and very well directed. Here they’re just turning the game to a cheap cry for plotless-games’ fans to join the fan base and a big middle finger to those of us who invested a lot of time on the story, the DLCs and the symbolism and now they’re just scrapping all that in favor of a historical GTA.

The false advertisement, I agree about that as well. They said it’ll take us 140 hours to sync 100%. I’m 85% synced and I’m barely 39 hours through, so save the lies, developers. And the whole “modern day protagonist is you” is a very LAAAAMEEEE excuse to be lazy. I didn’t feel like it was me in the game, I felt like the game is made be someone unprofessional who didn’t wanna put a efforts into writing a script properly like they did from AC1-AC3 but just finish it fast to make it to the annual release and give us something mediocre, instead.

I have always been an AC fan and collector since AC1. I’ve been there since the very beginning and I’ve always told people “this is the best franchise ever with the best story-telling ever done in video games” but lately, I’ve been losing my trust for this brand. I’ve always had respect for the amount of details, stories, characters and gameplay, not to mention the scenery and locations but now, I’m sorry, I cannot respect a developer or a producer that wants to turn a very detailed and elegant game into a mainstream GTA in the past without a story, just a context, an excuse to revisit the past and tell standalone stories.

Ubisoft, you’re about to lose your grip on your biggest franchise. Open your eyes before you end up rebooting the game 4 times and turning it to a shooter and still flopping eventually.

Landruner
11-24-2013, 11:11 PM
Never misunderstood stod anything. And the years on the games is an error of mine, so that on me. I know it was not for me i just "expanded" it with my own words instead of saying the simple 'I agree the Devs are not lazy'. Doing this, this or this does not make it more valid, but i don't want argue either, so why not end it here like proper gentlemen.

It is what I was writing and it was already ended as gentlemen, and I was trying to make it clear with you, I should have used 2 posts instead of one in first place, and it was my mistake, I was not trying to argue with you.- I apologize for the misunderstanding. and Like I said I respect your opinion.:)

Landruner
11-24-2013, 11:16 PM
Why do you forum guys get so intense into the specifics of argument? Relax Jeez We all love AC <3

I was not trying to get intense in argument:rolleyes:, I made an obviously stupid mistake in using one post addressed to two users instead two posts, and I was trying to make it up with Hanse684 with that post you carry over (above) with my clarification:p -
You are actually the one that make it sounds worse and who is making it a bit deal of it since it was not a big deal in a first place:eek:! LOL.
I apologized to Hanse684 of the misunderstanding and I apologize obviously to you for having misunderstood, well the misunderstanding and everything is fine hopefully, it was my mistake - Okay?;)

Next time I made sure I make two posts for each user I want to respond...sorry for the misunderstanding.

Gi1t
11-25-2013, 03:22 AM
Secodly, you do know AC is bigger than just the games alone, right? It's a trancmedia franchise, so juggling 'the story' on just the games is kinda a broken judgment. AC has more that just one story, modern day is one but there is a lot of stories within modern day. Daniel Cross, Desmond ect. Gameplay on the other hand is always meant to change, if they do a AC game but fist person with a tuch of Mirror's Edge it would still be AC or if they take the mission design/stealth ect from Hitman at every main assassination it would still be AC or if they take the mission design/stealth ect of the Splinter Cell it would still be AC.

Although it may be considered a trans-media franchise, some people will still play just the games and if they're judging the story as it's presented in the games, that's not entirely unfair. If someone's just looking for more of something they thought was good, then that's exactly what the other media forms are for. But if someone feels like something is seriously missing from one or more of the games, it's not a great excuse to just say "go watch this or go buy this". At that point I'd say an appropriate criticism would be "this should have been in that game".

But I have to agree entirely with your second statement. However well you think any given installment represents the franchise, it's still AC. It's harder to define what's NOT AC than what IS. I wouldn't agree with the point that all gameplay changes are "good" for that reason, but I don't think a badly executed gameplay mechanic makes it not AC.

BATISTABUS
11-25-2013, 03:43 AM
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, they're not.

Also, I disagree with everything you said. Maybe later I'll explain that in more detail.

Edit:

1. This is all inconsequential, and certainly a result of technical limitations. Taking these "shortcuts" is the only way they could've gotten a world this big and impressive to work. It was either that or nothing.

Naval combat is less strategical? AC3 had grapeshot (useless), chainshot (AC4 has this), heavy shot (AC4 has this), and round shot (AC4 has this). AC4 added mortars and fire barrels. Also, boarding. Doesn't sound like a downgrade to me.

2. AC3 had so much land that it was useless. AC4 achieved an excellent level of physical space design; large areas are not so large that they feel excessive, and small areas feel condensed and full of things to do.

I have no idea what you're trying to say in the 2nd half of this. AC4 has vaulting too? You can actually run across rooftops in AC4 unlike AC3. I'm not a huge fan of courtesans, but at least they didn't introduce all of the other useless factions.

3. This is just a taste thing, so I won't get into it. I liked the ending as well.

4. Upgrades for the Jackdaw were well done. Upgrades on Edward are completely unnecessary. I have yet to upgrade Edward a single time, and I likely never will until the very end of the game where I'm just trying to collect everything. The game is easy enough without them.

5. As for tools, less is more. Would you rather have 20 ******** tools that you will never use, or 5 with serious core game play implications? Revelations is the perfect example of too much useless gear in a video game.

6. I thought the amount of ship archetypes was fine, and I really liked the concept of the legendary ships. I would like more archetypes for land-based combat, however.

SixKeys
11-25-2013, 05:23 AM
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, they're not.

Also, I disagree with everything you said. Maybe later I'll explain that in more detail.

Edit:

1. This is all inconsequential, and certainly a result of technical limitations. Taking these "shortcuts" is the only way they could've gotten a world this big and impressive to work. It was either that or nothing.

Naval combat is less strategical? AC3 had grapeshot (useless), chainshot (AC4 has this), heavy shot (AC4 has this), and round shot (AC4 has this). AC4 added mortars and fire barrels. Also, boarding. Doesn't sound like a downgrade to me.

2. AC3 had so much land that it was useless. AC4 achieved an excellent level of physical space design; large areas are not so large that they feel excessive, and small areas feel condensed and full of things to do.

I have no idea what you're trying to say in the 2nd half of this. AC4 has vaulting too? You can actually run across rooftops in AC4 unlike AC3. I'm not a huge fan of courtesans, but at least they didn't introduce all of the other useless factions.

3. This is just a taste thing, so I won't get into it. I liked the ending as well.

4. Upgrades for the Jackdaw were well done. Upgrades on Edward are completely unnecessary. I have yet to upgrade Edward a single time, and I likely never will until the very end of the game where I'm just trying to collect everything. The game is easy enough without them.

5. As for tools, less is more. Would you rather have 20 ******** tools that you will never use, or 5 with serious core game play implications? Revelations is the perfect example of too much useless gear in a video game.

6. I thought the amount of ship archetypes was fine, and I really liked the concept of the legendary ships. I would like more archetypes for land-based combat, however.

^^ All of this.

Shahkulu101
11-25-2013, 05:47 AM
^^ All of this.

You've finished it already?

roostersrule2
11-25-2013, 06:36 AM
You've finished it already?You are back!!

ECM0NEY
11-25-2013, 07:44 AM
I think ship and ground combat animations are the weakest part of the game. AC3 had amazing animations. The tomahawk and knife were awesome and Connor just feels more powerful. I mean some of the animation are just vicious. The dual swords animation take to long look bad and are buggy as hell sometimes.

Also I don't think they spent that much time QAing the free running. There are a ton of spots you just get stuck on or repeat the same animation over and over again.

But I still think it is one of the best singleplayer games EVER made.

bukowski113
11-25-2013, 07:50 AM
Hello and welcome to the Forums,
I suggest before posting or creating a Topic again that you read over the Forum Rules. If you have feedback we have Stickied threads that you are more than welcome to post in constructively.

Thanks