PDA

View Full Version : Killed 3 Civilians in AC4...aaaaand Im gone :|



Tarjas Templar
11-25-2013, 03:41 PM
So I am prepared for some hate here..

But I liked AC 1 because after I beat the game..I was able to massacre civilians but since then I wasnt able to do that :(

Why is that? I am assuming its creed related..but if so why was Altair able to kill civilians? did i miss something? lol

Its not a huge thing but I always enjoyed just killing civilians for fun..but noooow..i kill three civilians...and im gone :(

and why cant I kill people with the jackdaws weapons? i wish I could sail up to an island and blow it up with my cannons lol or fire mortars at it or something..

i mean I beat the game i should be rewarded by being able to kill civilians :)

i will still play the game...i was just wondering why its been taken out lol

tymaster50
11-25-2013, 03:45 PM
Because there are more than enough guards lol

DetroitPlaya
11-25-2013, 03:47 PM
It says why when you kill a person. Shouldn't be able to do it in AC (1) either, but since it's their first AC game - it's understandable if there's some things that shouldn't be there.

LoyalACFan
11-25-2013, 04:03 PM
It says why when you kill a person. Shouldn't be able to do it in AC (1) either, but since it's their first AC game - it's understandable if there's some things that shouldn't be there.

Well, the whole concept of puppeteering was more prevalent in AC1. The idea was that Desmond had to rigidly follow Altair's real historical actions to build up sync in the Animus, otherwise the memory would destabilize because he was new to the Animus and yadda yadda yadda... Killing a civilian would be a severe enough offense to damage his sync, especially in the beginning. But then after playing the whole game and building up 8 full blocks of sync, his synchronization was so strong it couldn't be broken by anything but Altair actually dying.

Later on they put more emphasis on the historical character and downplayed Desmond a lot (which was better IMO) and the "no killing civilians" requirement made a return so people couldn't pervert Ezio's character by turning him into a sadistic murdering bastard.

Tarjas Templar
11-25-2013, 04:24 PM
Blah well there is never enough guards ;)

and yeah that all makes sense..just gave me something to do when i did everything in the game..i mean u guess u can still choke people and throw them off cliffs and into the water.. and u can kill 2 people every like 30 seconds..

i still enjoy the game ofc :P

ace3001
11-25-2013, 04:28 PM
Well, the whole concept of puppeteering was more prevalent in AC1. The idea was that Desmond had to rigidly follow Altair's real historical actions to build up sync in the Animus, otherwise the memory would destabilize because he was new to the Animus and yadda yadda yadda... Killing a civilian would be a severe enough offense to damage his sync, especially in the beginning. But then after playing the whole game and building up 8 full blocks of sync, his synchronization was so strong it couldn't be broken by anything but Altair actually dying.

Later on they put more emphasis on the historical character and downplayed Desmond a lot (which was better IMO) and the "no killing civilians" requirement made a return so people couldn't pervert Ezio's character by turning him into a sadistic murdering bastard.With every ancestor, you risk desynchronization when you kill civillians. Desmond's prominence has nothing to do with it.

In fact, it has all to do with the sync bar being replaced by a health bar in AC2, with medicine and all. They could no longer have the bar go down upon killing civillians, since that would not make sense with a health bar. As such they made it so that you could kill only a set number of civillians, and beyond that, you would be desynchronized. Since it's not visible on the health bar, they give a warning in text form.

What I can't fathom is why "domestic animals" were included since AC3. Surely, Edward wouldn't have minded killing a few dogs?

Tarjas Templar
11-25-2013, 05:22 PM
i hate the fact u can kill the animals..i mean who could kill a poor little kitty or a dog...i remember killing one on accident :(

DetroitPlaya
11-25-2013, 05:24 PM
I killed a pig. Didn't realise someone owned it.

Edward had bacon that night.

ace3001
11-25-2013, 05:26 PM
i hate the fact u can kill the animals..i mean who could kill a poor little kitty or a dog...i remember killing one on accident :(
You don't mind killing people, but when it comes to animals, BAWWW POOR KITTY.

DetroitPlaya
11-25-2013, 05:27 PM
You don't mind killing people, but when it comes to animals, BAWWW POOR KITTY.

Sounds like PETA logic.

God forbid we hurt the whales, but go ahead with killing eachother.

MnemonicSyntax
11-25-2013, 05:29 PM
Dat whale blubber

adventurewomen
11-25-2013, 05:31 PM
Killing Civilians & Killing Domestic Animals is against the three tenants of the creed:

The Three Tenets of the Creed:

1. Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent

"I would not have drawn attention to us. I would not have taken the life of an innocent."
―Malik Al-Sayf at Solomon's Temple.

2. Hide in plain sight

"Let the people mask you such that you become one with the crowd."
―Al Mualim.

3. Never compromise the Brotherhood

"Your actions must never bring harm upon us – direct or indirect!"
―Al Mualim.

ace3001
11-25-2013, 06:10 PM
I don't see where you can come up with "domestic" there. We hunt a lot of innocent animals.

Oh, hey, look. A turtle. I can't even skin it to get any material for crafting, but I'm going to hunt it anyway.

http://i.imgur.com/IeSRLEf.jpg

Tarjas Templar
11-25-2013, 06:27 PM
You don't mind killing people, but when it comes to animals, BAWWW POOR KITTY.

lmao yup..i'll kill every civilian i see..then i kill a kitty..im like nooooo poor kitty :( or poor pig and dog or cow or chicken lol

ace3001
11-25-2013, 06:28 PM
lmao yup..i'll kill every civilian i see..then i kill a kitty..im like nooooo poor kitty :( or poor pig and dog or cow or chicken lol

I killed that turtle just for you. Here.

http://i.imgur.com/MlLdY9M.jpg

AssassinHMS
11-25-2013, 07:08 PM
Killing Civilians & Killing Domestic Animals is against the three tenants of the creed:

The Three Tenets of the Creed:

1. Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent
"I would not have drawn attention to us. I would not have taken the life of an innocent."
―Malik Al-Sayf at Solomon's Temple.
Because guards arenít innocent people who happen to do what they do for a living. Itís alright to brutally murder those who work to protect othersí lives (sometimes at the expense of theirs) since they arenít innocent. Hypocrisy at its best.


2. Hide in plain sight
"Let the people mask you such that you become one with the crowd."
―Al Mualim.
Right, because the game doesnít let you kill everyone without breaking a sweat. What is the point of stealth and of hiding if combat is always viable, if it isnít for survival? Oh, but people donít find hiding or stealth to be badass. If the developers break these tenants so easily for the sake of mindless fun for the casual gamer, I donít see why they wouldnít allow the player to kill civilians (who are said to be more innocent that guards).


3. Never compromise the Brotherhood

"Your actions must never bring harm upon us Ė direct or indirect!"
―Al Mualim.
Right, I could give many exemples where the assassins brought harm upon the brotherhood and compromised it. Anyway, since this isnít actually related to gameplay Iíll drop this one.

Now, Iím not saying youíre wrong or that I donít agree with you. You are right. These are the tenants. But Ubisoft should be the one reading this and reflect about them. Assassinís Creed games should encourage the player to follow the tenants (combat must be hard and not always a viable choice, stealth must be the primary choice and incited and the game must encourage the player to plan his actions like a proper assassin). Problem is, Ubisoft is quick to dismiss these same tenants that are very important to the gameplay and to ACís identity. On the other hand Ubisoft shouldnít force the players to follow them. We should always have the choice. If we want to kill a civilian, if we want to kill everyone and start a huge brawl or if we decide to go head on without planning the missions, we should be allowed to. There shouldnít be a restriction saying that we canít do this or that. However, we must be ready to face the consequences. If we kill a civilian or a guard (both innocent people), enemies nearby may see the body and attack us (but it is our choice whether we want to take that risk or not). If we donít use stealth and try to fight more than 3 enemies at once, then we have to deal with the consequences and, if we donít escape, then we will die. If we donít plan missions then we are likely to get spotted and forced to run or fight (instead of desynchronizing or failing an optional objective). Give us options to play the game according to our choices but make sure those choices have outcomes that will make us think twice. Combat needs to be hard, stealth needs to be improved and navigation needs to become a lot less automatic and more focused towards working as a bridge between the other two.

Tarjas Templar
11-25-2013, 07:34 PM
I killed that turtle just for you. Here.

http://i.imgur.com/MlLdY9M.jpg

hes not dead he is just taking a nap D:

adventurewomen
11-25-2013, 08:25 PM
Because guards aren’t innocent people who happen to do what they do for a living. It’s alright to brutally murder those who work to protect others’ lives (sometimes at the expense of theirs) since they aren’t innocent. Hypocrisy at its best.


Right, because the game doesn’t let you kill everyone without breaking a sweat. What is the point of stealth and of hiding if combat is always viable, if it isn’t for survival? Oh, but people don’t find hiding or stealth to be badass. If the developers break these tenants so easily for the sake of mindless fun for the casual gamer, I don’t see why they wouldn’t allow the player to kill civilians (who are said to be more innocent that guards).


Right, I could give many exemples where the assassins brought harm upon the brotherhood and compromised it. Anyway, since this isn’t actually related to gameplay I’ll drop this one.

Now, I’m not saying you’re wrong or that I don’t agree with you. You are right. These are the tenants. But Ubisoft should be the one reading this and reflect about them. Assassin’s Creed games should encourage the player to follow the tenants (combat must be hard and not always a viable choice, stealth must be the primary choice and incited and the game must encourage the player to plan his actions like a proper assassin). Problem is, Ubisoft is quick to dismiss these same tenants that are very important to the gameplay and to AC’s identity. On the other hand Ubisoft shouldn’t force the players to follow them. We should always have the choice. If we want to kill a civilian, if we want to kill everyone and start a huge brawl or if we decide to go head on without planning the missions, we should be allowed to. There shouldn’t be a restriction saying that we can’t do this or that. However, we must be ready to face the consequences. If we kill a civilian or a guard (both innocent people), enemies nearby may see the body and attack us (but it is our choice whether we want to take that risk or not). If we don’t use stealth and try to fight more than 3 enemies at once, then we have to deal with the consequences and, if we don’t escape, then we will die. If we don’t plan missions then we are likely to get spotted and forced to run or fight (instead of desynchronizing or failing an optional objective). Give us options to play the game according to our choices but make sure those choices have outcomes that will make us think twice. Combat needs to be hard, stealth needs to be improved and navigation needs to become a lot less automatic and more focused towards working as a bridge between the other two.
You spent some time typing this like as if I made those rules up.. lol which I didn't.

I'll just say that those Tenants of the creed are official within the Assassins.

adventurewomen
11-25-2013, 08:28 PM
I don't see where you can come up with "domestic" there. We hunt a lot of innocent animals.

Oh, hey, look. A turtle. I can't even skin it to get any material for crafting, but I'm going to hunt it anyway.


Domestic comes up with the warning when you kill a Cat, Dog, Cow, Pig etc.. animals that require Humans to survive because they have been domesticated. You can't kill those animals kill more than one (3) you will be desynchronized

Turtles and all other animals other than domestic are WILD animals that can be killed and skinned in the game.

Why is that hard for you to understand lol.

Again I don't make the rules the rules are there within the game.

ace3001
11-26-2013, 03:01 AM
Domestic comes up with the warning when you kill a Cat, Dog, Cow, Pig etc.. animals that require Humans to survive because they have been domesticated. You can't kill those animals kill more than one (3) you will be desynchronized

Turtles and all other animals other than domestic are WILD animals that can be killed and skinned in the game.

Why is that hard for you to understand lol.

Again I don't make the rules the rules are there within the game.Oh, the rules are there. I'm just saying that trying to make it fit with the tenants of the creed does not make sense.

When it says "stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent," it refers to people, specifically people who are not involved in the conflict, not working with Templars and all. But this doesn't apply to Edward in the first place, since he was not an Assassin for most of the game.

Then if you really want to include animals under "innocent," then logically, only the predators that attack you on their own accord are not innocent. Yet you can hunt and kill many actual innocent animals like rabbits without desynchronizing. Simply, it's got nothing to do with the tenants of the creed.

Oh, and did I say innocent turtles can be killed too? This sucker is certainly dead. Look at that blood being washed away by the rain.

http://i.imgur.com/PtGlUaR.jpg

avemanina
11-26-2013, 03:56 AM
This thread has sold me on the idea. I want to kill civilians and birds. I can't seem to kill the birds.

We could have community challenges such as Kill 20 Fat Shirtless Pirates in 4 Hrs or Double Assassinate 5 Million Seagulls by Christmas.

xCHEMISTx
11-26-2013, 04:07 AM
Don't kill the dogs though. I like petting the dogs and watching them roll on their backs ;)

ThisIsBrybry
11-26-2013, 06:08 AM
I did get a kick out of playing Boston strangler in AC3

But killing civilians isn't really necessary and would probably get old really fast anyway. A menial complaint.

LoyalACFan
11-26-2013, 06:54 AM
With every ancestor, you risk desynchronization when you kill civillians. Desmond's prominence has nothing to do with it.

In fact, it has all to do with the sync bar being replaced by a health bar in AC2, with medicine and all. They could no longer have the bar go down upon killing civillians, since that would not make sense with a health bar. As such they made it so that you could kill only a set number of civillians, and beyond that, you would be desynchronized. Since it's not visible on the health bar, they give a warning in text form.

What I can't fathom is why "domestic animals" were included since AC3. Surely, Edward wouldn't have minded killing a few dogs?

You missed my point. You're actually backing me up on this. Synchronization didn't go away, but it was never as big a part of the games again after AC1. As Desmond's sync with Altair went up, Altair's health went up, directly correlating with Desmond's actions. But then they downplayed Desmond, and synchronization became more of a framing device than an actual gameplay mechanic.