PDA

View Full Version : AC4: Playing the game before you can have fun



dahuterschuter
01-03-2014, 07:37 AM
Can we end this trend right here? Just going through the Mayan armor puzzles thing and found that I can't even get them all until I reach some arbitrary place in the game at which point I will once again be able to have fun again. So now I have to go back to doing the main missions which are generally annoying to begin with and are now unbearable.

If I could talk directly to Ubisoft here, I understand that you worked real hard on the main missions, but not doing them and just free-roaming and doing the side missions is far more fun than doing them. So yes, I do know that you understood that and made it so players couldn't access everything without playing your "cinematic experience," but it's really not a nice thing to do. It's been a trend in the series' decline and it'd be cool if it could end here at this game. Doing things because you want to do them is fun, doing the same things because you're forced to do them is not, and being forced to do them because your fun is being held ransom until you do is downright sleazy. There was a great analogy made once: You spend an hour tossing cards into a hat for fun and you enjoy it, trying to get in ten in a row. Then your girlfriend comes over and says you two can't canoodle until you get ten cards in the hat in a row. Suddenly the same game you were playing for fun is now frustrating, tedious, and entirely disinteresting because it's standing between you and something you actually want at the moment.

It only ruins the main missions even more when you have to play them with a sour attitude because you've now got to speed-run your way through them to get back to doing what you want. Just passed through a part of the game that should have been an impact, but I really couldn't care because it was just more time between me and adventuring again. See you only hurt your "cinematic experience," that you desperately want people to go through when you force it on them. There's some sage advice.

ziggurcat
01-03-2014, 08:25 AM
You're crazy (or you live in bizarro world). I don't see how collecting things, and tedious side missions ad nauseam are more fun than the actual story of the game. There's arguably too much of it, and I wish they put more story missions into the game.

edit: and besides, you have all the time in the world to do that other crap once you finish the story.

dahuterschuter
01-03-2014, 08:44 AM
Hey, there's the great part for you. If you don't like the side missions, you can choose not to do them. If you don't see how the better part of the game is better than the worst you are 100% free to still enjoy the worst uninhibited by the better.

It'd sure be nice if you could also do the opposite.

ziggurcat
01-03-2014, 09:03 AM
Hey, there's the great part for you. If you don't like the side missions, you can choose not to do them. If you don't see how the better part of the game is better than the worst you are 100% free to still enjoy the worst uninhibited by the better.

It'd sure be nice if you could also do the opposite.

No, I see perfectly how the better part of the game (the story - i.e. the reason why this game exists) is better than the worst part of the game (the tedious side missions that are only there because the story is often too short to get away with charging $60 for the game).

dahuterschuter
01-03-2014, 09:19 AM
No, I see perfectly how the better part of the game (the story - i.e. the reason why the game exists)

(the story - i.e. the reason why the game exists)

story
the reason why the game existsYou are the lowest form of media consumer and gamer.

Bottom line is that you can't name one thing wrong with giving people freedom to play as they'd like and staying away from arbitrary limitations.

ziggurcat
01-03-2014, 10:17 AM
You are the lowest form of media consumer and gamer.

Bottom line is that you can't name one thing wrong with giving people freedom to play as they'd like and staying away from arbitrary limitations.

I've been gaming longer than you've been alive, son.

Bottom line is that you don't seem to understand the point of this video game. This game has never been about the side stuff or exploring - not even the first one. This game has always been about the story.

Now go back to Minecraft.

dahuterschuter
01-03-2014, 10:31 AM
I've been gaming longer than you've been alive, son.That's cute.


Bottom line is that you don't seem to understand the point of this video game.No, you don't, which is why you're the lowest form of media consumer and gamer. You don't even understand simple medium differences and traits. The gameplay is the medium and the main focus and purpose of a game.
This game has never been about the side stuff or exploring - not even the first one. This game has always been about the story.No, for multiple reasons. One because Assassin's Creed has always had a focus on extras, and two because no game is about the story, and if it is then something has gone horribly wrong and the developers have proven themselves absolutely incompetent. You wouldn't insult Ubisoft like that, it's rude. The game is about the game, it's ridiculously simple. The "story," in this case is a poor narrative comprised of horrendous mission design based on awful principles of gameplay.

So please, if you can't stay on topic and insist on arguing your cracked perspective on gaming because you can't handle another person not sharing it, just stop internetting until you can gain a level of maturity to handle that sort of thing. You know, instead of trying to argue about something insignificant for no discernible reason other than that someone seems to have insulted something you like and so you feel personally responsible for leaping to its defense when it's not even what the thread is about.

ziggurcat
01-03-2014, 12:17 PM
1. No. Gameplay is not a medium. The video game is the medium, and the main focus/purpose of the gameplay within the video game (in this case, Assassin's Creed) is to progress you/the player character through the *story*.

2. The focus of Assassin's Creed has never been on the extras. The extras have only ever been secondary, and they're designed specifically to keep you playing the game for as long as possible, whether it be throughout the game's storyline or after you've completely the campaign.

3. There are plenty of games that are about the story being told... this series, in particular.... the Legend of Zelda series, the Super Mario series... the Final Fantasy series... the Bioshock series... the Uncharted series... and so on... So where have you been the entire last generation, or the previous 6?

4. I think Ubisoft would be quite happy to be told that they're telling an engaging story through their video game. They would be insulted by, "the 'story,' in this case is a poor narrative comprised of horrendous mission design based on awful principles of gameplay."

5. I've been on topic this whole time, since I've only been talking about Assassin's Creed, and how the story missions are the best part of this game/series.

6. "You know, instead of trying to argue about something insignificant for no discernible reason" - says the person who created a thread for no discernible reason other than to cry about something as insignificant as having to play through Assassin's Creed's storyline. The only person here who's feeling insulted here is you since you've taken so much offense to someone facetiously telling you that you're insane for thinking that the tedious extras in the game are better than the game's primary focus (the story), and that there's plenty of opportunity/time to do what you consider fun after you've plowed through the campaign (which isn't that long at all).

MnemonicSyntax
01-03-2014, 04:35 PM
Pretty sure Mayan Armor is meant to be completed toward the end of the game, so you're not overpowered outside the gate.

ziljn
01-03-2014, 05:43 PM
No, I see perfectly how the better part of the game (the story - i.e. the reason why this game exists) is better than the worst part of the game (the tedious side missions that are only there because the story is often too short to get away with charging $60 for the game).

I dont pay $60 for a good story. I can watch a movie or read a book for far less for a good story. I pay $60 for a good gaming experience, which involves all the interaction beyond the story.
It's fun to watch someone try to defend such a ridiculous argument though.

ziljn
01-03-2014, 05:45 PM
Hey, there's the great part for you. If you don't like the side missions, you can choose not to do them. If you don't see how the better part of the game is better than the worst you are 100% free to still enjoy the worst uninhibited by the better.

It'd sure be nice if you could also do the opposite.

Agreed. Having to wait to shortly before the credits to get the rope dart was really, really annoying.

RoBg03
01-03-2014, 06:08 PM
I totally disagree on this one. i spent hours in between main missions and never had any shortage of things to do. i think this game does a great job of striking that balance. also, you're not supposed to have a fully upgraded jackdaw, bulletproof mayan armor, full edward upgrades, etc in the games first acts. if you could complete all the side stuff from the get-go it would mess with the continuity and flow of the story of the game. (story being very important in AC games if you haven't noticed). the only thing i will say about this pacing is that in every game, it seems like you're damn near invincible by the end of it....theres ussually a few items in each title that i never use, as i have no use for them by end-game. things like rope darts, mayan armor. does anyone use rope darts btw? i thought they'd be so awesome when they first came out in ac3 but they really aren't very convienient or effective imo.....plus they are a dart, not a noose, so how exactly are we hanging these soldiers? but i digress...

mikeyf1999
01-03-2014, 06:11 PM
[QUOTE=RoBg03;9469067also, you're not supposed to have a fully upgraded jackdaw, bulletproof mayan armor, full edward upgrades, etc in the games first acts. if you could complete all the side stuff from the get-go it would mess with the continuity and flow of the story of the game.

Well I did exact opposite I fully upgraded Edward by sequence 4 and I nearly have the Jackdaw fully upgraded on sequence 6, and I already have the mayan armor

ziljn
01-03-2014, 06:32 PM
I totally disagree on this one. i spent hours in between main missions and never had any shortage of things to do. i think this game does a great job of striking that balance. also, you're not supposed to have a fully upgraded jackdaw, bulletproof mayan armor, full edward upgrades, etc in the games first acts. if you could complete all the side stuff from the get-go it would mess with the continuity and flow of the story of the game. (story being very important in AC games if you haven't noticed). the only thing i will say about this pacing is that in every game, it seems like you're damn near invincible by the end of it....theres ussually a few items in each title that i never use, as i have no use for them by end-game. things like rope darts, mayan armor. does anyone use rope darts btw? i thought they'd be so awesome when they first came out in ac3 but they really aren't very convienient or effective imo.....plus they are a dart, not a noose, so how exactly are we hanging these soldiers? but i digress...

The argument wasn't about extra things to do but having to wait until an arbitrary point in the story to get stuff. But that's always the tricky part with an "open" environment, isn't it? How to limit progression so the player doesn't get too far ahead. I can understand this story-wise, but for open ended exploration it need not be a concern about getting too powerful if you use a level system. AC3 handled this a bit better. I use the rope dart, and having to wait until just before the end to get get it was silly. It's not like it was "overpowering" to have it earlier the game, especially since you can tap Y four times and drop 4 people with pistols long before you can get the rope dart.

mikeyf1999
01-03-2014, 06:37 PM
The argument wasn't about extra things to do but having to wait until an arbitrary point in the story to get stuff. But that's always the tricky part with an "open" environment, isn't it? How to limit progression so the player doesn't get too far ahead. I can understand this story-wise, but for open ended exploration it need not be a concern about getting too powerful if you use a level system. AC3 handled this a bit better. I use the rope dart, and having to wait until just before the end to get get it was silly. It's not like it was "overpowering" to have it earlier the game, especially since you can tap Y four times and drop 4 people with pistols long before you can get the rope dart.
Think about it though would it really make sense to get all the weapons before the end of the game, they probably did this so that you didn't have everything before near the end

RoBg03
01-03-2014, 07:00 PM
Well I did exact opposite I fully upgraded Edward by sequence 4 and I nearly have the Jackdaw fully upgraded on sequence 6, and I already have the mayan armor

ok, didn't try it myself but if you say its doable i believe ya...seems more fun to collect as you go to me though...add to that the fact that i didn't care for the diving missions so i ended up waiting to the end to get the final upgrades.

ziljn
01-03-2014, 07:06 PM
Think about it though would it really make sense to get all the weapons before the end of the game, they probably did this so that you didn't have everything before near the end

Well, yes. What good, or fun, is it at the end of the game? It's not like it was a special item that you needed for a final boss or something. Now I can understand not getting everything by sequence two, but to have to progress the story to the end first was just silly.