PDA

View Full Version : Mission optional objectives



acbrother17
01-16-2014, 03:56 AM
So which do you prefer:
- No optional objectives for missions like AC1 and AC2
- Optional objectives that are simple and passable
- Or AC3 type optional objective that were difficult and took multiple times to pass
I honestly preferred AC3 type of optional objective, because it challenge me, and i like a good tough challenge. And im hoping to see more of them in upcoming games.

Fatal-Feit
01-16-2014, 04:34 AM
I prefer AC:4's. It was simple, easy, and allowed freedom to its already open missions. There was some things that should have been changed such as sinking a ship using the fort's defense, air assassination on main targets, and 6+ shots with darts, but I really like it for the most part.

AC:3's objectives were just plain awful in my opinion. They had things right SOMETIMES, but for the most part is was outright frustrating and linear. I mean, the main sequences doesn't allow for much freedom already, so when you add the near impossible side objectives, there's literally only one way to do a mission. You don't get to plan or be very strategic. It's all basic hand holding the whole ride. And having to keep re-doing a scenario 10+ times takes you out of the experience.

acbrother17
01-16-2014, 04:45 AM
I prefer AC:4's. It was simple, easy, and allowed freedom to its already open missions. There was some things that should have been changed such as sinking a ship using the fort's defense, air assassination on main targets, and 6+ shots with darts, but I really like it for the most part.

AC:3's objectives were just plain awful in my opinion. They had things right SOMETIMES, but for the most part is was outright frustrating and linear. I mean, the main sequences doesn't allow for much freedom already, so when you add the near impossible side objectives, there's literally only one way to do a mission. You don't get to plan or be very strategic. It's all basic hand holding the whole ride. And having to keep re-doing a scenario 10+ times takes you out of the experience.
I agree with you the missions in AC3 where linear and know freedom, and thats what i love in AC4, but i like the difficulty in some of the missions when trying to get 100%. they were frustrating but thats because they were hard. like the mission in AC3 where you had to run into Charlestown (its charlestown right) get to the ships and plant the bombs and if i remember 1 of the optional objective was to air assassinate a brute without getting detected and that "complete the constraint in one playthrough" made it even harder.

SixKeys
01-16-2014, 04:46 AM
I'm somewhere between the first two options. I don't mind optional objectives, but they should not get in the way of player freedom. Vague objectives like "use a smoke bomb during this mission" are fine, specific ones are not ("kill the target with the hidden gun").

SixKeys
01-16-2014, 04:49 AM
I agree with you the missions in AC3 where linear and know freedom, and thats what i love in AC4, but i like the difficulty in some of the missions when trying to get 100%. they were frustrating but thats because they were hard. like the mission in AC3 where you had to run into Charlestown (its charlestown right) get to the ships and plant the bombs and if i remember 1 of the optional objective was to air assassinate a brute without getting detected and that "complete the constraint in one playthrough" made it even harder.

It was "air-assassinate a grenadier". That one was annoying because a) they never told us what a grenadier looks like, and b) it made no sense from a story point of view. Why would Connor waste so much time faffing about on the ships while innocent people are getting bombed? Optional objectives should make sense within the story, considering they're supposedly the way the ancestor "really" did the mission.

acbrother17
01-16-2014, 04:50 AM
I prefer AC:4's. It was simple, easy, and allowed freedom to its already open missions. There was some things that should have been changed such as sinking a ship using the fort's defense, air assassination on main targets, and 6+ shots with darts, but I really like it for the most part.

AC:3's objectives were just plain awful in my opinion. They had things right SOMETIMES, but for the most part is was outright frustrating and linear. I mean, the main sequences doesn't allow for much freedom already, so when you add the near impossible side objectives, there's literally only one way to do a mission. You don't get to plan or be very strategic. It's all basic hand holding the whole ride. And having to keep re-doing a scenario 10+ times takes you out of the experience.
I agree with you the missions in AC3 where linear and no freedom, and thats what i love in AC4 cause of the freedom in missions, but i like the difficulty in some of the missions when trying to get 100%. they were frustrating but thats because they were difficult. like the mission in AC3 where you had to run into Charlestown (its charlestown right) get to the ships and plant the bombs and if i remember 1 of the optional objective was to air assassinate a brute without getting detected and that "complete the constraint in one playthrough" made it even harder.

Wolfmeister1010
01-16-2014, 04:55 AM
If there is one thing Ash downright lied to us about, it was that 90% of all constraints were vague and easy. Instead, I had to do things like "kill x with ropedart" or "use sleeping dart on at least 5 crocodiles". NO, I do not want to stop my tailing to dart a crocodile.

This **** needs to stop now. Mission constraints should have never been in the series. And putting specific weapon mission constraints in almost all the assassinations, like "air assassinate" or "use rope dart to kill" COMPLETELY defeats the purpose of one of the things the dev were trying to express: that you have freedom in your assassination missions.

acbrother17
01-16-2014, 05:03 AM
It was "air-assassinate a grenadier". That one was annoying because a) they never told us what a grenadier looks like, and b) it made no sense from a story point of view. Why would Connor waste so much time faffing about on the ships while innocent people are getting bombed? Optional objectives should make sense within the story, considering they're supposedly the way the ancestor "really" did the mission.
Yeah that true. i discovered he was the brute by random killing, and maybe connor had OCD when killing or doing task. seriously think about it. Dont touch or push any one while chasing hickey or lee. Coincidence?! I think im just randomly talking sh*t now.

acbrother17
01-16-2014, 05:09 AM
If there is one thing Ash downright lied to us about, it was that 90% of all constraints were vague and easy. Instead, I had to do things like "kill x with ropedart" or "use sleeping dart on at least 5 crocodiles". NO, I do not want to stop my tailing to dart a crocodile.

This **** needs to stop now. Mission constraints should have never been in the series. And putting specific weapon mission constraints in almost all the assassinations, like "air assassinate" or "use rope dart to kill" COMPLETELY defeats the purpose of one of the things the dev were trying to express: that you have freedom in your assassination missions.
Some of does specific weapon objectives made sense in AC4 though, like killing Roberts/Barthemelow with the rope dart. I read through AC4 database and it said Barthemelow had a slash in his neck when he died before he was thrown in the ocean as his burial.

DinoSteve1
01-16-2014, 10:52 AM
They need to go, it kills freedom and promotes linearity, I hate them.

dxsxhxcx
01-16-2014, 11:34 AM
They need to go, it kills freedom and promotes linearity, I hate them.

this

TorQue1988
01-16-2014, 12:22 PM
I don't like optional objectives, unless they drastically change them. Something like: retrieve certain item, or kill some additional target during a mission, steal some documents etc. But no more timed objectives, or skin a crocodile during a chase and other idiotic things like that.

egriffin09
01-16-2014, 04:54 PM
I honestly found myself forgetting about the optional objectives during missions in AC 4 for some reason. If it's one thing AC 4 got right about optional objectives, it's the fact that they hide them well in the menu and you didn't know if you got the 100 % until the end of the mission. I felt free during the missions and I didn't feel like I "failed" the mission when I didn't get the optional objectives.

Where AC 3 optional objectives failed was that as soon as you didn't complete the objective, a big red X would pop up on the screen, so you felt like you "failed" the mission and linear missions in AC 3 didn't help the objectives either.

And even though most of the main assassinations were "air assassinate this person" I just kind of went about assassinating the targets in my own way using different tools like beserk darts, pistol headshot, ledge assassinations, or the classic hidden blade in the back of my target, which made the assassinations more fun to me.

SixKeys
01-16-2014, 05:28 PM
Some of does specific weapon objectives made sense in AC4 though, like killing Roberts/Barthemelow with the rope dart. I read through AC4 database and it said Barthemelow had a slash in his neck when he died before he was thrown in the ocean as his burial.

A slash can come from any kind of blade though. I thought that was one of the stupidest constraints in AC4. I didn't even bother with it, I just shot him from the deck of my own ship. :p

cjdavies
01-16-2014, 08:24 PM
I don't like them, if you fail, you feel the need to restart and if you don't seeing that 80% or 90% progress feels like you have not completed it.

So the "stay out of combat" ones, I will try as I like stealth but if I'm caught I can quickly take out the 2 guards in combat rather than the whole mission combating my way through, so if I failed I thought who cares I'm moving on.

Much better than AC3 though.