PDA

View Full Version : A Realistic Assassinís Creed Experience



RinoTheBouncer
01-17-2014, 03:17 PM
Every thought about making games feel more realistic? I know there’s a lot of fun in the exaggeration of Hollywood movies or video games but how about we try to make AC realistic? I’m sure there will be a lot of challenge with that and that’s the fun of it.

For example:

Realistic Damage: Stabbing slashing a guard with swords twice actually makes the guard fall down and not just keep attacking me until their life bar drains because in reality, when you’re wounded, you don’t keep fighting like nothing happened. Taking damage will make us bleed or limp with the blood leaving trail on the floor can make us easily discovered in a hiding spot.

Weight: As mentioned by another thread, the more we carry weapons, the slower we’ll able to walk.

Detection: Killing a target in a “Do not be seen mission” right after they see us shouldn’t make us DESYNCHRONIZE because they’re dead before they could alter anyone. They’re not gonna do anything and their knowledge of my existence isn’t gonna change anything, because they’re dead.

White Room: (I DO NOT WANT THIS FEATURE TO BE REMOVED) It totally does not make sense to kill someone in the middle of the crowd and spend like a minute or two chatting with them before they take their last breath and nothing happens to me as if the surrounding people are just waiting for us to finish our chat. I guess these moments should happen when we assassinate someone in a hidden spot. I know this is a pivotal conversation and we learn more from these convos than any other in games, but lets make them a bit realistic.

Finding and Tracking the Target: Give us more means to find our target like asking around, using eagle sense for footsteps, real night/day cycle that affects the movement of our targets and the people we encounter. Also, tailing or eavesdropping shouldn’t be limited be few little rules. Why can’t I walk in front of the target? he/she doesn’t even know me, why would they suspect me of all people? why is it when I’m with others, I look less suspicious despite the way I look, dress or act?

Hiding: Lets have more genuine hiding spots. Being notorious means that people know I’m a bad guy whether I’m sitting on a bench or a walking among prostitutes or dancers.

Feel free to add more points and what you think of the whole idea.

LoyalACFan
01-17-2014, 03:23 PM
Agreed on everything but the white room and weight mechanics. The death speeches are iconic, and some of the most philosophical moments of the games (when done properly). They can't just remove them now. And the weight thing seems like it would just be more of a hassle than a fun gameplay mechanic. Besides, we shouldn't be carrying much stuff to begin with. It's not like Skyrim, where you have a bazillion weapons, potions, armors, etc. on your person all the time.

RinoTheBouncer
01-17-2014, 04:11 PM
Agreed on everything but the white room and weight mechanics. The death speeches are iconic, and some of the most philosophical moments of the games (when done properly). They can't just remove them now. And the weight thing seems like it would just be more of a hassle than a fun gameplay mechanic. Besides, we shouldn't be carrying much stuff to begin with. It's not like Skyrim, where you have a bazillion weapons, potions, armors, etc. on your person all the time.

Oh of course they shouldn’t remove white rooms but at least make the condition of the assassination in a more secluded area. Or like stab him in the back and hide him somewhere or make him follow you ..etc.

roostersrule2
01-17-2014, 04:42 PM
Oh of course they shouldn’t remove white rooms but at least make the condition of the assassination in a more secluded area. Or like stab him in the back and hide him somewhere or make him follow you ..etc.That's a terrible idea, it'd ruin the game.

It would limit the gameplay way too much.

SixKeys
01-17-2014, 04:54 PM
Realistic damage = The problem with realistic damage is that you'd need realistic healing as well. That means hiding in a haystack couldn't magically regenerate your health and heal your wounds, and I wouldn't want medicine to return. Realistic healing would mean having to bandage yourself, requiring lengthy animations, and that could get tiresome after a while.

Detection = Agreed. It would also be cool if the guards who saw us before would remain on high alert. Like, a guard who was stationed somewhere else at the time wouldn't recognize me because they weren't there, but if the same guard who chased me earlier saw me again while doing his rounds, he would remember me and instantly attack or at least get suspicious. On a related note, we should also be able to get out undetected if we managed to get in undetected in main assassination missions. It would be cool to get in and out without being seen and then follow from the rooftops as one guard goes into the target's room and pandemonium ensues: "Sir? Is everything all right? Your carriage is here to.... Oh my God!! The governor has been killed! How could this have happened?!"

Weight = Ehh, not a big fan of the idea. I definitely think we should be allowed to remove weapons and not carry our whole arsenal with us the entire time, but freedom of movement is so essential to the feel of the games. As long as the games don't allow us to pick and choose which weapons to carry, a weight system would not work. I also wouldn't want Skyrim-levels of absurdity where you can carry a bazillion items as long as the load falls under some arbitrary weight number, but then you add one teeny poison dart and suddenly you can barely walk.

White room = Disagree. The white room conversations are one part of the games where I'm willing to suspend disbelief no matter how absurd they seem in context.

Hiding = I think there's a good balance at the moment. Remember, AC isn't about stealth, it's about social stealth. We already have archetypes who will search nearby benches or blend groups, so it's not entirely unrealistic. And I've always liked the idea that the best place to hide is in plain sight. Nobody would expect the assassin to simply sit down on a bench or hang out with some prostitutes while being chased, so it makes sense guards would run past.

Finding and tracking = Agreed. The current detection rules are sometimes frustrating. Sometimes ordinary citizens will run and knock each other over for no particular reason yet guards only get suspicious when I do it. In ACR a stalker could attack me in plain sight in the middle of the street with a knife yet if I killed him in self-defense, the guards would get pissed at ME.

Kirokill
01-17-2014, 05:48 PM
In ACR a stalker could attack me in plain sight in the middle of the street with a knife yet if I killed him in self-defense, the guards would get pissed at ME.

Yeah, that was some BS right there!

On the side of guards detection, they only just look at you, no one else. If you kill stealthily and leave the body the guard will only get suspicious at you(pushing you). In AC1 if you kill, then do a high profile action, then guards know that you killed him.

You need to add more criminals other than thieves in past games, like killers assassinating not only you but some random civilian (like he was on a contract).
Randomly bumping with thugs, etc..

dbzk1999
01-17-2014, 06:28 PM
About the detection thing blame the animus for that it would pretty much say
HAHA ur ancestor didn't DO THIS

salman147
01-17-2014, 06:31 PM
I agree with weight and gravity thing and stealth and combat too.Too bad the next game is already 80% complete in development...... How I know? Yeah,I realized you'd ask that.It's because every game is annual (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as each and every game takes a 2+ years development cycle which is true for AC3 and Black Flag) So it's safe to presume the next game is nearly complete

marcbryan
01-17-2014, 09:56 PM
Agreed Rhino! Especially in regard to Finding and tracking. They were sort of incorporating that approach in Revelations and 3.

IWGCJoeCool
01-18-2014, 03:03 AM
well, just like the death speeches are an iconic part of the game, remember too, that we arent totally doing what we want, but are "reliving the times and experiences of an ancestor", in reality, just mostly along for the ride. our quick health regeneration is because we screwed up and got hurt, and our ancestor on his own was not injured at that juncture. if he really was in some failure, we get a cinematic of his injury or capture. take that perspective to everything, including guards on high alert one minute, then totally oblivious the next , like it didnt happen...cuz it didnt. the Animus is constantly resetting the experience to match the actual timeline.

you have to admit, the whole Animus story telling device was a work of genius and precludes most of our arguments for any further realisms :)

JC

AdamPearce
01-18-2014, 07:09 AM
If they are to include realism in the game they should also include a high maturity level and talk about deep and troublesome subject such as child-slavery, forced prostitution, deceases, death, life, etc. They must run away from this childly happy HIstory and show us what is really was. Just like AC1 did.

poptartz20
01-18-2014, 07:19 AM
Honestly I would just like a more realistic AI. Like in the sense of guards stay on high alert. especially when they know another guard has gone down. Kinda like in Batman:AS

GunnarGunderson
01-18-2014, 07:20 AM
I'd love a slower paced AC where you'll only need to kill one or two people every hour or so and you need to take care in hiding the body and staying out of combat

AssassinHMS
01-18-2014, 05:49 PM
Realistic AC experience? You mean, “An actual Assassin's Creed experience” and not some boring casual game about some weird dimension where everything is dubbed down.

Too bad 90% of the fan base plays AC to be a mass-murder psychopath with superpowers. Also, this franchise is now nothing but a triple-A Angry Birds, which means there’s no place for anything that forces brain activity (“forces”, the forbidden word).



Anyway, I like your ideas including the white room one. If players want to be able to listen to their target’s dying speech then they must make sure they have the proper conditions to do so, they’d better make sure they’re stealthy. I find it immersion breaking when the “white room” appears while enemies are targeting me. Of course this means that, whatever the target says after the kill, isn’t required to the progression of the story (it's more of a gift that allows the player to understand the enemy’s perspective and motives).

Fatal-Feit
01-18-2014, 05:58 PM
Anyway, I like your ideas including the white room one. If players want to be able to listen to their target’s dying speech then they must make sure they have the proper conditions to do so, they’d better make sure they’re stealthy. I find it immersion breaking when the “white room” appears while enemies are targeting me. Of course this means that, whatever the target says after the kill, isn’t required to the progression of the story (it's more of a gift that allows the player to understand the enemy’s perspective and motives).

I really like this idea! It promotes stealth and gives the veterans a reward for being a true Assassin. :D

AdamPearce
01-18-2014, 06:12 PM
Realistic AC experience? You mean, “An actual Assassin's Creed experience” and not some boring casual game about some weird dimension where everything is dubbed down.

Too bad 90% of the fan base plays AC to be a mass-murder psychopath with superpowers. Also, this franchise is now nothing but a triple-A Angry Birds, which means there’s no place for anything that forces brain activity (“forces”, the forbidden word).

There is still Kojima, at least.




Anyway, I like your ideas including the white room one. If players want to be able to listen to their target’s dying speech then they must make sure they have the proper conditions to do so, they’d better make sure they’re stealthy. I find it immersion breaking when the “white room” appears while enemies are targeting me. Of course this means that, whatever the target says after the kill, isn’t required to the progression of the story (it's more of a gift that allows the player to understand the enemy’s perspective and motives).

Well, the concept you should remain, when you 'hide' your target, you should have a wither room talk, because I don't see myself talking in a dark street about Templars motives, it would just be odd.

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 06:25 PM
No.
Realism ruins immersion as crazy as that may sound...
Look at Gran Turismo 5 vs Need For Speed
In need for speed it's easy to get lost in a race because the arcade style gets your heart racing and your palms sweaty, racing is dumbed down and you feel like a pro street racer...while in gran turismo (though a great game and my personal fav racer) you are constantly being reminded that it is a simulator and that you have no business behind the seat of a real race car.
Video games are supposed to turn you into a character you are THEM! With all of their skills and badassery...not show what its like if you had to be that character.
I dont want to be constantly reminded how hard it is to move around with a sord, or how hard it is to actually sneak through a building in real life...the frustration and redos would constantly pull you out of the experience and world.

AssassinHMS
01-18-2014, 06:34 PM
Well, the concept you should remain, when you 'hide' your target, you should have a wither room talk, because I don't see myself talking in a dark street about Templars motives, it would just be odd.

Well, what I'm saying is that, if you manage to assassinate the target without alerting anyone, you will be given the option to trigger the white room by interacting with the target right after the kill. You don't need to hide the target or take it to a secluded area (since, by the time you got to said area, the target would have already passed away). What you have to do is to kill the target in a secluded area. In case the target isn't in such an area, you can silently kill the guards, you can lure the target to a safe area or you can wait until he/she goes to the bathroom and make your move there.

It’s also worth mentioning that you can’t trigger the white room while in combat and that, by the time you lose your pursuers or finish them off (if you’re capable of), the target may already be dead.

AssassinHMS
01-18-2014, 06:56 PM
No.
Realism ruins immersion as crazy as that may sound...
Look at Gran Turismo 5 vs Need For Speed
In need for speed it's easy to get lost in a race because the arcade style gets your heart racing and your palms sweaty, racing is dumbed down and you feel like a pro street racer...while in gran turismo (though a great game and my personal fav racer) you are constantly being reminded that it is a simulator and that you have no business behind the seat of a real race car.
Video games are supposed to turn you into a character you are THEM! With all of their skills and badassery...not show what its like if you had to be that character.
I dont want to be constantly reminded how hard it is to move around with a sord, or how hard it is to actually sneak through a building in real life...the frustration and redos would constantly pull you out of the experience and world.

Why not watch a movie then? Not all video games are supposed to display a character to you, many of them are about you being the character (like AC1 for instance). If a player sucks the game shouldn't be there to hold his hand. The game should maintain the level of challenge so that the player can actually develop his skills. What you want deprives everyone from challenge and, personally, I'm tired of handholding, I'm tired of the game telling me what to do, play itself and treat me like a spectator or like a ******ed fish that can't handle some challenge.

Challenge is fun. Life is challenge and it is the reason why it can be fun. If everything is handed to you then there is no joy, no sense of accomplishment and we stop giving value to the experience.

Take Walking Dead for example. Remember, in the first season, when the protagonists were given hot water and food? It was like the second coming of Jesus. And why? Because challenge allows you to truly valorize what you have.
In the same way, AC can be awesome and fun if it becomes challenging (not too much, just the right amount). Stealth can be tense and scary, combat can be fun and escape can be thrilling.


I think you are afraid of change, but seriously, reality is 10000000000 times better than fiction. Why do you care for a character? Because the emotions and situations feel real (are realistic). The same can be applied to gameplay. Give it a chance. We already have tons of casual "AC" games. Why not make the real deal for once?

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 07:06 PM
Why not watch a movie then? Not all video games are supposed to display a character to you, many of them are about you being the character (like AC1 for instance). If a player sucks the game shouldn't be there to hold his hand. The game should maintain the level of challenge so that the player can actually develop his skills. What you want deprives everyone from challenge and, personally, I'm tired of handholding, I'm tired of the game telling me what to do, play itself and treat me like a spectator or like a ******ed fish that can't handle some challenge.

Challenge is fun. Life is challenge and it is the reason why it can be fun. If everything is handed to you then there is no joy, no sense of accomplishment and we stop giving value to the experience.

Take Walking Dead for example. Remember, in the first season, when the protagonists were given hot water and food? It was like the second coming of Jesus. And why? Because challenge allows you to truly valorize what you have.
In the same way, AC can be awesome and fun if it becomes challenging (not too much, just the right amount). Stealth can be tense and scary, combat can be fun and escape can be thrilling.


I think you are afraid of change, but seriously, reality is 10000000000 times better than fiction. Why do you care for a character? Because the emotions and situations feel real (are realistic). The same can be applied to gameplay. Give it a chance. We already have tons of casual "AC" games. Why not make the real deal for once?

I don't watch movies or TV bc i like to do.
Idc if all are supposed to display a character...this particular one we are talking about is. INCLUDING AC1
Its about an ancestor with skill...not you.
Challenge (in the sense of frustration and redos) is immersion breaking...ive said it a million times and ill say it again..if you want challenge try life...
Games are supposed to be fun, a break from life.
Dark Souls and Demons souls exist..go play them..you don't have to play AC....
And the walking dead was point and click..no challenge and one of the greatest games of the past gen so i have no idea what youre talking about.....
And how is reality better than fiction?
Borderlands is the best and most immersive first person shooter EVER.

Hans684
01-18-2014, 07:10 PM
Skills:
1) You start the game with only the abilitiy to attack and defend.
2) You have to train in a training area like AC1 and AC2 to gett more skills.(like one-counter-kill, chain-kill etc.)
3) The skill sets unlock trough the story.
4) For the casual players the ability to chain-kill and counter can be learned after completing sequence 1(intro).
5) You don't have to learn every skill for full sync.
6) You can also train to gett stealth skills like using enemy clothing, light/shadow stealth etc.
7) Meaning at the end of the day You make your of difficulty, so complains of it being easy is irrelevant.

World:
1) The guards have the same skill(more or less) as you when every skill is learned.
2) There is a moral/reaction system(some idea someone had a while a go) that react to what you do.
3) There are hunters(former assassins/templars agents) in the game that obviously hunt you, they have even more skill then you even when fully upgraded. You can't just fight them head on, you have to use navigation, stealth & combat to kill one.

The Protagonist:
1) The upgrade system works like the one in ACIVBF/FC3.
2) You have to upgrade each health bar one at the time.
3) You start the game with very low health and bad weapons.
4) Upgrades unlock trough the story.
5) You can upgrade the limit of weapons/ammo to carry.(if you don't want guns, then upgrade a holster for bow and arrow, crossbow, blowpipe or nothing at all)
6) You don't have to be fully upgraded for full sync.
7) You can upgrade some weapons(more damage to the hidden blades or from original hidden blades to chain-blade, pivot blade or add hook blade)
7) Meaning at the end of the day You make your own difficulty, so complains about having to much weapons weapons and/or to much overpowerd weapons is irrelevant.

It gives players the option of being One-Man-Army or Stealthy. Your game, your rules & your way. It gives the challenge, the tension, the fear etc... Everything you make your self. Or a relaxing easy game.

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 07:13 PM
Skills:
1) You start the game with only the abilitiy to attack and defend.
2) You have to train in a training area like AC1 and AC2 to gett more skills.(like one-counter-kill, chain-kill etc.)
3) The skill sets unlock trough the story.
4) For the casual players the ability to chain-kill and counter can be learned after completing sequence 1(intro).
5) You don't have to learn every skill for full sync.
6) You can also train to gett stealth skills like using enemy clothing, light/shadow stealth etc.
7) Meaning at the end of the day You make your of difficulty, so complains of it being easy is irrelevant.

World:
1) The guards have the same skill(more or less) as you when every skill is learned.
2) There is a moral/reaction system(some idea someone had a while a go) that react to what you do.
3) There are hunters(former assassins/templars agents) in the game that obviously hunt you, they have even more skill then you even when fully upgraded. You can't just fight them head on, you have to use navigation, stealth & combat to kill one.

The Protagonist:
1) The upgrade system works like the one in ACIVBF/FC3.
2) You have to upgrade each health bar one at the time.
3) You start the game with very low health and bad weapons.
4) Upgrades unlock trough the story.
5) You can upgrade the limit of weapons/ammo to carry.(if you don't want guns, then upgrade a holster for bow and arrow, crossbow, blowpipe or nothing at all)
6) You don't have to be fully upgraded for full sync.
7) You can upgrade some weapons(more damage to the hidden blades or from original hidden blades to chain-blade, pivot blade or add hook blade)
7) Meaning at the end of the day You make your own difficulty, so complains about having to much weapons weapons and/or to much overpowerd weapons is irrelevant.

It gives players the option of being One-Man-Army or Stealthy. Your game, your rules & your way. It gives the challenge, the tension, the fear etc... Everything you make your self. Or a relaxing easy game.
I can agree with this, but only with certain stories like Ezio's and Connors where you had to be trained to learn how to reach higher spots and how to become an assassin period..
I wantd a karate kid moment with Connor and Achillies haha

But I couldnt see a system like this with Edward (because his skill was described as "natural") or Altair because he was already developed by time we met him

AssassinHMS
01-18-2014, 07:25 PM
I don't watch movies or TV bc i like to do.
Idc if all are supposed to display a character...this particular one we are talking about is. INCLUDING AC1
Its about an ancestor with skill...not you.

ďInstead of asking players to make flawless individual leaps, Assassinís Creed asked you to play a bigger game of choosing the best routes, finding your prey and stalking them, and preempting the guards or shaking them off if youíre discovered. It asked you to have the situational awareness of a killer, to walk into a room and quietly scope the exits and entrances, lines of sight and potential choke points.Ē
ďHe remains proud of the gameís potential as a roleplaying simulator - I like the first Assassinís Creed because itís the purest one.Ē

Patrice, himself, said AC1 was a simulator whereas the rest had the player follow the protagonist. And it is quite obvious, you just need to look closer.




Challenge (in the sense of frustration and redos) is immersion breaking...ive said it a million times and ill say it again..if you want challenge try life...
Games are supposed to be fun, a break from life.
Dark Souls and Demons souls exist..go play them..you don't have to play AC....

So afraid of losing your mindless funÖ
Youíre being narrow-minded, youíre not even giving it a chance and youíre not listening to reason. Challenge is only frustrating if it is in excess or if it is badly implemented (like desynchronizing simply because the mission is too linear and doesnít allow you to complete it your way).



And the walking dead was point and click..no challenge and one of the greatest games of the past gen so i have no idea what youre talking about.....
And how is reality better than fiction?
Borderlands is the best and most immersive first person shooter EVER.
Iím talking about the show, not the pseudo game.

And reality is better than fiction. Why? Because it is real. Also because fiction is nothing more than twisting reality, there is nothing truly original, everything is a combination of different aspects of reality. You canít imagine a new color, not because there arenít, but because our mind canít create something from nothing, it can only combine.

Anyway, I canít explain you why reality is better than fiction. That is something you have to learn for yourself.

AdamPearce
01-18-2014, 07:25 PM
I don't watch movies or TV bc i like to do.
Idc if all are supposed to display a character...this particular one we are talking about is. INCLUDING AC1
Its about an ancestor with skill...not you.
Challenge (in the sense of frustration and redos) is immersion breaking...ive said it a million times and ill say it again..if you want challenge try life...
Games are supposed to be fun, a break from life.
Dark Souls and Demons souls exist..go play them..you don't have to play AC....
And the walking dead was point and click..no challenge and one of the greatest games of the past gen so i have no idea what youre talking about.....
And how is reality better than fiction?
Borderlands is the best and most immersive first person shooter EVER.

Being able to destroy 76 armed city guard in less than 5 minutes is the most immersion breaking thing ever.

The Ancestor represent the player, since you control the Ancestor, if the Ancestor was himself you wouldn't have to do anything, it would be acting by itself. But he is not, so you are in control, you are the Ancestor. Alright you have 'skills' but you're still a human, and humans have limits. And how can you expect to have 'fun' is there is no challenge ? Where does joy comes in a game ? From the accomplishment, when you beat a Boss, you're happy because it was hard but you were still able to beat him. If you want to 'relax', there is TV, games are meant to be challenging, that's the whole point of having you interact with, otherwise it would just be a normal show. And the Die & Retry thing is a lazy technique for the devs to make the game longer. Real challenge demands real skill, thinking, reflexes, it puts you in front of a problem that you need to resolve.

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 07:32 PM
“Instead of asking players to make flawless individual leaps, Assassin’s Creed asked you to play a bigger game of choosing the best routes, finding your prey and stalking them, and preempting the guards or shaking them off if you’re discovered. It asked you to have the situational awareness of a killer, to walk into a room and quietly scope the exits and entrances, lines of sight and potential choke points.”
“He remains proud of the game’s potential as a roleplaying simulator - I like the first Assassin’s Creed because it’s the purest one.”

Patrice, himself, said AC1 was a simulator whereas the rest had the player follow the protagonist. And it is quite obvious, you just need to look closer.
"Dead Island Game of The Year Edition"
Just because a dev says something about what their game is "supposed" to be doesnt make it what it is






So afraid of losing your mindless fun…
You’re being narrow-minded, you’re not even giving it a chance and you’re not listening to reason. Challenge is only frustrating if it is in excess or if it is badly implemented (like desynchronizing simply because the mission is too linear and doesn’t allow you to complete it your way).



I’m talking about the show, not the pseudo game.

And reality is better than fiction. Why? Because it is real. Also because fiction is nothing more than twisting reality, there is nothing truly original, everything is a combination of different aspects of reality. You can’t imagine a new color, not because there aren’t, but because our mind can’t create something from nothing, it can only combine.

Anyway, I can’t explain you why reality is better than fiction. That is something you have to learn for yourself.
and of course im afraid of losing my mindless fun...its one of the only games that allows mindless fun! I do puzzles, fight bosses, take on waves of enemies, redo levels, get sent back to a checkpoint, and die constantly ALL YEAR..I want to sit back and enjoy AC..its what i look forward to every fall.
It's the ONE GAME left that I can relax while I play.
If Assassins Creed focuses on difficulty then it becomes 'just another game'
And fiction is still better than reality when it comes to entertainment...
Realist vs optimist
Im an optimist....I like tho see things for what they could be, not what they are

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 07:35 PM
Being able to destroy 76 armed city guard in less than 5 minutes is the most immersion breaking thing ever.


I want you to go do this right now on any AC game..beacuse of course that is immersion breaking..good thing it never happens

AdamPearce
01-18-2014, 07:41 PM
"Dead Island Game of The Year Edition"
Just because a dev says something about what their game is "supposed" to be doesnt make it what it is

But Patrice was describing the gameplay he created, how can you be so blind ?! If you draw a horse and someone says it's a cow, who will you believe ?

AdamPearce
01-18-2014, 07:44 PM
I want you to go do this right now on any AC game..beacuse of course that is immersion breaking..good thing it never happens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw3U_getqDg

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 07:45 PM
But Patrice was describing the gameplay he created, how can you be so blind ?! If you draw a horse and someone says it's a cow, who will you believe ?
Oh..so the people that released Dead Island Game of the year didnt create it? how can you be so blind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw3U_getqDg

Theres a difference between a kill streak and 87 AI surrounding you and you go through them like butter...

Fatal-Feit
01-18-2014, 07:45 PM
I want you to go do this right now on any AC game..beacuse of course that is immersion breaking..good thing it never happens


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYxdoQHC4E

Fast forward to 15:00 and gaze upon that pool of bodies.

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 07:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYxdoQHC4E

Fast forward to 15:00 and gaze upon that pool of bodies.

This is a kill streak that you have to antagonize to happen..it doesnt happen naturally in game...he never took on more than 10 enemies at once...you can do this in literally any and all open world games

AdamPearce
01-18-2014, 07:53 PM
This is a kill streak that you have to antagonize to happen..it doesnt happen naturally in game...you can do this in literally any and all open world games

No you can't, you can't even do this in AC1.
And you couldn't do this in:

GTA
RDR
Skyrim
SR3 (without cheats)
FC3
JC2

this is only possible in AC.

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 07:54 PM
No you can't, you can't even do this in AC1.
And you couldn't do this in:

GTA
RDR
Skyrim
SR3 (without cheats)
FC3
JC2

this is only possible in AC.
LOL you can go on a kill streak in all of these games..the only difference is they dont respawn as rapidly..

AssassinHMS
01-18-2014, 07:55 PM
And of course im afraid of losing my mindless fun...its one of the only games that allows mindless fun! I do puzzles, fight bosses, and die constantly ALL YEAR..I want to sit back and enjoy AC..its what i look forward to every fall.
And fiction is still better than reality when it comes to entertainment...
Realist vs optimist
Im an optimist....I like tho see things for what they could be, not what they are

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that AC could be a LOT better if it became increasingly challenging and realistic instead of the opposite. Maybe you didn't notice, but AC's formula requires challenge in order to work (which is one of the reasons why the formula failed in the first place and the AC's core is rotting).


Most people can't afford to be optimistic (although many of them are). I don't think I can, so I chose not to. Well, one thing's for sure, if I could choose, I'd rather have enemies that are optimist.
Anyway, I donít see how being optimistic is related to preferring mindless fun and a dubbed down realityÖÖoh wait, I know. Itís obvious.

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 07:56 PM
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that AC could be a LOT better if it became increasingly challenging and realistic instead of the opposite. Maybe you didn't notice, but AC's formula requires challenge in order to work (which is one of the reasons why the formula failed in the first place and the AC's core is rotting).


Most people can't afford to be optimistic (although many of them are). I don't think I can, so I chose not to. Well, one thing's for sure, if I could choose, I'd rather have enemies that are optimist.
Anyway, I don’t see how being optimistic is related to preferring mindless fun and a dubbed down reality……oh wait, I know. It’s obvious.
The only place i see AC lacking is its story and mission design..its gameplay is flawless... (To me)
Challenge does not make a game better...
Journey and The Walking Dead sweep game of the year 2012 because of design (journey) and story (walking dead) (2 of the easiest games ever)
Gone Home and The Last of Us sweep game of the year 2013 (because of their design and story)
Mission design and story make games great! Not their realistic or unrealistic combat! ;) or even challenge!

AdamPearce
01-18-2014, 08:06 PM
The only place i see AC lacking is its story and mission design..its gameplay is flawless... (To me)
Challenge does not make a game better...

Well guess what, story and mission design depends on the level of challenge and realism of the game. And yes challenge definetely adds fun to the games. Imagine playing football againts someone who can't run, there is no fun, you just walk and shoot. Now put someone too good, same result, you can't do anything. But, put someone with the same level, and you'll have hell of a good time together, it's called balance.

AssassinHMS
01-18-2014, 08:14 PM
The only place i see AC lacking is its story and mission design..its gameplay is flawless... (To me)

See, one thing is an opinion, another is not looking at a subject objectively. I recognize that AC4 is a better game than ACB, but ACB is still my favorite because I enjoyed it the most. This is an opinion, since it is based on personal experiences that are unique to every person. However, I am still looking at it objectively since I am not letting my opinion cloud my judgment and make me turn my back on logic (saying ACB is the best because it is the one I like the most).

In your case, it's obvious that you like this casual AC (although you can't say "you prefer it" since you haven't actually tried a non-casual AC), but it should also be obvious that the gameplay is far from flawless, regardless of your taste or opinion. I can't say that you don’t like it, but you can't also claim it is flawless when there is clear proof of otherwise.
This is more important than it may seem since, opinions are completely centered on us and, when they take objectivity’s place, we stop helping the game and are much more likely to harm it. The lack of objectivity is harming this franchise and it turned it into something that is made completely centered on the market (people’s opinions) and not on the actual game (objectivity). So, before adding mindless fun, explosions, guns, ships and whatnot, we should think about the actual game (the repercussions, what will happen to the core and to the franchise’s identity) and not simply on our bellies (wow that’s cool, yeah explosions, blood, violence!).

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 08:54 PM
See, one thing is an opinion, another is not looking at a subject objectively. I recognize that AC4 is a better game than ACB, but ACB is still my favorite because I enjoyed it the most. This is an opinion, since it is based on personal experiences that are unique to every person. However, I am still looking at it objectively since I am not letting my opinion cloud my judgment and make me turn my back on logic (saying ACB is the best because it is the one I like the most).

In your case, it's obvious that you like this casual AC (although you can't say "you prefer it" since you haven't actually tried a non-casual AC), but it should also be obvious that the gameplay is far from flawless, regardless of your taste or opinion. I can't say that you don’t like it, but you can't also claim it is flawless when there is clear proof of otherwise.
This is more important than it may seem since, opinions are completely centered on us and, when they take objectivity’s place, we stop helping the game and are much more likely to harm it. The lack of objectivity is harming this franchise and it turned it into something that is made completely centered on the market (people’s opinions) and not on the actual game (objectivity). So, before adding mindless fun, explosions, guns, ships and whatnot, we should think about the actual game (the repercussions, what will happen to the core and to the franchise’s identity) and not simply on our bellies (wow that’s cool, yeah explosions, blood, violence!).

Assassins Creed 1 to me is very uncasual....it demands your attention..if you don't give it to the game you will be insanely bored with it and may even forget about it...
One of my friends got AC1 when it first came out..NEVER finished it and missed out on Ezio because of it...but I was like dude..I promise it doesnt suck any more, give AC3 a chance and AC3 is now one of his favorite games...he is in love with the series..
I myself started to play AC1 in 2011 after beating ACR, but couldnt bring myself to finish the game until before AC3 was released because I wanted to know desmonds back story (I was playing AC1 as i filled out my gamestop pre order)
And I forced myself through just for the story..it wasn't fun to me...
But it's a little odd that you believe challenge can make the franchise better..yet your favorite game in the series is the easiest of the 6.... ;)
I believe they had a thing with Assassins Creed 3 in terms of mission VARIETY even though the mission DESIGN was still lacking...
In AC IV they had great design, BUT the lack of variety made the design seem repetitive and unenjoyable.
If AC3 and AC4 had a baby it would be perfection in my opinion..
I just would hate to get AC4 with a halved health bar next year is what im saying..challenge should never be a >main< focus when developing a game unless that's your selling point (Souls series)

crFIDO
01-18-2014, 09:10 PM
This post kind of reminds me of this smosh video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bKoahtmcHY

AssassinHMS
01-18-2014, 09:15 PM
Assassins Creed 1 to me is very uncasual....it demands your attention..if you don't give it to the game you will be insanely bored with it and may even forget about...
I myself started to play AC1 in 2011 after beating ACR, but couldnt bring myself to finish the game until before AC3 was released because I wanted to know desmonds back story (I was playing AC1 as i filled out my gamestop pre order)
And I forced myself through just for the story..it wasn't fun to me...
But it's a little odd that you believe challenge can make the franchise better..yet your favorite game in the series is the easiest of the 6.... ;)
I believe they had a thing with Assassins Creed 3 in terms of mission VARIETY even though the mission DESIGN was still lacking...
In AC IV they had great design, BUT the lack of variety made the design seem repetitive and unenjoyable.
If AC3 and AC4 had a baby it would be perfection in my opinion..
I just would hate to get AC4 with a halved health bar next year is what im saying..challenge should never be a >main< focus when developing a game unless that's your selling point (Souls series)

I agree, AC1 was sometimes hard to swallow. However, is it because it requires the player's attention or due to the lack of side missions, underdeveloped quests and a lack of variety?? Like Patrice said, many people were already so excited for AC1 before he even knew how he was going to make the game work (due to the time, resources and natural problems in a game's develpment).

When I play a game I do so for enjoyment. ACB was the one I enjoyed the most despite the combat or the (damned) roman spaulders. Also, ACB wasn't nearly as focused on combat as AC3, so that's probably why I was able to ignore that more easily.

Like I explained, challenge is very important for AC's formula and, if the developers want to pull off another AC game, they'd better make the core mechanics flawless and strong enough to run the show without requiring naval and other additions to hide their miserable state.
There is no denying that challenge is important, especially when it comes to AC. Challenge should be a main part of the experience so that the player never feels above it and instead, always immersed in it. When the game places you above the rules, above the experience, it makes you feel like God. And it can be fun for a while playing as God but, once it loses the novelty, the experience feels empty and you start wishing you were a simple mortal. Believe me, the best fun you can have is from overcoming an obstacle. AC needs that kind of fun for the core to work. Stealth, combat and navigation depend on realism and balance, if you take the realism (challenge) you take the fear, the thrill, the excitement and the real fun. And the only thing left is the casual fun. Worth it? I don't think so.

STDlyMcStudpants
01-18-2014, 09:25 PM
I agree, AC1 was sometimes hard to swallow. However, is it because it requires the player's attention or due to the lack of side missions, underdeveloped quests and a lack of variety?? Like Patrice said, many people were already so excited for AC1 before he even knew how he was going to make the game work (due to the time, resources and natural problems in a game's develpment).

When I play a game I do so for enjoyment. ACB was the one I enjoyed the most despite the combat or the (damned) roman spaulders. Also, ACB wasn't nearly as focused on combat as AC3, so that's probably why I was able to ignore that more easily.

Like I explained, challenge is very important for AC's formula and, if the developers want to pull off another AC game, they'd better make the core mechanics flawless and strong enough to run the show without requiring naval and other additions to hide their miserable state.
There is no denying that challenge is important, especially when it comes to AC. Challenge should be a main part of the experience so that the player never feels above it and instead, always immersed in it. When the game places you above the rules, above the experience, it makes you feel like God. And it can be fun for a while playing as God but, once it loses the novelty, the experience feels empty and you start wishing you were a simple mortal. Believe me, the best fun you can have is from overcoming an obstacle. AC needs that kind of fun for the core to work. Stealth, combat and navigation depend on realism and balance, if you take the realism (challenge) you take the fear, the thrill, the excitement and the real fun. And the only thing left is the casual fun. Worth it? I don't think so.
But how can a non existent ingredient be important to a formula?
I'ts like make a pizza and saying "We need twizzlers..I know no pizza has ever had twizzlers on it, but trust me it's VERY important"
AC has never been challenging....
I'm sure you're one of those guys thta hate AC3 so just imagine AC3 EXACTLY how it is now but you died easier..do you like the game more? OF COURSE NOT
But why? Because the unrealistic superpowers of connor isn't why you disliked the game..
Itt's be cause of the mission design (too get to this market then this marker then this marker) its because of the monotoned voice actor (Where is charles lee? Just wondering....)
I find assassins Creed games to be the most fun when they are over or when I'm doing my own thing..if you agree with that..if you enjoy running around then the challenge isn't the problem..the realism isn't the problem..the campaign is the problem.

AssassinHMS
01-18-2014, 09:38 PM
But how can a non existent ingredient be important to a formula?
I'ts like make a pizza and saying "We need twizzlers..I know no pizza has ever had twizzlers on it, but trust me it's VERY important"
AC has never been challenging....
I'm sure you're one of those guys thta hate AC3 so just imagine AC3 EXACTLY how it is now but you died easier..do you like the game more? OF COURSE NOT
But why? Because the unrealistic superpowers of connor isn't why you disliked the game..
Itt's be cause of the mission design (too get to this market then this marker then this marker) its because of the monotoned voice actor (Where is charles lee? Just wondering....)
I find assassins Creed games to be the most fun when they are over or when I'm doing my own thing..if you agree with that..if you enjoy running around then the challenge isn't the problem..the realism isn't the problem..the campaign is the problem.

It's called having vision. If everyone thought like that and stick to the books then society wouldn't evolve and we would always remain the same primitive beings. And it's not that hard to understand. Don't you agree with my reasoning? It's quite basic really.
You're right, I never fell in love for AC3. I agree, the mission design is terrible but AC3 has many more problems. The lack of challenge is one of them. Wait, let me rectify that. It didn't lack challenge, it lacked proper challenge. AC3 was the most challenging AC game for me. I mean, I really had trouble, being stealthy (with the telepathic guards), tailing targets (with the stupid controls and short leash), etc. Heck, I desynchronized every turn and only rarely did I managed to pull off a mission the way I wanted to. But you know what kind of challenge is this? The ******ed, uninspired, frustrating one.

So you see, the linearity, the bad mission design, the crappy AI, its all immersion breaking. Why? Because it doesn't feel real, it feels forced, mechanic, automatic, broken, gamey, unrealÖ
Again, challenge/realism is what AC desperately needs.

Hans684
01-18-2014, 10:05 PM
AssassinHMS


STDlyMcStudpants

Or maybe make a game capable of both, sure there is visions, concepts and all that. Then we also have the calm, relaxing, easy way. A game that can do both stealth, combat & navigation the way the player want is a better idea. Then people no longer will be to much forced to do stuff they don't want. It would also gett rid of this discussion, people play games for all kind of reasons. To have one more focused than another will split game possibility and narrow what it can be and possibility of a larger scale of evolving. Sure the new THIEF is reboot but it's no diffrent than the others. The new GTA is no diffent either or COD or BF or Uncharted. By narrowing the game you narrow everything else.

AssassinHMS
01-18-2014, 10:32 PM
Or maybe make a game capable of both, sure there is visions, concepts and all that. Then we also have the calm, relaxing, easy way. A game that can do both stealth, combat & navigation the way the player want is a better idea. Then people no longer will be to much forced to do stuff they don't want. It would also gett rid of this discussion, people play games for all kind of reasons. To have one more focused than another will split game possibility and narrow what it can be and possibility of a larger scale of evolving. Sure the new THIEF is reboot but it's no diffrent than the others. The new GTA is no diffent either or COD or BF or Uncharted. By narrowing the game you narrow everything else.

We play AC for the same reason, to have fun. The Assassin's Creed I'm describing only exists on paper while the the other "AC" is the only one we know. Give this one a chance first and see how it goes.

Options are good but, they can have nasty consequences when they're pushed to the extreme. I once proposed difficulty levels too, but now, Im not so sure. It would downgrade the experience. Besides, AC doesn't have to please everyone, it sure hasn't made an effort to please me so far. Then again, neither did Angry Birds or Plants vs Zombies. Why? Because those games are meant for casual fun and, since I'm not really interested in playing games like that, I don't like them. Simple. However, AC is another matter. AC's core and formula doesn't work with a casual game. Proof? Just look at it. AC's formula requires challenge and realism. So, I'm not asking AC to become less casual because I don't like casual games, I'm asking AC to be like that for its own sake. AC is different than Angry Birds (and you don't see me asking for Angry Birds to be less casual, to each their own). Want to play casual games? Play the ones I mentioned. Wnat to play real games? Play the ones that are meant to be like that. AC is one of them since the formula depends on it in order to work. So you see, AC should focus on itself. If you want to improve yourself, you don't do what people tell you to to the point of forsaking yourself, You should always keep your core and stay true to your roots. Sure, you can adapt in order to fit in but NEVER make your goal the one to please everyone. AC should be what it needs to be in order to improve, and that includes challenge and realism not casualty and mindless action.

Hans684
01-19-2014, 12:52 PM
We play AC for the same reason, to have fun.

Indeed but some people play AC becouse they like being a One-Man-Army(not me), they consider it it fun. Just like you want old school assassination becouse you consider it fun. We play AC for fun but what someone consider fun is their opionion.


The Assassin's Creed I'm describing only exists on paper while the the other "AC" is the only one we know.

If the "AC" you are talking about only exist on paper and not even AC1 but an idea, then it's worth giving a shot. Becouse it would be diffrent like a sequal should. It gives a diffrent taste and feel.


Give this one a chance first and see how it goes.

The same can be said about my idea, everything should be worth trying.


Options are good but, they can have nasty consequences when they're pushed to the extreme. I once proposed difficulty levels too, but now, Im not so sure. It would downgrade the experience. Besides, AC doesn't have to please everyone, it sure hasn't made an effort to please me so far.

Like Fallout(big success) does in story telling, it's not about it being extreme but that it is performed good. My idea is simple yet allows both, just look at Hitman: Abosution(most hated Hitman(becouse it's linear)). You could shoose you way even in explosive moments. Or Splinter Cell: Blacklist(second to SC: Chaos Theory), yet again you could choose unless there was story over gameplay moments. Or Dishonored(well restived(but short) new IP), a game where you can choose to be a ruthless killer or an assassin and choose where the story go. A difficulty level can work if done correctly but with my idea you make the difficulty you self, the game only gives you the tools. My idea was never to please everyone(impossible anyway) but to have a game you can make for you self, your game, your rules & your way.


AC is one of them since the formula depends on it in order to work. So you see, AC should focus on itself. If you want to improve yourself, you don't do what people tell you to to the point of forsaking yourself, You should always keep your core and stay true to your roots.

There is always more than one way of improving. Trying something new, the same old, failure etc..

AssassinHMS
01-19-2014, 03:04 PM
Indeed but some people play AC becouse they like being a One-Man-Army(not me), they consider it it fun. Just like you want old school assassination becouse you consider it fun. We play AC for fun but what someone consider fun is their opionion.

Oh, Iím well aware of the different tastes in this huge fan base. But that is my point. Itís time for AC to stop thinking about pleasing everyone and start thinking about itself. What is best for the franchise? What is best for Assassinís Creed?
Instead of: What will sell? What can we do to please the biggest market (casual)?

Itís time for Ubisoft to put sales as a secondary objective and focus on what improves the franchise, on what respects its roots. Because, the road Ubisoft took with AC is killing it. The core, the concept, the pillars, itís all gone or rotten. The only thing that still pulls this franchise forward are the additions and the new fans that arenít bored of the same game being sold every year with a different coat (because theyíre recent fans).
I know it sounds stupid or overdramatic, but AC died long ago, on the inside. It died as soon as the concept, the formula was considered a failure. Then linearity kicked in, explosions, lack of challenge, action stunts, cheap violenceÖ And all the things that made AC unique, that were part of the formula, were either gone or downgraded. Why? Because AC was no longer about AC, it became exclusively about selling.

Itís time for AC to reflect upon its existence and retake its personality. And this isnít because I want to, it isnít because of my particular taste or opinion, itís because AC needs it. The core needs it, the atmosphere, the spark, they all need it. It can renew the franchise and make everyone (including the long term fans) excited for it (especially if they stopped with the annual releases). Challenge is necessary, realism, ingredients never seen before in the games but that can improve the formula.
But, if we stop to think about everyone, we end up doing nothing. ďOh, but those people play AC for the mindless violence.Ē ďRight, and those play AC only to distract themselves when theyíre bored.Ē You know what I say? Screw them. Screw each and every one of us. Whatís important now, is AC, not our bellies. Letís focus on what is best for ACís formula (weather itís mindless violence or realism) and make sure we make a good and fun game. If we do that, people will come, they will buy the game and they will like it, for what it is.

And we were already proven that AC isnít doing well due to the mindless violence and casual gameplay.
AC needs a change, it needs to redo itself and respect its roots. It doesnít matter if those who play AC for the mindless violence wonít like it, what matters is that AC lives and does what it does best, not what some people want it to do (despite that thing they want it to do being a death sentence).
So you see, itís not about us, itís about AC (do whatís best for the franchise) regardless of the different opinions and tastes and, if done properly, money is sure to flow.



If the "AC" you are talking about only exist on paper and not even AC1 but an idea, then it's worth giving a shot. Becouse it would be diffrent like a sequal should. It gives a diffrent taste and feel.

Yes, the AC Iím talking about, is completely new. Yes, it grabs the main aspects, it is true to the formula, but it feels nothing like any of the previous titles.



The same can be said about my idea, everything should be worth trying.
Yes, but your idea seems more like a backup plan, in case the AC Iím proposing doesnít sell. While youíre playing it safe, Iím trying to make something more risky that focuses solely on the actual game and not on the possible reception. My idea is just about AC, itís either all or nothing (assuming it is executed properly), itís a shot. While your idea is sure to work, mine is there to pull AC to the extreme and see if it pays off (renews the franchise).



Like Fallout(big success) does in story telling, it's not about it being extreme but that it is performed good. My idea is simple yet allows both, just look at Hitman: Abosution(most hated Hitman(becouse it's linear)). You could shoose you way even in explosive moments. Or Splinter Cell: Blacklist(second to SC: Chaos Theory), yet again you could choose unless there was story over gameplay moments. Or Dishonored(well restived(but short) new IP), a game where you can choose to be a ruthless killer or an assassin and choose where the story go. A difficulty level can work if done correctly but with my idea you make the difficulty you self, the game only gives you the tools. My idea was never to please everyone(impossible anyway) but to have a game you can make for you self, your game, your rules & your way.
Of course there is no 100%, but your idea should please almost everyone (Iíd say 80%) if it is done correctly.
However, is it enough to revive AC? I mean, Iím willing to do something more drastic (like when the developers decided to make AC3), something that is either a huge success or a failure depending on how well it is constructed. I really think AC needs a powerful punch to wake up.
If my idea fails then Iíd be all for yours, but I think that, right now, AC really needs a drastic change.

SixKeys
01-19-2014, 03:06 PM
Oh, I’m well aware of the different tastes in this huge fan base. But that is my point. It’s time for AC to stop thinking about pleasing everyone and start thinking about itself. What is best for the franchise? What is best for Assassin’s Creed?
Instead of: What will sell? What can we do to please the biggest market (casual)?

You seem to have this idea that what's best for the franchise is to alienate the majority of its fanbase in order to go back to some kind of indie approach like AC1. What's best for the franchise? Realistically speaking, to sell as many copies as possible.

AssassinHMS
01-19-2014, 03:23 PM
You seem to have this idea that what's best for the franchise is to alienate the majority of its fanbase in order to go back to some kind of indie approach like AC1. What's best for the franchise? Realistically speaking, to sell as many copies as possible.

You're right, the best thing for the franchise is to sell the biggest number of copies. However, it's bad for the franchise when the games are made with money as the main motive. And money is AC's main motive, just look at how many AC games are made in such a short time. Money should be the reward, not the motive. When you do something for the money, something that requires inspiration, creativity, passion and time, you're almost sure to fail.

And I don't claim I know what's best for AC, although I think I know. What I'm proposing is nothing but a shot. I'm not taking it for granted but I'm confident on its potential. And I don’t want to alienate the fan base (I think the developers already worked on that).
All I want is an AC game that doesn’t pay respects to the market, a game whose main motive is to prove itself. A game that doesn’t reflect the developers’ pressure (Are we going to be accepted? Let’s play safe, let’s try and please as many people as we can), I want something bold. I want it, because I think AC needs it. AC3 was bold, but it didn’t respect the roots and it tried too much. I want something simple, strong and true. Then the developers can scan the reception and plan the next move, but always thinking about the franchise and never treating it as a tool for success, but as something precious that deserves to be respected and protected. If it fails then, make another franchise, one that fits what the market wants, no need to change the formula while keeping the name. Either it works or it doesn’t, because right now, I think AC is not helping the devs. They clearly want to make a different game, but then they need to pay respects to the franchise (even if that only means shoving the same core mechanics). So, either they make a bold AC that stays true to the formula, or they depart to another franchise that meets the public preferences, but this route, of forcing AC to be the "everygame" isn’t helping anyone (as far as I can see).

SenseHomunculus
01-19-2014, 06:14 PM
Realism ruins immersion as crazy as that may sound...

This starts to get very meta at some point. :D I agree with this point of view personally, but it matters what perspective you take on the AC games; which reality is the "realism" you experience and what's "immersion" to you.

Are you playing the games as Ezio/Edward/etc and "living" the events of the games (which point of view I don't take), or are you the character who's in the animus reliving the memories of Ezio/Edward/etc (which is the sense I have when I play)? If the former, then you (Ezio/Edward/etc) die when your onscreen self dies, and your game is over. THAT would be "realistic", and perhaps immersive, but certainly not very fun It must be the latter because you don't actually "die" when your onscreen self dies, you (the character in the animus) desync and have to relive the memory again. That's the immersion aspect for me.

And because of that, I have no problem suspending belief during the "white room" expository segments which are critical to the AC experience IMO. It doesn't break the immersion because that's the way the animus works. It's not "real" if you get my meaning. Same with the ACB Ezio "Christina missions" (which I personally REALLY enjoyed playing, maybe my favorite part of all the AC games from a purely storytelling perspective) and other decidedly "unreal" experiences in the game. Just like I have no problem with the characters running fast or not sinking like a stone when they enter water from the weight of weapons, armor, ammunition they're carrying.

SixKeys
01-19-2014, 06:26 PM
You're right, the best thing for the franchise is to sell the biggest number of copies. However, it's bad for the franchise when the games are made with money as the main motive. And money is AC's main motive, just look at how many AC games are made in such a short time. Money should be the reward, not the motive. When you do something for the money, something that requires inspiration, creativity, passion and time, you're almost sure to fail.

And I don't claim I know what's best for AC, although I think I know. What I'm proposing is nothing but a shot. I'm not taking it for granted but I'm confident on its potential. And I don’t want to alienate the fan base (I think the developers already worked on that).
All I want is an AC game that doesn’t pay respects to the market, a game whose main motive is to prove itself. A game that doesn’t reflect the developers’ pressure (Are we going to be accepted? Let’s play safe, let’s try and please as many people as we can), I want something bold. I want it, because I think AC needs it. AC3 was bold, but it didn’t respect the roots and it tried too much. I want something simple, strong and true. Then the developers can scan the reception and plan the next move, but always thinking about the franchise and never treating it as a tool for success, but as something precious that deserves to be respected and protected. If it fails then, make another franchise, one that fits what the market wants, no need to change the formula while keeping the name. Either it works or it doesn’t, because right now, I think AC is not helping the devs. They clearly want to make a different game, but then they need to pay respects to the franchise (even if that only means shoving the same core mechanics). So, either they make a bold AC that stays true to the formula, or they depart to another franchise that meets the public preferences, but this route, of forcing AC to be the "everygame" isn’t helping anyone (as far as I can see).

You keep saying the developers aren't taking enough risks because they want to please everybody. But AC3 took many risks, and failed to please a lot of people for the wrong reasons. AC4 took the risk of making a pirate game when everybody thought it was laughable to combine AC and pirates. Yet it surprised many people positively.

I understand what you're saying and, to an extent, I agree. AC cannot please everybody and the yearly releases will eventually result in franchise fatigue regardless of how many innovations they come up with. That's the real problem, though - the yearly releases. At this point, even if the next game took a bold new route and tried many daring new things, I don't think it would be the surefire recipe for success you're suggesting. Because people are already getting tired of AC, its very core. It's become too big. Too many "iconic" features the devs are now afraid to tamper with because of the inevitable ****storm that would ensue. Hell, even if they just dared to make a game where the protagonist isn't prancing around in a silly white hood, fans would go nuts because "OMGz ze hood is gone, this is not AC!!!1". So the hood is now non-negotiable.

Okay, what about a game without all manner of collectibles?
"OMGz not enough side quests, this is not AC!!!"
A game that shows both Templar and assassin philosophies from a neutral point of view?
"OMGz they didn't mention the Creed enough times, this is not AC!!!"
Difficulty settings?
"Not AC!!!"
More linearity?
"Not AC!!!"
Less linearity?
"Not AC!!!"

AC has grown too big and it's no wonder the devs are afraid of trimming the fat. The Ezio saga is what introduced most of the "fat", and that's when the series started gaining popularity. AC3 tried to change some things up and was fairly poorly received (critically speaking, if not commercially). AC4 went back to the same tried and true mechanics as the Ezio saga and was wildly hailed as a triumphant return to form. So is it any wonder Ubi are afraid to change things? Everyone keeps saying they want the series to change, but nobody can agree on how because the fanbase is now so large and varied that everyone has their own vision of AC.

STDlyMcStudpants
01-19-2014, 06:36 PM
I'm not for a second saying I don't want smarter AI or a more vulnerable character (Connor is a Brute by definition..it made sense for him to clean house just like Old Ezio)
Edward was clearly not as OP as Connor was,,,,I don't want every assassin to handle the same because they are different...It isn't noticeable, but it's there... Altair, Young Ezio, Old Ezio, Connor, Edward...they all had their own fighting style and they all took damage differently...
But what I'm saying is that their main goal shouldnt be to make the game harder....if they have the time to THATS GREAT, But Assassins Creed IV ( A NUMBERED TITLE!) had filler quality mission design and variety! And what I mean by that was no inspiration after the first 4 sequences, just copy and paste...which led to the million "stop the tailing missions" threads....I don't want that to ever happen again..I enjoy tailing missions! just not every sequence.....Once they get a mission design formula down where sure we get the same missions every year, but they all feel different THEN they can move on to making a more annoyingly realistic AI that can hear a pin drop....
But I just can't imagine AC IV (My 3rd favorite game of all time!!!) taking home game of the year with improved AI...ai does not make a game great..
Again I point to borderlands....AI are all brutes..they will jump otu of cover and attack you..YET im never pulled out of that cartoony world until I look at the clock and holy crap its tomorrow.

SenseHomunculus
01-19-2014, 06:37 PM
AC has grown too big and it's no wonder the devs are afraid of trimming the fat. The Ezio saga is what introduced most of the "fat", and that's when the series started gaining popularity. AC3 tried to change some things up and was fairly poorly received (critically speaking, if not commercially). AC4 went back to the same tried and true mechanics as the Ezio saga and was wildly hailed as a triumphant return to form. So is it any wonder Ubi are afraid to change things? Everyone keeps saying they want the series to change, but nobody can agree on how because the fanbase is now so large and varied that everyone has their own vision of AC.

This. This, this, this. I'm probably in the minority of members of this forum (but not, I don't think, the general gaming public) but I like the direction that AC4 took following AC3. AC2/ACB are still my favorite, not because of the nebulous "challenge" aspect, whatever that means, but because of the incredible story of those games. That, to most gamers, is the core of AC. They were so well written, the best of the AC series IMO, the game was so much more satisfying than AC1 in terms of the complete world it built (the economic system, restoring the villa, etc). That's the delicious "fat" you speak of.

SixKeys
01-19-2014, 06:57 PM
This. This, this, this. I'm probably in the minority of members of this forum (but not, I don't think, the general gaming public) but I like the direction that AC4 took following AC3. AC2/ACB are still my favorite, not because of the nebulous "challenge" aspect, whatever that means, but because of the incredible story of those games. That, to most gamers, is the core of AC. They were so well written, the best of the AC series IMO, the game was so much more satisfying than AC1 in terms of the complete world it built (the economic system, restoring the villa, etc). That's the delicious "fat" you speak of.

I don't think you're in the minority here, actually. Most forumgoers preferred AC4's approach to AC3's, myself included. It may not have taken as many risks, but the things it brought back, it did well (side quests, stealth, etc.).

The trouble is that so much of the "fat" has remained largely the same for so long. Treasure chests - do we really need those? Guilds - mostly useless. Renovating your hideout - I personally loved Great Inagua in AC4, but most people say they completely forgot about it because it wasn't essential to the story. Tombs - AC4 was the first one since AC2 not to have them and immediately people complained, because tombs are apparently non-negotiable to the AC experience, too.

Do you see what I mean? Fans say they want change, but as soon as you remove any of the above elements, people start complaining, even though none of them actually have anything to do with assassinating. The only reason those features have survived so long is because Ubi made three successful Ezio games with them. What can AC really change at this point that would be seen as radical in the same way the change from AC1 to AC2 was, without alienating its core fanbase?

AssassinHMS
01-19-2014, 06:59 PM
You keep saying the developers aren't taking enough risks because they want to please everybody. But AC3 took many risks, and failed to please a lot of people for the wrong reasons. AC4 took the risk of making a pirate game when everybody thought it was laughable to combine AC and pirates. Yet it surprised many people positively.
I didnít say the developers didnít take risks. In fact, I stated AC3 was a bold game and that what I want is something like that (although completely different from AC3).
AC4 a risk? I donít think so. They already had AC3ís naval, they already knew people wanted a pirate game and they were already masters in adulterating AC games and throwing additions on top of an underdeveloped core. There were no risks here. AC4 was Ubisoft playing safe after AC3ís (misdirected) boldness.

The only risks Ubisoft takes are the ones that push the game further into the casual path, AC3 is an example of that. Iíve NEVER seen Ubisoft take a risk and bet on ACís formula, not once.



I understand what you're saying and, to an extent, I agree. AC cannot please everybody and the yearly releases will eventually result in franchise fatigue regardless of how many innovations they come up with. That's the real problem, though - the yearly releases. At this point, even if the next game took a bold new route and tried many daring new things, I don't think it would be the surefire recipe for success you're suggesting. Because people are already getting tired of AC, its very core. It's become too big. Too many "iconic" features the devs are now afraid to tamper with because of the inevitable ****storm that would ensue. Hell, even if they just dared to make a game where the protagonist isn't prancing around in a silly white hood, fans would go nuts because "OMGz ze hood is gone, this is not AC!!!1". So the hood is now non-negotiable.

Okay, what about a game without all manner of collectibles?
"OMGz not enough side quests, this is not AC!!!"
A game that shows both Templar and assassin philosophies from a neutral point of view?
"OMGz they didn't mention the Creed enough times, this is not AC!!!"
Difficulty settings?
"Not AC!!!"
More linearity?
"Not AC!!!"
Less linearity?
"Not AC!!!"
Thatís what Iím saying. They need to ignore the market for a while and think exclusively about AC. That is the only way they can find ACís true potential. If they keep listening to what people want, theyíll end up nowhere and confused with the actual franchise. There is only one thing to do. Look at the franchise and find the instructionís manual, which can be found in the formula, what AC started as. They need to grab that and build the whole experience centered on that. In short, they need to find AC in the mess of additions and replacements they created, pull it back out, and improve, improve and improve. Atmosphere, key concepts, hidden blade, stealth, challenge, assassinations, realism, simulator, etc.


AC has grown too big and it's no wonder the devs are afraid of trimming the fat. The Ezio saga is what introduced most of the "fat", and that's when the series started gaining popularity. AC3 tried to change some things up and was fairly poorly received (critically speaking, if not commercially). AC4 went back to the same tried and true mechanics as the Ezio saga and was wildly hailed as a triumphant return to form. So is it any wonder Ubi are afraid to change things? Everyone keeps saying they want the series to change, but nobody can agree on how because the fanbase is now so large and varied that everyone has their own vision of AC.
Like I said, screw everyone, they need to listen to AC, to their game, not to the market.
Itís the only way they can get out of the hole they got into. This is why I say a person should stay true to his roots or else, one day, he will no longer know who he is and everyone will want him to be someone different and that person wonít know who to listen (because he never learned to listen to himself).

Shahkulu101
01-19-2014, 07:01 PM
This. This, this, this. I'm probably in the minority of members of this forum (but not, I don't think, the general gaming public) but I like the direction that AC4 took following AC3. AC2(fair enough)/ACB are still my favorite, not because of the nebulous "challenge" aspect, whatever that means, but because of the incredible story of those games. That, to most gamers, is the core of AC. They were so well written, the best of the AC series IMO, the game was so much more satisfying than AC1 in terms of the complete world it built (the economic system, restoring the villa, etc). That's the delicious "fat" you speak of.

Lolololololololololololololol haha

Assassin_M
01-19-2014, 07:02 PM
change at this point that would be seen as radical in the same way the change from AC1 to AC2 was
The change was so radical, it was bad...

SixKeys
01-19-2014, 07:08 PM
The change was so radical, it was bad...

Shush, the adults are talking.

Assassin_M
01-19-2014, 07:09 PM
Shush, the crazy adults are talking.
My bad

Hans684
01-19-2014, 07:31 PM
Oh, I’m well aware of the different tastes in this huge fan base. But that is my point. It’s time for AC to stop thinking about pleasing everyone and start thinking about itself. What is best for the franchise? What is best for Assassin’s Creed?
Instead of: What will sell? What can we do to please the biggest market (casual)?

Have ever though that it can be both? I mean you talk about respecting fans and roots, yet you do the same with a diffrent aprotch. What is best for the series and AC? It can be anything, history isn't a one colored paper with a single pattern. It's a paper full of diffrent colors patterns, so instead of changing it, narrow it and narrow it's possibility. Maybe you should try to embrace it. All companies ask "what will sell?" or "what can be done to please the biggest market?" If don't think about your companie it will be finished/closed and you will be without a job. What is better? Going by random fans and possibly loose you job becouse it dosn't sell or keep you country(companie) a flout.


It’s time for Ubisoft to put sales as a secondary objective and focus on what improves the franchise, on what respects its roots. Because, the road Ubisoft took with AC is killing it. The core, the concept, the pillars, it’s all gone or rotten. The only thing that still pulls this franchise forward are the additions and the new fans that aren’t bored of the same game being sold every year with a different coat (because they’re recent fans).

If you ever become a COE of a game companie you will think different and money is always a factor no matter the objective. A companie need money, if not it will be closed and the people out of a job. I'm not ganna talk about roots and all that, we did it before in your tread. So if you didn't gett my point, read it again and tell me when you do. All games after the original depends on additions, if nothing is added, then it would be a copy paste. Your shadow/light idea is an addition, your random events is an addition, your new THIEF like combat is an addition etc... becouse it isn't part of the original. All games after the original gett a diffrent coat, nothing new.


I know it sounds stupid or overdramatic, but AC died long ago, on the inside. It died as soon as the concept, the formula was considered a failure. Then linearity kicked in, explosions, lack of challenge, action stunts, cheap violence… And all the things that made AC unique, that were part of the formula, were either gone or downgraded. Why? Because AC was no longer about AC, it became exclusively about selling.

Not ganna discuss what AC is, done it before with you.


It’s time for AC to reflect upon its existence and retake its personality. And this isn’t because I want to, it isn’t because of my particular taste or opinion, it’s because AC needs it. The core needs it, the atmosphere, the spark, they all need it. It can renew the franchise and make everyone (including the long term fans) excited for it (especially if they stopped with the annual releases). Challenge is necessary, realism, ingredients never seen before in the games but that can improve the formula.

Acording to the post to SixKeys you don't claim to know what what's best for the series, you think you know.


And I don't claim I know what's best for AC, although I think I know.

I don't like the annual releases either and wan't more challenge and some realism(it's a game of course) and it has been seen before either story or gameplay.


But, if we stop to think about everyone, we end up doing nothing. “Oh, but those people play AC for the mindless violence.” “Right, and those play AC only to distract themselves when they’re bored.” You know what I say? Screw them. Screw each and every one of us. What’s important now, is AC, not our bellies. Let’s focus on what is best for AC’s formula (weather it’s mindless violence or realism) and make sure we make a good and fun game. If we do that, people will come, they will buy the game and they will like it, for what it is.

The fact that combat and stealth is a main pillar already show there will be mindless action. And if you screw everyone(like Xbone to Xbox fans when announced) you gett nothing. You turn your back to everyone and pray for the best. You said yourself that your favorite game is ACB, that sums up how they should gett to fans like you. People already have come, they have buyed the games and they like it(exept ACR and AC3 that is the most linear AC's), for what it is.


And we were already proven that AC isn’t doing well due to the mindless violence and casual gameplay.
AC needs a change, it needs to redo itself and respect its roots. It doesn’t matter if those who play AC for the mindless violence won’t like it, what matters is that AC lives and does what it does best, not what some people want it to do (despite that thing they want it to do being a death sentence).
So you see, it’s not about us, it’s about AC (do what’s best for the franchise) regardless of the different opinions and tastes and, if done properly, money is sure to flow.

Actually ACIVBF is the most well restived since AC2, so it's doing pretty good. If you what a reboot, then it would trow away everything done before. It does matter becouse combat(mindless action in this case) is one of the core pillars. Who are you to say it can't do what people want, yet suggest what you think it's best? Then it goes by what you want. It the same thing but other way around. It might even make a death sentence to. Money will not flow that good, many becouse fans who like being a One-Man-Army(that might even be fans since the original) getts screwed over.


Yes, the AC I’m talking about, is completely new. Yes, it grabs the main aspects, it is true to the formula, but it feels nothing like any of the previous titles.

I support new, diffrent & unique. But if it feels nothing like previous games(including AC1), is a "real" "AC" then?


Yes, but your idea seems more like a backup plan, in case the AC I’m proposing doesn’t sell. While you’re playing it safe, I’m trying to make something more risky that focuses solely on the actual game and not on the possible reception. My idea is just about AC, it’s either all or nothing (assuming it is executed properly), it’s a shot. While your idea is sure to work, mine is there to pull AC to the extreme and see if it pays off (renews the franchise).

My idea supports roots and fans without screwing fans over. My idea can still be risky from a story perspective, like putting religion at a a bad view at a large scale or a AC where we play a corrupt mentor leading a corrupt brotherhood. You can still take risks but with a story perpective. And with my idea you can recreate the actual game yourself, how is that bad? My idea off choice put the game itself at extreme, not becouse it's a one road series but becouse it bigger than that. It's like the Fallout of games itself, while Fallout is the Fallout of story telling. It about choice, your the one in charge.


Of course there is no 100%, but your idea should please almost everyone (I’d say 80%) if it is done correctly.
However, is it enough to revive AC? I mean, I’m willing to do something more drastic (like when the developers decided to make AC3), something that is either a huge success or a failure depending on how well it is constructed. I really think AC needs a powerful punch to wake up.
If my idea fails then I’d be all for yours, but I think that, right now, AC really needs a drastic change.

There will never be 100% becouse humans is flawed, but your idea will please around(I'd say 65-75%) if done correctly. It will screw over a lot of fans either new or since the original. Howeever, is it enought to revive AC? You want a draistic game, I want draistic story telling with a game of choice. Like Fallout, Dishonored, Hitman: Absolution but the choices change the game, not the story. The story is either all or nothing(like a corrupt brotherhood), it punches the the fans believes(like those who think the assassins is saints) while giving a draistic story and perspective. The game will be good and the story will either be a big success or failure becouse it tests the players. The fans need a powerful punch to wake up. If my idea fails then I'd be all for yours, but right now, the fans really need a drastic change.

AdamPearce
01-20-2014, 03:47 AM
HSM for Gameplay
Hans for Story
M for Community Manager

Make it happen.

Assassin_M
01-20-2014, 04:09 AM
M for Community Manager
Oh stop you, I get shy

RinoTheBouncer
01-20-2014, 03:35 PM
Realistic AC experience? You mean, ďAn actual Assassin's Creed experienceĒ and not some boring casual game about some weird dimension where everything is dubbed down.

Too bad 90% of the fan base plays AC to be a mass-murder psychopath with superpowers. Also, this franchise is now nothing but a triple-A Angry Birds, which means thereís no place for anything that forces brain activity (ďforcesĒ, the forbidden word).



Anyway, I like your ideas including the white room one. If players want to be able to listen to their targetís dying speech then they must make sure they have the proper conditions to do so, theyíd better make sure theyíre stealthy. I find it immersion breaking when the ďwhite roomĒ appears while enemies are targeting me. Of course this means that, whatever the target says after the kill, isnít required to the progression of the story (it's more of a gift that allows the player to understand the enemyís perspective and motives).

I agree with you that AC is becoming another historical GTA game where it gives less importance to the story and less connectivity to other AC games and focus on a gameplay for those who just wanna play Jason from Friday the 13th behind the Assassins robes.

I find it totally senseless to just speak to a target when guns are being pointed at you. Let the conditions for assassination be that you do that stealthily. Itís really silly to get desynchronized because a guard whom you killed before saying a word detected you but you can be detected and still speak to the victim.

SenseHomunculus
01-20-2014, 04:02 PM
The assassinations take place in the animus, not the real world and therefore, to argue that they're not realistically portrayed is kind of silly. It's the animus. It's also not realistic that I can call up informative encyclopedic entries on everyone and everything I encounter, or that I can easily take on 12 armed guards at once because they very politely take turns attacking me and I can simply counter them one at a time until they're all dead. :p

As far as totally stealthy assassinations, most of the assassination targets are VIPs, some of whom know they're targets and are therefore surrounded by security contingents at all times. To think I can lure them away somewhere secluded is also not realistic. I guess we could confront them in their privy or bedroom in their private quarters when they're totally alone?

Lastly, many of the targets get blades to the throat. How realistic is it that they can continue to spout the exposition necessary to advance the story with a severed jugular? They'd be unconscious in 30 seconds and dead within minutes. They'd almost certainly not be in any condition to carry on a lucid conversation.

Hans684
01-20-2014, 08:53 PM
HSM for Gameplay
Hans for Story
M for Community Manager

Make it happen.

I could live with that.