PDA

View Full Version : Hats on or off?



Calrid
01-25-2014, 03:42 PM
Ok well there are plenty of threads about what is the best AC and it seems the votes are in and it's brotherhood, my personal favourite and Black Flag a close second with Revelations, rightly IMHO not pitching high. ACI well it was the first game and it is why you are here now bantering other users and generally running amock like pirates. :P

But let's rank Black Flag out of 10, if you like you can compare it to Brotherhood or whatever other bench mark you like:

Fatal-Feit
01-25-2014, 10:37 PM
AC:IV is simply the best, IMO. Combat, stealth, open-world, story, modern day; It easily tops the Ezio Trilogy in all areas.

Between AC:IV and AC:3, that's a hard one. AC:IV has a worse story, combat, social stealth, and naval, but it takes advantage of its simplicity and coherence to a point that it becomes simply fun and enjoyable. Nothing is a chore and even after several playthroughs, I'm still playing the game.

Set your graphics on max settings, disable all HUD, and roam the streets of Havana or Kingston to this song.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7YyCRxC2io

Calrid
01-25-2014, 11:16 PM
That's an apposite post Fatal, as I watch as your head turns full circle. I kid thanks for the input. :)

strigoi1958
01-26-2014, 12:16 AM
I rate them all 9 and above but AC4 is the best with (I'm sure many will disagree for many valid reasons that I completely understand) AC3 coming close followed by revelations. AC1 in comparison may look a little lacking but it still rates as high as the others for being the 1 that started it all. :D

byte_x
01-26-2014, 01:28 AM
the gameplay is really nice, pirating is a really good idea and all, but wheres all the assassin stuff? i mean, main character isnt even an assassin anymore. i loved how in brotherhood, that you train master assassins and then they do a ceremony and stuff. and in revelations, you had all the dens you could defened. but now they changed recuits with ships... i wish they bring the old style back in future games. ships arent the main AC thing.

Fatal-Feit
01-26-2014, 02:48 AM
the gameplay is really nice, pirating is a really good idea and all, but wheres all the assassin stuff? i mean, main character isnt even an assassin anymore. i loved how in brotherhood, that you train master assassins and then they do a ceremony and stuff. and in revelations, you had all the dens you could defened. but now they changed recuits with ships... i wish they bring the old style back in future games. ships arent the main AC thing.

Assassin's were pretty scarce during AC:IV. They had more important things to do than leap around buildings and wait for Edward's command. And in terms of gameplay, Assassins are OP. Brotherhood was a good example.

But anyways, Edward can't be an Assassin until the end. Both Pirates and Assassins fought for the same thing, but their goals and methods are opposite. Their Creeds just don't match.

And don't worry about naval combat. I'm more than certain it's just an innovation for the Kenway Saga, considering they take place during the 17-18th century. If they DO plan on making it return, it'll probably be for a different IP.

Calrid
01-26-2014, 10:46 AM
They said they are avoiding WWII but I would love to do naval battles with a modern type 42 destroyer or a type 43, although we aint supposed to talk about them OSA and all that so mums the word. :P

Hell I'd settle for a type 22 Frigate. Now that packs a decent punch and is quicker than lightning. :)

Maybe a cruiser for the defence capability and anti missile offence. They have some guns that can put a million bullets in the air in seconds, rendering any missile as scrap. :)

Coming from Portsmouth and my dad being in the Navy I've gone to sea in a type 22 frigate, an aircraft carrier, and a destroyer type 42. That was quite awesome. :)

Maybe I could be an MI6 agent, Michael Kenway, 011 licensed to kill. You get a naval rank then anyway, I'd be a commander at the very least., maybe during the cold war, operating against the Templar run "Russian" spy network, ;)

I am pretty sure there's less run in 1990s onward but there is of course always a Templar/Illuminati plot out there, as Abstergos tries to recover the apples and wot not.

YazX_
01-27-2014, 09:05 PM
if AC4 was a standalone game that is not related to AC, then i would give it 10/10, but since its related to the series, i will not give it more than 7, this game should be called pirate creed, been wondering when the story of the AC will start while playing? nothing, just plain with one short cut-scene showing juno saying she is weak and fu*** off.

so basically in AC4, the story with the creed starts when the game ends which is so funny. but as i said, rating it as pirate creed then this would be perfect score, some annoyances here and there especially no dock feature for uncharted islands, so everytime you have to ****** swim back and forth to get the chests and animus fragments where the amount of these collectibles is ridiculously high and boring to collect at the same time.

but still in the end, this game is one of the best and i think Ubisoft did a great job with it (not taking Performance and MP into consideration as both are crap).

Anykeyer
01-27-2014, 09:36 PM
7.5 is probably how I would rate it...
My opinion can differ based on the fact that I always do 100% and that means a lot of side activites and game mechanics taken into account.
Combat got worse, naval became too arcade, a lot of repetitive stuff (like ship boarding or swimming to little islands). Most islands feel copypasted and serve no purpose other than feeling the void.

IMO AC3 was way way better in every aspect.

Calrid
01-27-2014, 09:50 PM
Interesting anykeeper. Why do you think AC3 was better though if I might ask? I know you already gave some reasons but most of those things existed in ACIII which had that arcade style so why is ACIV worse?

Calrid
01-27-2014, 09:53 PM
if AC4 was a standalone game that is not related to AC, then i would give it 10/10, but since its related to the series, i will not give it more than 7, this game should be called pirate creed, been wondering when the story of the AC will start while playing? nothing, just plain with one short cut-scene showing juno saying she is weak and fu*** off.

so basically in AC4, the story with the creed starts when the game ends which is so funny. but as i said, rating it as pirate creed then this would be perfect score, some annoyances here and there especially no dock feature for uncharted islands, so everytime you have to ****** swim back and forth to get the chests and animus fragments where the amount of these collectibles is ridiculously high and boring to collect at the same time.

but still in the end, this game is one of the best and i think Ubisoft did a great job with it (not taking Performance and MP into consideration as both are crap).

I agree I gave it 9 as a stand alone as part of the series I would probably rate it as 7 too. I think they peaked in brotherhood, if they can go back to that sort of level I think we would appreciate it, but I don't think they can do something that good again, although I hope they will. :)

Anykeyer
01-28-2014, 06:05 AM
I have a better question to ask. You got banned already, why do you want more?

Calrid
01-28-2014, 11:46 AM
I have a better question to ask. You got banned already, why do you want more?

who got banned?

Anykeyer
01-28-2014, 12:42 PM
Your previous incarnations lol

Calrid
01-28-2014, 02:38 PM
Your previous incarnations lol

Are you drunk?

Calrid
01-28-2014, 05:35 PM
Incidentally I think the point was to only really explore the assassins creed in DLC, freedom cry takes Adawalé's or Adé's story to its limit and ends with him returning to the assassins a changed but stronger man, I would imagine further DLC will explore the Templar Assassin war and the main game was really just a teaser. A fun teaser and a good insight into Pirate ethics if not Assassins ethics. But I personally liked it and think 7/10 in line with the rest of the series counting DLC is about right.

Pirates were really the first true anarchists in the 18th century although they were a dying breed, as the Navies consolodated and hunted most of them down, Blackbeard et al were an anachronism, war for profit and letters of the Marque eg Privateering were hard to come by, and the monarchies were leary of arming uncontrolable armies of vigilanties, which is effectively what Privateers were, and the Europeans consolodated and improved their technology making piracy somewhat more difficult.

If we take it in context with ACIII when the anarchist movement which would eventually become part of the communist movement was just getting started it would also later become either libertarianism (American: no tax without representation) or as we see Tea party ultra libertarianism, or communism and anarchist utopia, at the two polar extremes.

Why don't anarchists drink Early Grey?

Because proper tea (property) is theft. ;).

In context then the pirate style and Abstergo behind the scenes style of the game fits the series perfectly IMHO.

I would say stand alone 9/10 as part of a series 7/10 is about right. But that's just me... :D

jeffies04
01-28-2014, 07:43 PM
Pirates were very democratic groups back then. I believe anarchist as it is thought of in the modern day isn't really what I would call the 18th century pirates. Anti-monarchicical, yes, but anarchic no. They created a lot of chaos against the Empires but you don't have to be an anarchist to create a lot of chaos.. *cough* US *cough*

Calrid
01-28-2014, 08:14 PM
Pirates were very democratic groups back then. I believe anarchist as it is thought of in the modern day isn't really what I would call the 18th century pirates. Anti-monarchicical, yes, but anarchic no. They created a lot of chaos against the Empires but you don't have to be an anarchist to create a lot of chaos.. *cough* US *cough*

That's a good point they elected their captain and as the game shows the Captain only remained as long as he was popular, he was there only as long as he represented the "common" man and no longer: hence democracy. They could of course overthrow any elected Captain, and institute a new one who was "more" popular the usual method was mutiny followed by abandonment of said Captain on a deserted island, although that was not always done.

The Captain was the leader, got a 1/4 share as did the quarter master, all other crew got equal shares according to his or her proficiency so for example an able seaman would get more than a plain seaman. It was actually a very equitable arrangement, and it's probably pity the navies did not incorporate that system. Instead of course they had a noble heirarchy Captains got the largest share, followed by 1st officers, followed by midshipmen (officers in waiting), followed by the quartermaster, usually a promote WO, or Colour sergeant major, followed by able seamen, which was proved by letter from another Captain and by your mark and competence, followed by common seamen. I think personally the Pirate code which was promotion according to ability was much better but history of course begs to differ. ;)

Kind of the Royal English Naval rank here, oft copied by other nations but far from arbitrary:

Admiral of the fleet
Admiral
Vice admiral
Rear admiral and Commodore 1st class
Commodore 2nd class
Captain
Commander
Lieutenant
Able Seaman
Seaman
Mate

The cut of the uniform showed the rank in Naval circles and in civillan circles it was usually done by your dress style and overall bearing. Although of course later it was made official with insignia with braiding that showed your rank on a uniform, this was by no means the usual before the 18th century though and the common ranking we now know with banded ropes on the arm was very much a 19th century invention.

Eventually all that V on your shirt was equivalent a sergeant was a WO or warrant officer and a Petty Officer became a WO3. and a CPO or chief petty officer was considered WO2. It all worked out in the end and CSM WO2 in the marines was then equivalent to WO1 in the army and equivalent hence to PO in the navy and so on. And so on this is probably very dull but nevertheless that's how ranks came to be and worked. :)

incidentally Admiral of the Fleet was outranked by the Sea Barons who were normally either lords or the Prime Minister ie Winston Churchil et al. And I am boring myself now so I will stop, :)

Calrid
01-29-2014, 12:34 AM
I have a degree in history in case you wondering how I know this. So far in the AC game they have done very well, although as a historian I could probably do better but then that is by the by. ; )

Pretty sure no one cares, pretty sure I will love the game none the less. Very well done although I am as a historian watching you. :P

Dome500
02-03-2014, 07:24 PM
Rated as a standalone game I would give it a solid 8/10.

The game is good, has a lot of content and some nice characters.

But it has some plot weaknesses, the Assassin Side Missions which are a actually just thrown in there to have some Assassin-related content and feel disconnected.
Also, the variety of weapons and the armor system is not that much. The controls still lead to a lot of misunderstandings and input errors and the combat system is still too easy.
Furthermore, some Islands feel as if they were just added to fill the map and give us more collectibles (which gets boring to collect them since there are SO MANY), the fighting with and boarding of ships gets repetitive fast.

There are some nice side activities, the stealth was better - although IMO still not enough. It should of course be optional and not forced most of the time (the stealth), but we need an actual Stealth system and a better A.I. Edward is a charming character as well.

As an Assassins Creed however I can't go higher than 6.5/10.

It has not much to do with Assassins anymore, it lacks the moral and philosophical themes of the Assassin/Templar plot, is mainly about pirates (yeah, I know they have similar goals, but in the end even that fact is not fleshed out enough in the story IMO or used to it's full potential).

It has those Assassin missions although Edwards motivation is mainly money (and maybe a little bit guilt) and they are so unrelated it seems like they just put it in to have those mission return (for contents sake).

The weapon and armor variety is way less than in the Ezio-Trilogy for example, Assassin signature weapons do not return aside from the hidden blade (I am not against new additions, but they could have given us more variety there), collectibles are way too many, hunting is in but not very useful.

The combat system did not evolve at all IMO. It is still too simple and boring.
The controls still are too simplified so that there are a lot of input-understanding-errors where the player fails although he did the right thing, just the game understood it wrong.

All in all, a solid game, but not a good AC game IMO.