PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed: The voice of the [forum] people. [WARNING HOT THREAD]



Hans684
02-17-2014, 06:35 PM
As everyone know, this series is based on history but how what settings is "to far" for AC? Lets take Naval, it's navigation, stealth and combat. Every core pillar in one pakage but do you consider it an "AC" mechanic or just something for the money? A mechanic that uses every core pillars is deffently a waste of time nor it new to AC in any way. Naval can't even be used in an open world, impossible anyway. So why care, right? What would not be "AC"?

What do you think when you see/hear the title Assassin's Creed? Should "AC" take advantage of the history of each new setting or not(example: an "AC" in The Golden Age of Piracy without naval, pirates, guns etc...)?How narrow minded is your view on what you consider "AC"? Lets take Wild West, is to modern? We already have modern day in the series, wierd right? To dismiss a setting with potential becouse of something that had been part of the series since day one and yet peope ask for an modern day AC or an World War AC... Yet say things like "It's to modern for AC" Or the sceary guns? They destroy every kind of game becouse it makes them midless, there is no way to use a brain with a gun. You gett a gun, then you shoot first and ask questions later just like the Hitman series. The Golden Age of Piracy/Wild West never happend, that's why it's not worthy enough for "AC" becouse "AC" is based on history... It's all created by Hollywood. Or is AC just a [narrow] concept where you only have to play an assassin no matter setting and time, only use a simulator style gameplay no matter the setting and time, only the same thing(gameplay) without additions(random events, naval ect...), and on and on... We have heard it before but it is limiting. So why limit AC(psudo(AC2 and onward) or not(AC1)(both created by Patrice)) and the potential it has. Fans ask for a diffrent and innovative AC but when they have one they refuse to look. Labeling it everything from "Pirate's Creed" to Pirates of the Caribbean, such nonsense. Soon after that the nostalgia hits and everything is fuc!ked(sorry) up about the series and they wish that happend and that didn't while acting like a baby not knowing what to do but cry for mommy(no offence and sorry). Or can this series be anything? No, only heritics and new fans think that. Only "H4r4c0r3" fans and elites(sorry) only knows what the series is. Back on topic, can the series be anything, well yes. We have had stuff like alternate realitys since the comic series(the one that only was French to begin with) or The Apples of Eden(since the first game, ability first shown in TOKW) or The Eye, then we have history(full of midless events, explosions and quiet times) that can let this series be anything from an AC pirate game(history and expanded concept(psudo)) or an AC in Wild West, First Civ, Japan, Greek, Modern.... You gett the point.

To make it easy for everyone, I just want your take on the entire series. What you would love/hate, what you consider it ect...

Disclaimer: There is a lot of stuff here that other people have said(sorry and no offence) so calm down before attacking. For [special] people with to little IQ to uderstand, I'll be a weak minded extremist with no imagination that cry over magisine covers :P.

Dome500
02-17-2014, 07:18 PM
An Assassin Creed game should evolve around and Assassin plot.

I do not consider a particular form of gameplay as "not Assassins Creed" and I am open for new perspectives and new elements.

I don't even mind a game were 60 - 70% of the content is naval, but that should only be for 1 game.
A spin-off is okay for the pirate setting, but the main game should do something different next time around.


I think that Assassins Creed can have every historical era they want as playground and I thin innovation is the best the series can get at the moment, considering all those not-enough-improved controls and gameplay mechanics (such as the combat system and a only half-supported and not yet fleshed out (though thoroughly improved in AC4) stealth system) in the last games.

I like the increased Stealth. For me, an AC game is only AC if the stealth is a viable option for 90% of the game
I like the variety of side missions. Keep on doing that, like you did it in AC4 (I think the most variety of side activities in an AC game to date).

I'd like to have more tools, a distraction tool especially, I'd like to have a manual crouch. And Assassins being more involved next time around (no matter how),

The wild West is to modern. Why? Because the gameplay does not work that way with guns. We had a modern-day storyline yes, but the only reason we (or I) accepted the little bit unrealistic combat there, involving a lot of weird modern-day sword/stick fights and just pistols, no machine guns, is because there was so little of it and it served the purpose to tell a story. But if you make an AC game in a more modern (19th century +) setting then this all becomes problematic because the whole game will be about that.

Of course new systems can be developed. But for that kind of gameplay the combat needs a complete revamp. And such changes need time.


In short, no I do not think an AC games "should only be made for certain time periods". I am very open toward any setting, even if I have my preferences. But modern day is still too complicated to realize IMO, and the developers seem to also think along those lines.
An Assassins Creed game furthermore has to be about Assassins (and Templars). I like different perspectives, but a game like AC4 should be a one-time-only case because it was very disconnected to the rest of the games due to:

1. Different (First Person) Moder Day story
2. More a Pirate game than an AC game
3. Had more Naval Combat than Parkour and Free Running

While refreshing for 1 game, I think the next game should be more along the lines of the AC series.

Of course innovation is something I am open to, and if they find new and refreshing ways which are not too disconnected to the general ideas and concepts of the franchise I am all open for it.
I liked AC4 as a one-time-game in the series that is responsible for variety and something new and refreshing in the series.

So I am open for most things, but not too open.

Megas_Doux
02-17-2014, 07:24 PM
I really dont know what to say....

I mean, my two favorite games in the franchise are its "purest" form, AC I and the one that had most "non AC elements", AC IV. I am a little bit close minded in terms of any post 1870 settings, because I like swordplay more than shooting for this franchise, with ALL of heavy flaws it has, like being uber and or static at times. However I am open in terms of adding other elements because I LOVED naval, but at the same time I was eager for the old freedom and stealth muission design of the first game, which we got in AC IV.

However, I am looking for a revamp in those gameplay aspects -combat, stealth- and I do NOT want another AC heavily naval game anytime soon.

Ureh
02-18-2014, 05:15 PM
Fans ask for a diffrent and innovative AC but when they have one they refuse to look.

That sounds a bit like what Prince Ahmet said ("Yes people desire the truth. But even when they have it they refuse to look."). ;)

Anyway, I think they can do anything they want/can... as long as there is stealth, parkour, real cities, real cultures, basis on "historical" events, conspiracies, aliens, etc. Can't wait to see what's next after naval.

I guess the fans that argue that AC doesn't feel fresh enough, want to continue loving the series, but feel that this "relationship" is getting stale. They want it to undergo drastic changes, yet knowing that it can't because it would lose it's fundamental identity. This frustrates immeasurably. :o

Dome500
02-18-2014, 09:06 PM
I guess the fans that argue that AC doesn't feel fresh enough, want to continue loving the series, but feel that this "relationship" is getting stale. They want it to undergo drastic changes, yet knowing that it can't because it would lose it's fundamental identity. This frustrates immeasurably.

Yeah, agreed.

At least those people who are very radical in this demand will probably cease to like the series at a point.
At on point the series looses it's magic for some players.

Hans684
02-18-2014, 10:26 PM
That sounds a bit like what Prince Ahmet said ("Yes people desire the truth. But even when they have it they refuse to look."). [/COLOR];)

One of my favorite quotes.


Anyway, I think they can do anything they want/can... as long as there is stealth, parkour, real cities, real cultures, basis on "historical" events, conspiracies, aliens, etc. Can't wait to see what's next after naval.

I just want Ubisoft to make each AC different(fresh & innovative) but still the same(the core but deeper & better). For me AC4, AC1 is the AC's that stand out among the rest. Sure they are not PERFECT(nothing is, be happy what you've have) but they feels different.



I guess the fans that argue that AC doesn't feel fresh enough, want to continue loving the series, but feel that this "relationship" is getting stale. They want it to undergo drastic changes, yet knowing that it can't because it would lose it's fundamental identity. This frustrates immeasurably. :o

It is getting stale, that's why I want each AC to be different but still the same. Fans thats like "combat eras only" etc... Are just as much too blame as Ubisoft. They narrow what AC is capable of while forcing what Ubisoft can do or not "just course xxxx". That way of thinking is the main reason AC is the same each year, why would Ubisoft take a risk since they know fans will not accept it becouse it's not "AC" anymore while asking for diffrent and innovative. Being disrespectful to developer/writers ect... Is just as bad, they are properly just as big fan as you(not you as in YOU but you gett the point.), even Yves. A game company that's wants money, nothing new. Been that way with every company since day 1 but they can still care for the games. I mean they are humans too, treating everything and everyone involved in the series shi! will give a bad impression on the fans side either casual, hardcore, elite ect... While being just bad as they claim the teams for. It's one of the thigs I wanted to point out. As someone who deliver news to the AC Wiki(name: ACsenior) I read almost every comment on every article I post. It's sad to read the comments, it has made me respect the teams(developers/writers etc...) for games more that the fan bases. With this tread I wanted to also show how narrow, disrespectful and stupid a fan base is either they are on a forum, an article, a Wiki.

QESTION FOR EVERYONE: Does my original post make me appear like an narrow minded, disrespectful, stupid assho!e AC fan? If anyone thinks that, then I succeeded. That's how everyone(maybe not everyone) is going to be looked at from their view, think beyond yourself and have some sympathy for the teams.

Dome500
02-19-2014, 02:47 AM
You came of a little aggressive....

But I still don't know what do you want with this thread.

I told you my opinion, I hope it way not "disrespectful".

Hans684
02-19-2014, 01:24 PM
You came of a little aggressive....

That's how most fans properly is viewed too, that's why I choose to be aggressive. To show people just how bad they can be or is, if I told people instead it would be ignored.


But I still don't know what do you want with this thread.

Every awnser is here:

"Being disrespectful to developer/writers ect... Is just as bad, they are properly just as big fan as you(not you as in YOU but you gett the point.), even Yves. A game company that's wants money, nothing new. Been that way with every company since day 1 but they can still care for the games. I mean they are humans too, treating everything and everyone involved in the series shi! will give a bad impression on the fans side either casual, hardcore, elite ect... While being just bad as they claim the teams for. It's one of the thigs I wanted to point out. As someone who deliver news to the AC Wiki(name: ACsenior) I read almost every comment on every article I post. It's sad to read the comments, it has made me respect the teams(developers/writers etc...) for games more that the fan bases. With this tread I wanted to also show how narrow, disrespectful and stupid a fan base is either they are on a forum, an article, a Wiki."


I told you my opinion, I hope it way not "disrespectful".

I respect opinions even if they are limiting. It's just that I want to show everyone instead of telling it, only for it to be forgotten. What I meant with disrespectful is people who say things like "Ubisoft only care about money", "AC died when Petrice left", "ACIVBF is not an AC" ect... People who don't think about what they say.

dxsxhxcx
02-19-2014, 01:54 PM
"Ubisoft only care about money"

it's hard to not think that way when it's obvious and even acknowledged by the devs that the current schedule they have isn't ideal to properly work in the game.

Hans684
02-19-2014, 02:11 PM
it's hard to not think that way when it's obvious and even acknowledged by the devs that the current schedule they have isn't ideal to properly work in the game.

Didn't say they didn't care about money but that they(entire Ubisoft(every employe)) only care about money. I don't like the yearly releases either and I know it has some effect on the games. And it's human nature, people think that they only care about money becouse of yearly releases, been disepointed(AC3, ACR), Patrice left... And many more.
A game company that's wants money, nothing new. Been that way with every company since day 1 but they can still care for the games.

AssassinHMS
02-19-2014, 05:56 PM
Do you know what I find disrespectful?

Ditching longtime fans in favor of new ones.
Whoring (cheapening) something that is precious to other people for quick cash.
Tricking people into believing they are buying a full-fledged product way superior in both quality and quantity to the real deal.
Giving the finger to both the people and the product that allowed their success.


And I’ve never noticed that many acts of disrespect towards Ubisoft…what are you using as a basis for that?

Oh, and there’s a BIG difference between narrow minded people (who won’t even consider an idea simply because they have a prejudice against it) and those who simply happen to think openly (in the sense they are against an idea, not because they formed an opinion beforehand, but because they have analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that such an idea is not good).
Just because someone doesn’t want an AC in the Wild West or whatnot, doesn’t mean they are narrow minded because they may very well have examined said idea and found their own reasons for not wanting it and even valid arguments for saying it isn’t a good idea.
According to your concept of “narrow” and “open minded”, anyone who dared to say “no” is narrow minded.
“Hey! Here’s a joint. You want it?”
“No.”
“Pfhh, you’re so narrow-minded…at least my mind is open, unlike yours.”

So you see, the words you chose for this thread clash with the meaning you might intend them to have and may falsely lead people into believing themselves “narrow-minded”.

It’s also easy to label others “narrow minded” or “hardcore” without acknowledging (or purposely overlooking) that they actually considered all the ideas and made a rational decision (wrong or not).

Finally, I must say I don’t find it a very noble act to make a thread in order to complain about other people. One thing is to show different opinions and quote other people’s statements in order to discuss them and another is to make sarcastic posts or make fun of other people’s statements and opinions like in your original posts in some of your latest threads. I mean, if you’re going to make fun of or be aggressive towards some people’s thoughts, at least do that personally, face to face, instead of creating threads where you complain about people complaining.

Mr_Shade
02-19-2014, 06:10 PM
Just a friendly reminder..

Why we don't mind constructive criticism of the game series or the direction some may feel they have taken - lets try and keep it civil - and no insults aimed at anyone ;)

AssassinHMS
02-19-2014, 06:15 PM
Just a friendly reminder..

Why we don't mind constructive criticism of the game series or the direction some may feel they have taken - lets try and keep it civil - and no insults aimed at anyone ;)

What a nice reminder Mr_Shade!

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 06:56 PM
Judging by Hans' latest trend, I'm assuming this is directed at a certain type of fan. not just the fan who's close minded about the setting, but the fan who'd easily fall for this thread and cry "waaaa waaa, you disrespectful c***"

I believe no one would seriously vote for "narrow minded" I congratulate the 2 who did. it's either they're incredibly honest or just did it for fun, either way...I applaud them.
Now I do believe there's the village idiot in every fanbase. You can put that label on a lot of fans. the Newbie who doesn't know squat, the one who's always suggesting ***** ideas (goes against established norms of a series) or the butt-hurt baby. I don't personally believe ANY of those are idiots (okay, maybe the butt-hurt baby...just a bit) but I have a problem with another type of fan.

Every game series with a large fanbase has an established hierarchy...if you dare go against it, you're green lighting yourself for embarrassment. this is mostly encouraged by the anonymity of the internet, but nonetheless. I'm referring to the elite. a sort of leader. they start the insults and down-looking and are thus followed by the weaker minded peasants who are afraid to insult first, so wait for someone to start...I don't loathe the peasants...I loathe the leader. "AC IV sucks" BOOM, you're an idiot..."Connor is boring" BOOM, you didn't understand him..."AC III is better than Ezio's trilogy" BOOM, you're not a real fan.

The nice thing about leaders is that they're sometimes astute. they like to explain to you how they think you're an idiot because you have a different opinion. They formed their opinions about what they want from a series or game, but if you dare have a different opinion, you're labeled an idiot...not a real fan...a low life. for what?? because you share a different opinion. because you have ***** ideas for a series. "Wild west setting" You're wrong..."WW II setting" shut up. I have no problem with disagreeing, I have a problem with labels..."You're wrong" "that's not what the series is about" why?? it strokes the ego...it feels nice...to be superior. You're not allowed to form an opinion. if you do form one, that happens to be different, you'll be labeled...pure and simple..

I hate this fanbase now...

Hans684
02-19-2014, 06:58 PM
Do you know what I find disrespectful?

Ditching longtime fans in favor of new ones.
Whoring (cheapening) something that is precious to other people for quick cash.
Tricking people into believing they are buying a full-fledged product way superior in both quality and quantity to the real deal.
Giving the finger to both the people and the product that allowed their success.

So you see, this is what I was talking about. As true as they are, the words you aprotch it with not respectful either. And if you want to blame someone for the condition AC is in. Then you have to look at the creator himself, he made AC(1) and when the storm came he built opon the core instead of making it deeper(AC2/ACB). Since he left Ubisoft has been using his method of developing AC, blame him if you want to blame anyone. He made what you like to label a "true" AC(AC1) and the "pseudo" AC(AC2/ACB). He is the creator of both and when he had enough he left Ubisoft with it all.


And I’ve never noticed that many acts of disrespect towards Ubisoft…what are you using as a basis for that?

Did you expect me to make an international poll or something? Just go and find some articles, wisit places like forums, the AC Wiki, reviews ect... Everything is found on the Internet. And before you say anything, I know not everything on the Internet is true.


Oh, and there’s a BIG difference between narrow minded people (who won’t even consider an idea simply because they have a prejudice against it) and those who simply happen to think openly (in the sense they are against an idea, not because they formed an opinion beforehand, but because they have analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that such an idea is not good).
Just because someone doesn’t want an AC in the Wild West or whatnot, doesn’t mean they are narrow minded because they may very well have examined said idea and found their own reasons for not wanting it and even valid arguments for saying it isn’t a good idea.
According to your concept of “narrow” and “open minded”, anyone who dared to say “no” is narrow minded.
“Hey! Here’s a joint. You want it?”
“No.”
“Pfhh, you’re so narrow-minded…at least my mind is open, unlike yours.”

Doing this does not really do anything other than making the writhing thicker. Anyway, if an idea is bad it is like a puzzle. You change the parts that does not fit and try again. I didn't only mean Wild West, it was just an example. Imagine a Wild West AC with your idea, your concept. That's possible to, you just need to find the best way to do it. They may not be narrow minded and I'm not trying to force anything. I might have given you the wrong impression, it's not becouse they say no or anything. Any era fits AC, they just need to find the right way to do it. Like the aggressive example, showns how bad my English and wording is. I would have said not to joint too.


So you see, the words you chose for this thread clash with the meaning you might intend them to have and may falsely lead people into believing themselves “narrow-minded”.

I have known a long time my wording and English is not that great, it easy to gett the wrong impression.


It’s also easy to label others “narrow minded” or “hardcore” without acknowledging (or purposely overlooking) that they actually considered all the ideas and made a rational decision (wrong or not).

That's why option number 3 is there. Like I'm properly viewed as a casual fan that joined the series Jan 2012, that's actually wrong.


Finally, I must say I don’t find it a very noble act to make a thread in order to complain about other people. One thing is to show different opinions and quote other people’s statements in order to discuss them and another is to make sarcastic posts or make fun of other people’s statements and opinions like in your original posts in some of your latest threads. I mean, if you’re going to make fun of or be aggressive towards some people’s thoughts, at least do that personally, face to face, instead of creating threads where you complain about people complaining.

Not a very noble act to label entire Ubisoft either, sure they have done good and bad but nothing is perfect either. You must have miss understood, this to discuss what you consider everything about AC from concepts, ideas, potential, the good, the bad, the ugly... Everything and fans us just an important part of everything. It was not meant to make fun of anyone. So? Do want us to have cup of caffe instead?

Hans684
02-19-2014, 07:02 PM
Just a friendly reminder..

Why we don't mind constructive criticism of the game series or the direction some may feel they have taken - lets try and keep it civil - and no insults aimed at anyone ;)

I know, never been baned either. That says something doesn't it.

I-Like-Pie45
02-19-2014, 07:03 PM
Judging by Hans' latest trend, I'm assuming this is directed at a certain type of fan. not just the fan who's close minded about the setting, but the fan who'd easily fall for this thread and cry "waaaa waaa, you disrespectful c***"

I believe no one would seriously vote for "narrow minded" I congratulate the 2 who did. it's either they're incredibly honest or just did it for fun, either way...I applaud them.
Now I do believe there's the village idiot in every fanbase. You can put that label on a lot of fans. the Newbie who doesn't know squat, the one who's always suggesting ***** ideas (goes against established norms of a series) or the butt-hurt baby. I don't personally believe ANY of those are idiots (okay, maybe the butt-hurt baby...just a bit) but I have a problem with another type of fan.

Every game series with a large fanbase has an established hierarchy...if you dare go against it, you're green lighting yourself for embarrassment. this is mostly encouraged by the anonymity of the internet, but nonetheless. I'm referring to the elite. a sort of leader. they start the insults and down-looking and are thus followed by the weaker minded peasants who are afraid to insult first, so wait for someone to start...I don't loathe the peasants...I loathe the leader. "AC IV sucks" BOOM, you're an idiot..."Connor is boring" BOOM, you didn't understand him..."AC III is better than Ezio's trilogy" BOOM, you're not a real fan.

The nice thing about leaders is that they're sometimes astute. they like to explain to you how they think you're an idiot because you have a different opinion. They formed their opinions about what they want from a series or game, but if you dare have a different opinion, you're labeled an idiot...not a real fan...a low life. for what?? because you share a different opinion. because you have ***** ideas for a series. "Wild west setting" You're wrong..."WW II setting" shut up. I have no problem with disagreeing, I have a problem with labels..."You're wrong" "that's not what the series is about" why?? it strokes the ego...it feels nice...to be superior. You're not allowed to form an opinion. if you do form one, that happens to be different, you'll be labeled...pure and simple..

I hate this fanbase now...

c'mon M

you have to admit

it provides a good excuse to invest in that delicious caramel corn over the butter or plain

Don't bother replying anytime soon... I'll be eating soon...

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 07:09 PM
c'mon M

you have to admit

it provides a good excuse to invest in that delicious caramel corn over the butter or plain

Don't bother replying anytime soon... I'll be eating soon...
You know? out of any person on this forum, I'd REALLY like to meet you one day in real life...it'd be fun to have a chat

Hans684
02-19-2014, 07:11 PM
Judging by Hans' latest trend, I'm assuming this is directed at a certain type of fan. not just the fan who's close minded about the setting, but the fan who'd easily fall for this thread and cry "waaaa waaa, you disrespectful c***"

I believe no one would seriously vote for "narrow minded" I congratulate the 2 who did. it's either they're incredibly honest or just did it for fun, either way...I applaud them.
Now I do believe there's the village idiot in every fanbase. You can put that label on a lot of fans. the Newbie who doesn't know squat, the one who's always suggesting ***** ideas (goes against established norms of a series) or the butt-hurt baby. I don't personally believe ANY of those are idiots (okay, maybe the butt-hurt baby...just a bit) but I have a problem with another type of fan.

Every game series with a large fanbase has an established hierarchy...if you dare go against it, you're green lighting yourself for embarrassment. this is mostly encouraged by the anonymity of the internet, but nonetheless. I'm referring to the elite. a sort of leader. they start the insults and down-looking and are thus followed by the weaker minded peasants who are afraid to insult first, so wait for someone to start...I don't loathe the peasants...I loathe the leader. "AC IV sucks" BOOM, you're an idiot..."Connor is boring" BOOM, you didn't understand him..."AC III is better than Ezio's trilogy" BOOM, you're not a real fan.

The nice thing about leaders is that they're sometimes astute. they like to explain to you how they think you're an idiot because you have a different opinion. They formed their opinions about what they want from a series or game, but if you dare have a different opinion, you're labeled an idiot...not a real fan...a low life. for what?? because you share a different opinion. because you have ***** ideas for a series. "Wild west setting" You're wrong..."WW II setting" shut up. I have no problem with disagreeing, I have a problem with labels..."You're wrong" "that's not what the series is about" why?? it strokes the ego...it feels nice...to be superior. You're not allowed to form an opinion. if you do form one, that happens to be different, you'll be labeled...pure and simple..

I hate this fanbase now...

Option 3 is based on your label talk but I never wanted to wote myself. I respect opinions and all that, I just want to show people what they look like when that act like ""Wild west setting" You're wrong..."WW II setting" shut up." or ""You're wrong" "that's not what the series is about"". A great example isn't it. It the AC forum so it is obviously about AC.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 07:14 PM
I just want to show people what they look like when that act like ""Wild west setting" You're wrong..."WW II setting" shut up.". A great example isn't it.

YES, thank you...I guess you have to spell it out for those too butt-hurt to read between the lines

Labels "Narrow minded, open minded"
Passive aggressiveness
Attacks

This is a good thread, hopefully, your target audience would finally get it...

I-Like-Pie45
02-19-2014, 07:15 PM
You know? out of any person on this forum, I'd REALLY like to meet you one day in real life...it'd be fun to have a chat

Um? Raiden? I'm eating right now. Get back to me later...

I'm not home right now. Please leave a message after the beep.










BEEP!

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 07:16 PM
Um? Raiden? I'm eating right now. Get back to me later...

I'm not home right now. Please leave a message after the beep.










BEEP!

Hey, Raiden, it's your dad...I know we haven't talked a lot, but I really need to get this porch fixed, i'm sweating my *** off, outside and I could really use the help....did you send the check?? call me...i'll see you soon

*teet*

Hans684
02-19-2014, 07:28 PM
YES, thank you...I guess you have to spell it out for those too butt-hurt to read between the lines

Labels "Narrow minded, open minded"
Passive aggressiveness
Attacks

This is a good thread, hopefully, your target audience would finally get it...

It's sad they didn't find out themselves. I should become the Blackbeard of the forums. "Caution's nothing without charisma. If a man plays the fool, then it's only fools he'll persuade. But appear to be the devil... and all men will submit."

Dome500
02-19-2014, 08:43 PM
The thing is.

Those people who he wants to address will never read such threads thoroughly.

Anyway....

I don't blame so much the developers for decline of progression in certain areas, but more the time the games are produced in and therefore the publisher.
Because Ubisoft =/= Ubisoft.
There are 2 areas. The developers and management (the higher ups).

In the end, if I say something, then I say what I do not like in the games and what I'd like to have changed and where/what I think the developers should work on next time.
I rarely complain about very subjective topics like the time period.
Peoples opinions about the time period are just to diverse to ever come to a conclusion in such topics. All you can do is to say what your favorites would be and why you think some periods might not work that well.

Fatal-Feit
02-19-2014, 09:11 PM
I've been dipping through this thread because I have a feeling it's offensive. Am I one of the people who should pay attention to it?

Hans684
02-19-2014, 09:58 PM
I've been dipping through this thread because I have a feeling it's offensive. Am I one of the people who should pay attention to it?

I know since you voted but in the words of Assassin M



Judging by Hans' latest trend, I'm assuming this is directed at a certain type of fan. not just the fan who's close minded about the setting, but the fan who'd easily fall for this thread and cry "waaaa waaa, you disrespectful c***"

Sounds like you kinda(since it only feels offensive) fell for the thread.

Fatal-Feit
02-19-2014, 10:47 PM
I don't get it. PM me!!!

[edit] OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I voted for the sake of it, but now I get this thread... Soz, me slow. ;)

AssassinHMS
02-19-2014, 11:24 PM
Judging by Hans' latest trend, I'm assuming this is directed at a certain type of fan. not just the fan who's close minded about the setting, but the fan who'd easily fall for this thread and cry "waaaa waaa, you disrespectful c***"

I believe no one would seriously vote for "narrow minded" I congratulate the 2 who did. it's either they're incredibly honest or just did it for fun, either way...I applaud them.
Now I do believe there's the village idiot in every fanbase. You can put that label on a lot of fans. the Newbie who doesn't know squat, the one who's always suggesting ***** ideas (goes against established norms of a series) or the butt-hurt baby. I don't personally believe ANY of those are idiots (okay, maybe the butt-hurt baby...just a bit) but I have a problem with another type of fan.

Every game series with a large fanbase has an established hierarchy...if you dare go against it, you're green lighting yourself for embarrassment. this is mostly encouraged by the anonymity of the internet, but nonetheless. I'm referring to the elite. a sort of leader. they start the insults and down-looking and are thus followed by the weaker minded peasants who are afraid to insult first, so wait for someone to start...I don't loathe the peasants...I loathe the leader. "AC IV sucks" BOOM, you're an idiot..."Connor is boring" BOOM, you didn't understand him..."AC III is better than Ezio's trilogy" BOOM, you're not a real fan.

The nice thing about leaders is that they're sometimes astute. they like to explain to you how they think you're an idiot because you have a different opinion. They formed their opinions about what they want from a series or game, but if you dare have a different opinion, you're labeled an idiot...not a real fan...a low life. for what?? because you share a different opinion. because you have ***** ideas for a series. "Wild west setting" You're wrong..."WW II setting" shut up. I have no problem with disagreeing, I have a problem with labels..."You're wrong" "that's not what the series is about" why?? it strokes the ego...it feels nice...to be superior. You're not allowed to form an opinion. if you do form one, that happens to be different, you'll be labeled...pure and simple..

I hate this fanbase now...
*Yawn*……………………………….Sorry M, not buying it.
I’ll say just this: you did not understand my post at all (as per usual).







So you see, this is what I was talking about. As true as they are, the words you aprotch it with not respectful either.
I knew you’d say that. But why am I being disrespectful? Aggressive? Yes. Misdirected? Perhaps. Fair? No, like you said it’s not every Ubisoft’s member fault and, in theory, I could be completely unfair as I don’t know for sure what’s happening inside Ubisoft.
But, when I say these things, I don’t care about any of that stuff. All I care about is the impact and that AC becomes a better game.




Did you expect me to make an international poll or something? Just go and find some articles, wisit places like forums, the AC Wiki, reviews ect... Everything is found on the Internet. And before you say anything, I know not everything on the Internet is true.
Ok then, I just wanted to know if it was based exclusively on the forum.



Doing this does not really do anything other than making the writhing thicker. Anyway, if an idea is bad it is like a puzzle. You change the parts that does not fit and try again. I didn't only mean Wild West, it was just an example. Imagine a Wild West AC with your idea, your concept. That's possible to, you just need to find the best way to do it. They may not be narrow minded and I'm not trying to force anything. I might have given you the wrong impression, it's not becouse they say no or anything. Any era fits AC, they just need to find the right way to do it. Like the aggressive example, showns how bad my English and wording is. I would have said not to joint too.

I only mentioned Wild West AC as an example, I know you were speaking in general.
Of course it is only a matter of finding the right way to do it. But, if that way is much more complicated than doing an AC set somewhere else, if it would be tougher and riskier due to other franchises (RDR) and if it would be a needless challenge, then I think a straight “no” is pretty acceptable.
I mean, you say you made this thread to show people what they look like when they say “no” or “absolutely not” but, so far, I really don’t see the point in it. Yes, the other person’s idea is denied but for a good reason (most of the time). Saying “no” doesn’t make one narrow-minded (if you used this expression due to language limitations, I apologize) and it is necessary. It is especially necessary in this situation. I think AC is facing a crucial time here. The time where most fans (relatively new and old) are tired of the poorly developed core, of the same game being sold with a different coat and with the annualization. On the other hand there are still many “AC fans to be”. Ubisoft can either pick those people by keeping AC this “good for (almost) everyone” or they can decide to please the fanbase they ignored. But the second option isn’t easy and it isn’t that compatible with the first. It’s not a simple matter of slightly improving the core while keeping the casual appeal (the lack of focus and specialization). Since AC2, AC games have been released every year, the “core of the core” has been overutilized, it has become tedious and it forces a massive revamp in order to bring back the appeal, the life. This means a lot of work and focus placed on the core. In turn, this also means less focus on everything else like naval and all that stuff meant to keep all the different tastes satisfied. In other words, AC has reached a point where it needs to pick which fans are going to be the target (the old or the new). And when I say “old” and “new” I don’t mean it literally, the old ones include any fan who plays AC for the core (stealth, navigation aaaaaand combat) and the new are those who couldn’t care less for the core as long as they are pleased by all the additions, all the mindless violence, etc. Better core means less additions (mostly due to the time they are given to make each AC game) and the core works much better with a slow paced game that requires brain activity and that can’t be beaten by brashness or boredom.
Anyway, because AC is in this critical phase, the word “no” must be said. Time periods that require more sensible decisions and careful planning aren’t a good choice in this situation. I think it’s time to be aggressive and to be “narrow-minded” because, while it may not be the most righteous way, is quite practical and more effective.

I mean, I would more likely make a thread to show people what they look like (or what AC would look like) when they say “yes” to most things.



Now, what about your other thread? “Realistic AC. All or Nothing” What was your point with that?

Obviously, you were making a sarcastic thread about an ultra-realistic AC. But why exactly did you make that thread?
Because, previously, I had a debate on how AC would benefit from realism. But I still don’t know for sure what you were trying to accomplish with that.


Anyway, that is what drove me into saying you were bashing thoughts in this thread.
I think your last thread intended to discredit my idea (probably fueled by the way I, supposedly, disrespect people, claiming what is right and what is wrong).
Actually it is quite obvious that thread was about bashing my ideas. Just look at this quote of yours:

Also remember, games is not games they have to treated like a simulator. That is what a game is, a wise man once said reality is more fun than a game.
You even adulterated my words, gave a different meaning and I’m pretty sure you didn’t understand what it meant in the first place.

And I think this thread, with its many purposes, is also about the same thing. I think you’re complaining about other people. Complaining about those who are aggressive towards other ideas or that answer with an absolute “no”. I think you want a peaceful discussion where every idea is treated with respect and care, without overly negative answers. And I also think I am one of those people who you consider to be “extremist”, that thinks he knows all and that his way is the right way, in other words, a radical, narrow-minded person who only sees black and white (casuals and hardcore gamers; assassiny and non-assassiny; the evil company, Ubisoft; etc.).

Because of this, I think this thread isn’t much more than a rant against people who are aggressive. And, since you made a thread “in my honor” about realism, I figured this was just another way to attack those who are radical to the point of saying what is right or wrong.

If I thought AC was alright or that it could be easily “treated”, I wouldn’t act as such an extremist.
As far as I can see, AC is in a very tough spot and it won’t get out of there without fans resourcing to extreme measures and I could start explaining why I think this way, but that is not the purpose of my post.
So I’ll put it this way: Extreme situations require extreme attitudes.


So yeah, I think you made an offensive thread disguised as a sarcastic anti-offensive thread.

Assassin_M
02-20-2014, 01:25 AM
*Yawn*……………………………….Sorry M, not buying it.
I’ll say just this: you did not understand my post at all (as per usual).

Some people just love to think that the world revolves around them...

Shahkulu101
02-20-2014, 01:36 AM
These forums are terrible. Almost devoid of any objective discussion - the few rational members reiterate the same facts to the elitist sect, who demean and insult casual gamers as if they were demon spawn. Some fans do not appreciate the series for what it is, which is fine, except they cry because their vision of AC is not represented. These are common persons, who garner support by spreading their misconceptions about the story and how it is not 'Assassin' enough - which flies in the face in the very philosophy the game preaches, as there is no one true way to represent anything.

I-Like-Pie45
02-20-2014, 02:32 AM
shahk, you've been talking to Haytham or that crazy guy from that other game again, haven't you?

MnemonicSyntax
02-20-2014, 02:51 AM
So yeah, I think you made an offensive thread disguised as a sarcastic anti-offensive thread.

You really think so? Disguised?

I'd say it's pretty blatant to me.

And yet, you still don't get it. Like M said, world's not your oyster. Or revolver. Or something.

LoyalACFan
02-20-2014, 03:30 AM
I've been dipping through this thread because I have a feeling it's offensive. Am I one of the people who should pay attention to it?

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure this thread was aimed at me... :(

MnemonicSyntax
02-20-2014, 03:34 AM
Don't worry, I'm pretty sure this thread was aimed at me... :(

I'm pretty sure my signature proves you wrong, good sir. :)

LoyalACFan
02-20-2014, 05:52 AM
I'm pretty sure my signature proves you wrong, good sir. :)

Thanks :) But I recently had a debate with Hans about his cowboy AC idea and why I don't like it. I think he's still peeved at me for that.

Hans684
02-20-2014, 11:02 AM
I knew you’d say that. But why am I being disrespectful? Aggressive? Yes. Misdirected? Perhaps. Fair? No, like you said it’s not every Ubisoft’s member fault and, in theory, I could be completely unfair as I don’t know for sure what’s happening inside Ubisoft.
But, when I say these things, I don’t care about any of that stuff. All I care about is the impact and that AC becomes a better game.

You don't think I want a better AC? Remember the discussion we had where I said I would play your idea too? If you want to blame someone you can blame the Partrice, Yves & and other high ups who are responsible for yearly releases and partly the fans.

Patrice made the "pure" AC and when people found it boring and on and on... He didn't make deeper core in AC2/ACB(psudo) he built opon it. Made layers of additions, then left Ubisoft with everything. And they have been using his method on AC since then.

Then we have Yves and the others responsible for the annualisation.

And the fact that fans foud AC2(psudo) better.


Ok then, I just wanted to know if it was based exclusively on the forum.

The example would have been a lot worse if it was based exclusively on the forum.



I only mentioned Wild West AC as an example, I know you were speaking in general.
Of course it is only a matter of finding the right way to do it. But, if that way is much more complicated than doing an AC set somewhere else, if it would be tougher and riskier due to other franchises (RDR) and if it would be a needless challenge, then I think a straight “no” is pretty acceptable.

You already have the awnser, try to find the best way to do it but with your idea instead. Didn't you say you wanted Ubisoft to take risks? That a risk is more successful if done right, something like that. Sure a "no" is needed from time to time but not all the time either.


I mean, you say you made this thread to show people what they look like when they say “no” or “absolutely not” but, so far, I really don’t see the point in it. Yes, the other person’s idea is denied but for a good reason (most of the time). Saying “no” doesn’t make one narrow-minded (if you used this expression due to language limitations, I apologize) and it is necessary.

Maybe it is pointless and it was used due to language limitations.


It is especially necessary in this situation. I think AC is facing a crucial time here. The time where most fans (relatively new and old) are tired of the poorly developed core, of the same game being sold with a different coat and with the annualization. On the other hand there are still many “AC fans to be”. Ubisoft can either pick those people by keeping AC this “good for (almost) everyone” or they can decide to please the fanbase they ignored.

Yearly releases, little development time ect.... I know, that's why I want a risky era a big change since the core is not going to be deeper anytime soon. A change. It might not be the right time but I rather have it now than never.


But the second option isn’t easy and it isn’t that compatible with the first. It’s not a simple matter of slightly improving the core while keeping the casual appeal (the lack of focus and specialization). Since AC2, AC games have been released every year, the “core of the core” has been overutilized, it has become tedious and it forces a massive revamp in order to bring back the appeal, the life.

Language limitations. "Since AC2" <~~~ Showes who's fult it is doesn't it.


This means a lot of work and focus placed on the core. In turn, this also means less focus on everything else like naval and all that stuff meant to keep all the different tastes satisfied. In other words, AC has reached a point where it needs to pick which fans are going to be the target (the old or the new). And when I say “old” and “new” I don’t mean it literally, the old ones include any fan who plays AC for the core (stealth, navigation aaaaaand combat) and the new are those who couldn’t care less for the core as long as they are pleased by all the additions, all the mindless violence, etc. Better core means less additions (mostly due to the time they are given to make each AC game) and the core works much better with a slow paced game that requires brain activity and that can’t be beaten by brashness or boredom.
Anyway, because AC is in this critical phase, the word “no” must be said. Time periods that require more sensible decisions and careful planning aren’t a good choice in this situation. I think it’s time to be aggressive and to be “narrow-minded” because, while it may not be the most righteous way, is quite practical and more effective.

More focus on the core is a good thing. Gues that make me an "old" fan. But the midless action is more than one thing, isn't it? Easy combat, something AC has. For story reasons, story focus is always a good thing. Player who don't care, that's just their play style. Easy combat is the only critical that needs improvent, story reasons and other play styles shouldn't be a problem at all.


I mean, I would more likely make a thread to show people what they look like (or what AC would look like) when they say “yes” to most things.

Do it.


Now, what about your other thread? “Realistic AC. All or Nothing” What was your point with that?

Obviously, you were making a sarcastic thread about an ultra-realistic AC. But why exactly did you make that thread?
Because, previously, I had a debate on how AC would benefit from realism. But I still don’t know for sure what you were trying to accomplish with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
A feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant"—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.
Satire is nowadays found in many artistic forms of expression, including literature, plays, commentary, television shows, and media such as lyrics.

It's clear as crystal.


Anyway, that is what drove me into saying you were bashing thoughts in this thread.
I think your last thread intended to discredit my idea (probably fueled by the way I, supposedly, disrespect people, claiming what is right and what is wrong).
Actually it is quite obvious that thread was about bashing my ideas. Just look at this quote of yours:

Don't juge to fast. It's all part of satire. I you foud anything offensive I apologies.


You even adulterated my words, gave a different meaning and I’m pretty sure you didn’t understand what it meant in the first place.

English is not my strong side, so if I gave it a diffent meaning I apologies.


And I think this thread, with its many purposes, is also about the same thing. I think you’re complaining about other people. Complaining about those who are aggressive towards other ideas or that answer with an absolute “no”. I think you want a peaceful discussion where every idea is treated with respect and care, without overly negative answers. And I also think I am one of those people who you consider to be “extremist”, that thinks he knows all and that his way is the right way, in other words, a radical, narrow-minded person who only sees black and white (casuals and hardcore gamers; assassiny and non-assassiny; the evil company, Ubisoft; etc.).

That't the thing about sertire. Why shouldn't any idea be discussed with respect and care? If you want to think that i think of you as an "extremist", then fine do that. Not gonna stop you either but remember it was your choice.


Because of this, I think this thread isn’t much more than a rant against people who are aggressive. And, since you made a thread “in my honor” about realism, I figured this was just another way to attack those who are radical to the point of saying what is right or wrong.

Again I just showed people what they looked like, did you enjoy it? Make a tread "in my honor" then about something that you want. You deserve to do it, find the best way to do it. You can also use attacks, passive aggressiveness, labels and satire. May the odds forever be in your favor.


If I thought AC was alright or that it could be easily “treated”, I wouldn’t act as such an extremist.
As far as I can see, AC is in a very tough spot and it won’t get out of there without fans resourcing to extreme measures and I could start explaining why I think this way, but that is not the purpose of my post.
So I’ll put it this way: Extreme situations require extreme attitudes.

It can be easily "treated", you just need to find the right way to do it extreme or not. "Extreme situations require extreme attitudes." <~~~ always loved that qoute. Oops the qoute thing I said is wrong I man I always loved the qoute: "Extreme situations require extreme methods"


So yeah, I think you made an offensive thread disguised as a sarcastic anti-offensive thread.


Judging by Hans' latest trend, I'm assuming this is directed at a certain type of fan. not just the fan who's close minded about the setting, but the fan who'd easily fall for this thread and cry "waaaa waaa, you disrespectful c***"

Fatal-Feit
02-20-2014, 11:14 AM
http://i60.tinypic.com/2z6hx01.jpg

WHO, WHY, OR WHAT WAS THIS THREAD MADE FOR!!!!

Hans684
02-20-2014, 11:18 AM
Don't worry, I'm pretty sure this thread was aimed at me... :(

I might have used some from our discussion but no it was not aimed at anyone specific. I Just want to show people what they look like.

adventurewomen
02-20-2014, 12:36 PM
http://i60.tinypic.com/2z6hx01.jpg

WHO, WHY, OR WHAT WAS THIS THREAD MADE FOR!!!!
I know right, my thoughts exactly. LOL!

Sushiglutton
02-20-2014, 02:03 PM
In summary: Let's all just be respectful to eachother :D!

Hans684
02-20-2014, 02:08 PM
In summary: Let's all just be respectful to eachother :D!

Who says I'm not?

Fatal-Feit
02-20-2014, 02:30 PM
I know right, my thoughts exactly. LOL!

Welcome back.

@Hans - I think you unintentionally offended people with this one.

Landruner
02-20-2014, 07:35 PM
My biggest issue I have with that franchise and certainly with most users there, is that i feel like most of the people focus more on the time period than the rest of the game itself.
I liked AC4 for being a Pirate warfare game, but not for being an assassin game. I even found the new TR or even the Assassin side quests of Skyrim having more assassin's ethics than AC4. I am not even referring to the story and plot of AC4 (Which was flat), I just talk about the main mission designs.

Most of the problem in my opinion reside that the Developers have no time or too much pressure from the executives to introduce new and fresh game-play elements regarding the assassin and main missions, and they have to fill them with only some repetitive and overused stalking and tailing missions cloned from the previous games.

To me AC4 is the best and worse example of what this franchise is getting into.
Amazing time period and secondary activities and terrible and lame first activities related to the lore and ethic of the franchise.

The all situation being a trap for the next game(s) since now a lot of people will expect some naval or an equivalent quicker, and a new time fresh period for the next game, more than actually some focus on the assassin path and mission designs.

To me AC4 feel like a spin off of the franchise, nothing bad with that, but I wish they pushed the things better in the direction of the game-play in order to make both game plays (assassin and Pirate) on the same pleasure of enjoyment and the satisfaction of everybody.

Having a Pirate/Assassin game was perfectly possible, and Ubisoft failed to deliver that opportunity to combine them on the same level for AC4.
(Note: I am not saying that AC4 failed or was a failure, it just did not excel on some mandatory parts of its game-play)

AC4 to me sound like a brief attempt to make up a dressing for a salad in removing necessary ingredients in order to make the sauce homo-gene, consequently you get juice for your salad, but not a dressing for it

NOW THAT I SAID THIS:

Now what next? What is going to be the new AC? What new feature will be there? Well, I do not know?

I do not think that next AC will have naval, so perhaps it will have aerial (?) in order to make up the loss of the naval (?) - AC5 Red Baron during WWI (?)
A Medieval Assassin with knight tournament and hunting parties? I do know it will be a BF2 but AC spin off or not, I do not know?

What about a new assassin creed and the attitude of UBISOFT regarding the game-play element?

The only way they could make it right is more focus on the Assassin's game-play with more innovative game-play scenario but will it be enough?
I mean how could you replace a such amazing game-play (naval) if your next game has to be more focused on side activities rather than your main assassin activities? You will get all previous games repetitive and old game-play combined in a new time period with new hero(es) that is about it. Nothing more than that. For some it will be enough, for some other it will be crap. Without being negative I could anticipate the future disappointment there or else where.

Another factor I am taking in consideration is that actually AC1 was released 7 years ago, and since the generation of players changed dramatically - recent polls showed that the fan base of the AC franchise is getting younger audience - Reviewer's friends told me that most of the AC4 players were on the range of 10 to 14 years old. That is quiet young for a M rated franchise.
So, it must be hard to actually make a game that could content everybody (Mature and Teens) at the same time.

No secret for anyone, the business way that Ubisoft will follow are going to be the more commercial way possible, even if the future games have to be less and less mature rated games.
Better to loose 10 old AC fans than wasting some potential for 1000 new ones for it even if they all in some younger range audience. I mean we can't blame Ubisoft for it, that the ways of business are. They don't spend millions in making AAA games for their fans only they have to make money from it as well. Even If the series is played with ` of under aged users they can't make up the the %40 older ones.

// THIS NOT A GOODBYE, but...

I won't take part of the poll - especially now after being involved in some public relation about video gaming industry I do not think it is wise to do it as it is for me now to overcome here on that forum neither. (And trolling some of you IMO)

Being a fan and casual AC player (like all of you) and considering myself as a regular UBISOFT customer (Like you), I just voiced over my previous posts including this one about what I regret about this franchise (that I love despite some appearances) and I suggested, shared, proposed and discussed some ideas with other users, which I am glad I did: I however did not pull any satisfactory and positive outcome in doing it and went in multiple argumentation with some for nothing. Nothing frustrating, but i am afraid that I never being able to make some good and positive points with anyone on this forum as a matter...

Since most of the users there (on this forum) are the basic core of this franchise, as an ULTIMATE & SINCERE WISH, I just wish that some feedback and ideas of game-play from the users could be taken in consideration by UBISOFT and then worked out with what it is possible to do for the best interest of this franchise and its following in order to make the most satisfaction and the less divided clans of players for its core fan base.
Any idea (good or bad) are always relevant, only when they are made for the purpose of ameliorating the things.

STDlyMcStudpants
02-20-2014, 10:06 PM
As a fan narrow minded. if i was a developer id be open minded...
You cant want a product with an open mind..thats a total contradiction.

Hans684
02-20-2014, 10:55 PM
As a fan narrow minded. if i was a developer id be open minded...
You cant want a product with an open mind..thats a total contradiction.

That may be but I usually like to prove people wrong if they say something(not everything) can not done, like a Wild West AC. Since I'm not a developer, I can't do that.

GunnerGalactico
02-22-2014, 09:33 AM
As an open minded person, I'm not totally against the Wild West setting, but where will hidden blades fit in during an era that is dominated by gunslingers ?

Fatal-Feit
02-22-2014, 12:25 PM
As an open minded person, I'm not totally against the Wild West setting, but where will hidden blades fit in during an era that is dominated by gunslingers ?

If they worked it in AC:3, they can work it into a Wild West sequel.

TheHumanTowel
02-22-2014, 02:44 PM
If they worked it in AC:3, they can work it into a Wild West sequel.
Except there's literally no melee combat at all in the Wild West.

Hans684
02-22-2014, 02:59 PM
Except there's literally no melee combat at all in the Wild West.

That is where I'm lost. It can be, it just has everything to with the team(developers, director, lead writher...), the story(history, A vs T war, lead writher...) and their prime focus.

The writher(writhers, lead writher.) write a more "stealthy"(maybe even the most stealthy AC) story(history, A vs T war...)with less run and gun, then showes to to the mission designers(developers). And there we go. It might not be traditional but it still works, all that is needed is the right lead writher(and other writhers), the right game director(example: Ashraf etc... And other developers), their ambition & focus(social stealth etc...). This is a era where I would prefer to use the simulator style of AC1 or at least have simulator style missions and partly gameplay. Then use the current style on side activities that of course a true to the era.

Fatal-Feit
02-22-2014, 03:06 PM
Except there's literally no melee combat at all in the Wild West.

Do you actually believe a dozen soldiers with those large muskets would all group up close around Connor and individually try to poke him? Or how about those ship battles when gun fires should be present everywhere? If they worked melee combat into AC:3 and AC:IV, they sure as hell can pull it off in the Wild West. And it's not like people don't resort to knives, daggers, clubs, or axes during those times.

TheHumanTowel
02-22-2014, 03:06 PM
That is where I'm lost. It can be, it just has everything to with the team(developers, director, lead writher...), the story(history, A vs T war, lead writher...) and their prime focus.

The writher(writhers, lead writher.) write a more "stealthy"(maybe even the most stealthy AC) story(history, A vs T war...)with less run and gun, then showes to to the mission designers(developers). And there we go. It might not be traditional but it still works, all that is needed is the right lead writher(and other writhers), the right game director(example: Ashraf etc... And other developers), their ambition & focus(social stealth etc...). This is a era where I would prefer to use the simulator style of AC1 or at least have simulator style missions and partly gameplay. Then use the current style on side activities that of course a true to the era.
Assassin's Creed will never not have action sequences and combat as a big part of the game. Especially at this stage in the series when they've moved away from stealth considerably. The Wild West is the least suitable setting for Assassin's Creed I've ever seen. It's all flat open plains, nothing to parkour on. It's all gunplay, no melee combat or use for hidden blades. It's sparsely populated, so social stealth is even less prominent. So that's the three core elements of the series rendered useless if this was to be a setting.

Shahkulu101
02-22-2014, 03:07 PM
While a stealth-focused AC would be delightful, melee weapons combat is a staple of the series. The Wild West era would not permit any kind of Combat as Towel said - adding more stealth wouldn't fix this problem. Removing a core pillar doesn't come likely especially when they are so essential for entertainment purposes in a game like AC.

EDIT: @Towel - AC4 actually has tons of stealth, the design is actually catered to it more than combat. It's not the best system ever but it's fun and a big improvement over AC3's almost non-existent stealth. Also, I'm not sure if you've played AC4 or not? - just curious, for some reason.

Fatal-Feit
02-22-2014, 03:16 PM
While we're on the topic of stealth; the only two games in the series with actual stealth are AC:1 and AC:IV.

Both the Ezio Trilogy and Connor Saga are a joke in that department.

TheHumanTowel
02-22-2014, 03:22 PM
While a stealth-focused AC would be delightful, melee weapons combat is a staple of the series. The Wild West era would not permit any kind of Combat as Towel said - adding more stealth wouldn't fix this problem. Removing a core pillar doesn't come likely especially when they are so essential for entertainment purposes in a game like AC.

EDIT: @Towel - AC4 actually has tons of stealth, the design is actually catered to it more than combat. It's not the best system ever but it's fun and a big improvement over AC3's almost non-existent stealth. Also, I'm not sure if you've played AC4 or not? - just curious, for some reason.
No I haven't played AC4. I'm waiting till I get a next gen console which probably won't be until The Witcher 3 or Dragon Age comes out.

Hans684
02-22-2014, 06:36 PM
Assassin's Creed will never not have action sequences and combat as a big part of the game.

"Assassin's Creed will never have action sequences", did you play AC3? Sword and knives mean nothing, there is always going to be combat, traditional or not. Both is a form of combat.


Especially at this stage in the series when they've moved away from stealth considerably.

And you havn't played ACIVBF. AC1 & ACIVBF is the AC's with most amount of stealth. The stealth just returned and you say they have moved away from it? Each to their own i suppose.


The Wild West is the least suitable setting for Assassin's Creed I've ever seen.

Firtly that is an opionion and as far as I know, this series is based on history whether you like it or not.

Secondly, look up some history and wach less Klint Eastwood.


It's all flat open plains, nothing to parkour on.

"It's all flat open plains" That is the stereotype Hollywood version.

"nothing to parkour on" Incorrect.


It's all gunplay, no melee combat or use for hidden blades.

"It's all gunplay" Are taking that claim based on RDR or Klint? Doesn't matter anyway. You don't have any ideas to gett stealth in a setting like that? It's not like holding a gun makes people losse their brain to, then start shooting without reason. COD? RDR? No, a gun does not mean brainless shooting, I'll take that back. Games like Hitman, DE:HR, SP...etc prove me wrong. And just becouse you have a gun does not mean you have to use it, thats where the mission designers come in.

"no melee combat" Right...people loss hands and brains with guns. Just read everything above, one more time.

"no use for hidden blades." They have to be there becouse they have becouse a symbol and trademark for the series. But they are usefull for stealth, especially a stealthy assassination in public even in the Wild West. None of that is possible without a stealthy(impossible anyway) mission design.


It's sparsely populated, so social stealth is even less prominent.

That depends on where in the Wild West the game is, the stereotype desert or a huge city. One making social stealth bad while the other make it shine.


So that's the three core elements of the series rendered useless if this was to be a setting.

If you say so.



Wild West doesn't mean just untamed Frontiers, though (but they can be part of it, just like the Frontier was a part of AC3). For example, this is 19th century San Francisco:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/01/article-2211439-154BC989000005DC-275_634x385.jpg

It could be set during the Gold Rush, when San Francisco grew population from 1,000 people to 25,000 in a year (and then relatively quickly got to 200,000s - in 10 years). We could have a dynamically changing city from a sparsely populated one to a greatly populated one with ****tons of construction and cool freerunning places (not to mention get a greater use of the dynamic world feature in the new AnvilNext engine). Plus Gold Rush is a perfect base for a search for a first civ McGuffin.



In my opinion, if the series ever went to the Old West, I think northern California/Oregon would do. In fact, I'm thinking that for cities San Francisco and Sacramento would do, maybe Portland if they decided to go into making things different than they really were and make it bigger than it was at the time, closer to how it was about 20 years later in the 1870s.

San Francisco:

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/san-francisco-1860.jpg

Sacramento:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Birds-eye_view_of_Sacramento_1857.jpg

Portland:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N3HnirMrcYM/T-3Y9qS1WwI/AAAAAAAACeQ/fJ_PlYuJ54E/s1600/Portland%2BOregon%2B1870s.jpg

Would it be the best possible choice? I don't think so. Would it be good? Maybe, I'd give it a shot. You never know until you try, after all.

TheHumanTowel
02-22-2014, 07:27 PM
Klint Eastwood
No one wants to play another game in a dull American city where everything is about 2 stories tall. When people talk about wanting a wild west game they want the hollywood open plains gunslinger version. Otherwise what makes the setting interesting?

I have no idea what you're rambling on about with Klint Eastwood and guns and brains but the fact is Assassin's Creed is built around melee combat, not gunplay. And melee combat has no use in a time dominated by guns. Otherwise you get utterly ridiculous sections like Desmond's assault on Abstergo with a small knife, and Abstergo guards attacking him with sticks instead of shooting him in the head.

GunnerGalactico
02-22-2014, 08:15 PM
Alright, everyone seems to have the weapons and the combat system covered.. What about the attire, will the character be dressed as a cowboy or will he wear an assassin outfit with a hood?..

*Picture this scene, all the cowboys I town are having a drink in a saloon and an assassin walks inside, hood and all. Wouldn't he stand out from the crowd and look suspicious?*

Or maybe he dresses as a cowboy when he is not assassinating anyone, who knows.

Hans684
02-22-2014, 08:17 PM
No one wants to play another game in a dull American city where everything is about 2 stories tall.

Don't try to speak for everyone, there is always someone. And if it is dull(if you meant they look bland I agree) or not is opionion, I have no problem running the on the buildings of AC3.


When people talk about wanting a wild west game they want the hollywood open plains gunslinger version. Otherwise what makes the setting interesting?

I don't remmeber asking for the Hollywood open plains version(RDR in this case). What makes the setting interesting? A change, with "Sword eras" only the series is going to be the same no matter how far back they go, unless they go to the time of the First Civ. You properly want a change to but your love for blades is in the way and it is obvious that there will be Assassins in the Wild West it is history like everything else about this series including the "sword eras".


The fact is Assassin's Creed is built around melee combat, not gunplay.

AC already have gunplay, to late to state other wise. If you ask around the forums some would say AC is built around stealth, some would say it's built around parcour, some would say it's built around combat, some would say all 3, sone would say a concept that has only been in AC1, some would say history...etc
Now tell me what is the "true" awnser, the "true" definition?


And melee combat has no use in a time dominated by guns.

Who are we to say that? Ubisoft hasn't tried yet. We can't say if it's good or not without even having tried.


Otherwise you get utterly ridiculous sections like Desmond's assault on Abstergo with a small knife, and Abstergo guards attacking him with sticks instead of shooting him in the head.

I totally agree that was ridiculous but just becouse they choose a time with guns does not mean the game is going to be like that with or without combat. A new mission design including disquises would solve such problems.

Fatal-Feit
02-22-2014, 08:25 PM
Alright, everyone seems to have the weapons and the combat system covered.. What about the attire, will the character be dressed as a cowboy or will he wear an assassin outfit with a hood?..

*Picture this scene, all the cowboys I town are having a drink in a saloon and an assassin walks inside, hood and all. Wouldn't he stand out from the crowd and look suspicious?*

Or maybe he dresses as a cowboy when he is not assassinating anyone, who knows.

This was a problem we've accepted since AC:2.

But in general, the past few protagonists haven't been all that bad compared to AC:2 and AC:B. Haytham and Connor were accetable while Edward was just perfect. Give him the brown cloak and you have your Wild West Assassin.

GunnerGalactico
02-22-2014, 08:39 PM
This was a problem we've accepted since AC:2.

But in general, the past few protagonists haven't been all that bad compared to AC:2 and AC:B. Haytham and Connor were accetable while Edward was just perfect. Give him the brown cloak and you have your Wild West Assassin.

I have been giving it some thought. I was actually thinking about Haytham and Aveline, maybe an assassin does not necessarily have to wear the traditional attire. The character can dress as a normal cowboy and the brim of the hat can cover his eyes. He will pass for a normal cowboy, the only difference is that he will have a better arsenal of weapons than the average cowboy.

TheHumanTowel
02-22-2014, 08:55 PM
AC already have gunplay, to late to state other wise. If you ask around the forums some would say AC is built around stealth, some would say it's built around parcour, some would say it's built around combat, some would say all 3, sone would say a concept that has only been in AC1, some would say history...etc
Now tell me what is the "true" awnser, the "true" definition?

Who are we to say that? Ubisoft hasn't tried yet. We can't say if it's good or not without even having tried.

How on earth would melee combat still work when everyone uses guns and rifles? The only reason guns could be used alongside melee combat in AC3 was because they were still cumbersome to reload and fire and melee combat was more practical for close quarters. In the American West you're talking about the late 19th century. No one used swords anymore. Certainly not in the American Frontier.

Hans684
02-22-2014, 09:13 PM
How on earth would melee combat still work when everyone uses guns and rifles?

Combat can still stay but the amount of focus is going to be a lot less. How? No idea. Possible? Yes.


The only reason guns could be used alongside melee combat in AC3 was because they were still cumbersome to reload and fire and melee combat was more practical for close quarters.

True.


In the American West you're talking about the late 19th century. No one used swords anymore. Certainly not in the American Frontier.

Who said we need swords? The most useful blade would be the Hidden Blade, the focus could be social stealth.