PDA

View Full Version : Future Assassin's Creed Games: Modern Day Plot *SPOILERS*



w3r3w0lv33
03-13-2014, 02:12 AM
[Major Spoilers Below: AC III - AC: IV]

Let me start this off by stating that I personally loved the Desmond story arc. The only complaint I had about it was how lazy it was by the end;


His dead was forced
Lucy's death was unimportant to the progression of the series
Many potentially brilliant ideas were left untouched



However, something was lurking beneath this layer of Desmond's story: the multiplayer plot from Brotherhood to Revelations. The recruit that you play as in the multiplayer is called Juhani Otso Berg.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121125163445/assassinscreed/images/5/5a/ACI_Familyman.jpg

Following the "end" of the MP plot in Revelations, Juhani is prompted to find and capture William Miles. Of course, as we saw in AC III, this was accomplished. After the events in 2012, Juhani traveled to India with a team of templars in October 2013. He was sent to retrieve a VR device that would allow users to relive the memories of their ancestors, while also transmitting data from the device to the Abstergo Ent. servers. This device was called the "Brahman VR."

Following this amazing pentology was the introduction of Abstergo Entertainment in AC III - AC IV.

http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/gallery/cache/18162__x_1375443922-ac-iv-black-flag-present-day-2.jpg

Basically, I feel that the modern plot should now center on BOTH the employee from ACIV AND Juhani. Imagine how interesting and refreshing it'd be to see the "Assassin's Creed" from both an Abstergo employees with Assassin contacts and a Templar's POV? Juhani would undergo missions to take out key Assassin bases around the world, while the employee would uncover this modern-day conspiracy through the Animus projects? Sooner or later, the employee would be recruited by Shaun and Rebecca into the Assassins, and would be accompanying William and the gang. Miles would send the employee to infiltrate the Templar ranks while Alan Rikkin (the "leader' of Abstergo) would send Juhani to infiltrate the Assassins.

This would allow us to uncover a deeper side to the conspiracy than ever possible. That's what this series has been missing; a reliable unit to mesh all the history together.

Remember, this would in no way replace the Animus segments of the game. It'd just mean a longer, (no longer annual), quality game.

Yes, it probably will never happen, but it's time for a publisher (Ubisoft) to choose quality over quantity. They've proven that they sort of have that mindset, by delaying Watch_Dogs in order to improve it.

SixKeys
03-13-2014, 02:43 AM
The whole reason they got rid of modern day third-person is because the devs felt it was too demanding to keep writing two concurrent stories side bby side (modern plus historical). What you're suggesting is essentially making the modern day even more complicated than it used to be.

Dome500
03-13-2014, 02:53 AM
Sounds like a great idea.

I have an idea building on that:

Make a game for each of the 2 modern-day characters and continue to release those intertwined stories in a 2-year cycle.

If you can follow me it would be:

ACIV - Abstergo-Employee
ACV - Juhani Otso Berg
ACVI - Abstergo Employee
ACVII - Juhani Otso Berg

and so on.


The whole reason they got rid of modern day third-person is because the devs felt it was too demanding to keep writing two concurrent stories side bby side (modern plus historical). What you're suggesting is essentially making the modern day even more complicated than it used to be.

Not if they do it right.

By the method I suggested they could be telling different stories for the different characters and let them meet once in a while and some of their storyarcs might be intertwined.

That way you could also be a lot more flexible in terms of topics and moder-day story.
And you would have 2 different perspectives - Assassin (well, soon Assassin) and Templar


As for the "making things easier with 1st-person-fan-service-play-without-much-story-progression", I think it's just lazy (no offense Ubi).
They basically take crucial parts of the AC franchise and make them less and less important. AC2 started with that trend, and for a while (during ACB, ACR, AC3) it seemed like they were actually starting to tell a story, but then the ending of AC3 and AC4 basically killed a majority of the modern-day appeal.

They could have found so many solutions like for example changing 3rd person character (each one has his/her story, like Desmond had from AC1 to AC3, the next one could have had his story from AC4 to AC6 or 7 and so on. Just a chapter in the endless book if you know what I mean), or something else.

But they basically chose to make it very easy for themselves and just stop any momentum modern-day has.
The problem here is they chose to establish and continue modern-day, but then it became to "demanding"?
In AC4 they basically did the equivalent of stopping any modern-day progression, aside from 1 or 2 Easter Eggs, John from IT and franchise-jokes.

I think what he brings up here is a refreshing idea, really.
Could keep modern day fresh.

Modern-Day BELONGS to Assassins Creed, and many people enjoy (or enjoyed) it. It's a shame it has been so "neutralized".

w3r3w0lv33
03-13-2014, 02:53 AM
The whole reason they got rid of modern day third-person is because the devs felt it was too demanding to keep writing two concurrent stories side bby side (modern plus historical). What you're suggesting is essentially making the modern day even more complicated than it used to be.

The reason that it was "too demanding" was because they began pumping these games out annually.

SixKeys
03-13-2014, 03:01 AM
The reason that it was "too demanding" was because they began pumping these games out annually.

Well yes. And seeing as they will most likely continue releasing these games annually for the foreseeable future, there's no way the writers are going to complicate their own lives like this.

Dome500
03-13-2014, 03:02 AM
The reason that it was "too demanding" was because they began pumping these games out annually.

And because they started bringing in too many topics at the same time while simultaneously giving the modern day story less progression.

w3r3w0lv33
03-13-2014, 03:22 AM
And because they started bringing in too many topics at the same time while simultaneously giving the modern day story less progression.


Sounds like a great idea.

I have an idea building on that:

Make a game for each of the 2 modern-day characters and continue to release those intertwined stories in a 2-year cycle.

If you can follow me it would be:

ACIV - Abstergo-Employee
ACV - Juhani Otso Berg
ACVI - Abstergo Employee
ACVII - Juhani Otso Berg

Modern-Day BELONGS to Assassins Creed, and many people enjoy (or enjoyed) it. It's a shame it has been so "neutralized".

I agree wholeheartedly. Not only would it offer the perspective of two double-agents infiltrating each other's orders, but it offers FRESH new perspectives. That's what AC needs right now.

To fix the "annual" game problem, they should stick with numbered titles for the games that follow the modern-day stories of the employee and Juhani. Everything else should be subtitled. For example, AC IV should've been called Assassin's Creed: Black Flag.

This game will never "end" contrary to what Ubisoft says. It's too valuable for them and for us, as consumers.

Yes, I'm basically proposing that this series parts into two sections:


The "main" section (following the modern-day plot stated above. *This 'sections' will end*)
The "historical" section (following various points in history until Ubisoft runs out of history)



The main section is Assassin's Creed as we know it.

The historical section would basically ditch all the modern-day conspiracy stuff, and focus on Assassins v. Templars in history. It'd basically be Final Fantasy (regarding that the plots won't tie together). Also, the games wouldn't be that long compared to the main sections.

An example would be:

Main Sections (4 year development cycles):

AC: V
AC: VI
AC: VII
AC: VIII
AC: IX
AC: X (Yves Guilemot stated that he wants the series to reach ten.)

Historical Sections (Annual cycle):

AC: Brahman
AC: Sparta Rising
AC: Phoenix Rising
AC: Shogun
etc...

I know what you're thinking, people would eventually stop buying the games. Then explain to me why Final Fantasy is still going strong? Because Square Enix is doing it right. Ubisoft can perfectly replicate this.

Fatal-Feit
03-13-2014, 04:23 AM
Well yes. And seeing as they will most likely continue releasing these games annually for the foreseeable future, there's no way the writers are going to complicate their own lives like this.

Basically this. The writers and developers don't have the time or budget to be progressing the modern day story the same way as before. I'm not trying to debunk your opinions or suggestions, but it's also great to have a better view of things before calling them lazy.

--------------------------------------------------------

Darby have done some explaining on a podcast and initiates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkHHHxEcDJ8

''No we never considered another third person character like Desmond. Over the past 3 years we struggled to tell Desmond's story the right way, but could never manage to make it shine like the historical stories did. It was a great premise that didn't always get the love and polish it needed. So with AC4 we devised a way to keep the present day settings, but ensure that we could always tell a decent story with a nice beginning middle and end. We'll continue down this path for a while, experimenting with different settings, with you as the main character.''

''This is easy to type, but not easy to design. As I have explained elsewhere on these forums in some detail, making the present day sections is not just simply a matter of adding a few more levels... it requires completely new design concepts. For example, in ACB, they introduced the brotherhood mechanic. That alone took six months to program ... if we wanted to do a modern day setting and make it GOOD, we would have to invest in many many more systems like modern crowds, cars, cell phones, skyscrapers, guns... etc. All of these are systems that we don't need for the historical story. So it would be like designing two entirely separate games.

This is why the modern day settings have always been so short and not always satisfying... because we focus on the historical parts. And we started to realize that the modern story was getting bigger and bigger, without adding better gameplay. So we decided to take a different approach that keeps the story intact, but doesn't lead to the player expectation of a full modern day parkour experience.''

''It's not likely we'll get another protagonist like Desmond. Telling his story in a satisfying way was quite difficult as a constantly unfolding serial, especially with different teams working on various games. So we have decided to reformulate the present in a way that suits our production style. We look at it this way: We would rather tell a good story well, rather than tell a great story poorly.''

''I did not say "its hard" as in "nobody wanted to make the effort." Its hard because the structure of our development process makes it difficult to plan an ongoing serial in the present day. Production realities just made it impossible to keep it going the way we originally formulated in 2006. That is a reality I cannot change. And so rather than complain about it, we have reconceptualized the present day to make this ongoing serial more feasable... and more self-contained for each game. And so, as I wrote to someone earlier -- we would rather tell a good story well, rather than tell a great story poorly.


Also, as I explained in an earlier post, when you split a game into two time periods, you essential require the team to make twice as many game assets ... this is anincredible waste of resources. If we focused on just one time period, we could use those resources to polish and improve the main game. This is why the Modern Day sections always felt a little underdeveloped in each game. We always focus on the historical aspect first, because it is hands down the most interesting piece of the puzzle for us, and the most popular aspect of the series. The Historical stories are the reason we make these games. This has been the case since AC2... ever since we realized very few people wanted a 50/50 present-past split.


Of course fan opinions matter. But you cannot pretend that fans are unified around your opinion. The hard reality is this: the modern day portions of the AC franchise are not nearly as popular with 80 percent of people who buy our games. We know this because we do a lot of research. Some hardcore fans have a somwhat skewed idea about what is popular because they gather in forums and band together and reinforce each other's beliefs ... and so it gives them the impression that the modern day is incredibly popular, that it is "the main story". But polls, data tracking, and reading reviews tell us time and time again the historical settings are why people buy these games. (And please do not write a rebuttle that pits "real fans" against "noobs"... I don't dig that kind of elitism. I hear that too much.)


That being said, WE do believe in the modern day (we wouldn't have created Initiates if we didn't) but we are going to reformulate it in a way that makes more sense and does not break the flow of the historical stories... which has, since AC2, been the focus of most of our efforts. And in fact the Modern Day setting of AC4 got some very positive responses from people who previously hated it. So we think we found a good balance. I do feel bad for the people who absolutely loved the Desmond story, but to do that justice we would have had to dedicate a game solely to him. I don't think his story was ever told in a satisfying way in most of the games. They were just bite-sized chunks. This is why I wrote all the desmond memos in AC4... I wanted fans to have some better closure with him.''

''See earlier explanations. It's not likely to happen. We will always use the modern day as a context for the games, but the bulk of the gameplay will be in the past. Time and time again, when we do surveys, we learn that the historical parts are what most people love. The hardcore fans in the forums love the modern day stuff more... and we respect that deeply... but it wouldn't be wise to rely too heavily on them because this isn't why most people buy the games. And on a personal note, I VASTLY prefer writing the historical parts... they feel more grounded and real to me. I love doing the research and I love the challenge of bringing these characters to life.''

'' It's actually much easier now that I can focus on self-contained narratives. With Desmond's story, it was always hard to figure out how much of the story to tell, because al though we generally knew its beginning and end, we didn't know how many pieces it would be broken into. (We even wanted to get him into some of the hand-held game too, but that proved to be a logistical nightmare.)
I really loved writing all the present day hidden content though. Its very freeing to just build a universe like that.''



[EDIT] I'm quoting from initiates, not the video.

I-Like-Pie45
03-13-2014, 05:13 AM
do you actually buy darby's BS excuses for his and Ubisoft's laziness for a single second

If he was a good writer like Oscar Wilde he would've found a way to balance both modern day and historical and make both shine but since he's not Oscar Wilde Darby and Ubisoft can only put in a half-hearted effort and call it a day, hoping that sycophants will carry them through

also

#InitiatesIs****

Join the movement to stop Initiates and all those associated with it.

Sponsored by Oscar Wilde

Tanyn
03-13-2014, 05:14 AM
Personally, I wouldn't care if they removed modern day plots all together. I mean, who really picks up an assassin's creed title, and thinks "I can't wait to play the modern day plotline and see where THAT'S going!" ... seriously.

RinoTheBouncer
03-13-2014, 11:17 AM
I wish we get to have a complex modern day, even in a separate game.
I highly treasure the modern day story and I believe what they did in ACIV is wrong. If the game needs more time and resources then thatís what they should give it instead of trimming it down.

Layytez
03-13-2014, 05:28 PM
Take out the modern day out of AC and you take out reason with it too.

Hans684
03-13-2014, 06:39 PM
[Major Spoilers Below: AC III - AC: IV] Let me start this off by stating that I personally loved the Desmond story arc. The only complaint I had about it was how lazy it was by the end;

Liked it too but lazy is a quite a strong word. To sum it up you simply where disappointed and disliked it. Understandeble but does that justify it being "lazy"?



His dead was forced
Lucy's death was unimportant to the progression of the series
Many potentially brilliant ideas were left untouched




Forced becouse it ended to fast? Or forced becouse you where disappointed and disliked it?


Lucy's death is one of the things with the most impact on the story, she planed to kill Desmond & Co, to get the AOE so they could use it on their satellite but it does not work. Soon after the world goes under...The End. Now tell how is this better? Becouse she was killed that didn't happen, Desmond ended up with a coma instead and got his BE cured by Clay...somehow. Then he killed Vidic and Cross, Vidic was a major person involved in the Satellite Project...so since he died after being shot by a random security guard controlled by Desmond the satellite lunch has been delayed. Then we have Daniel Cross, Abstergo's best(and most crazy) agent. He was the one who killed The Mentor creating the greate purge and he was the one who kidnapped Desmond in the first place. As commented by William Miles, Cross become more of a sumbol of sort at Abstergo, less important. He could have killed Desmond at Abstergo but he went mad...as usual, he is unstable and Desmond hitting him in the head with the Power Source didn't help either. If Lucy was planned from start or not to be a sleeper agent is all speculation, something to think about is that the games confirmed she was an Assassin but never ruled out the possibility of her being a Templar. Just look at the wording of each game(AC-ACB).


Care to tell any of those ideas?




Basically, I feel that the modern plot should now center on BOTH the employee from ACIV AND Juhani. Imagine how interesting and refreshing it'd be to see the "Assassin's Creed" from both an Abstergo employees with Assassin contacts and a Templar's POV? Juhani would undergo missions to take out key Assassin bases around the world, while the employee would uncover this modern-day conspiracy through the Animus projects? Sooner or later, the employee would be recruited by Shaun and Rebecca into the Assassins, and would be accompanying William and the gang. Miles would send the employee to infiltrate the Templar ranks while Alan Rikkin (the "leader' of Abstergo) would send Juhani to infiltrate the Assassins.

Good idea but do every person we play need to become an Assassin?


This would allow us to uncover a deeper side to the conspiracy than ever possible. That's what this series has been missing; a reliable unit to mesh all the history together.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to get an even deeper conspiracy than that. Has it been missing or is the smell of disappointment? I'm open for the idea but isn't the other games just as reliable as this idea of yours?


Remember, this would in no way replace the Animus segments of the game. It'd just mean a longer, (no longer annual), quality game.

Sounds good. The annualisation is not gonna stop anytime soon, personally I don't like annualisation either.


Yes, it probably will never happen, but it's time for a publisher (Ubisoft) to choose quality over quantity. They've proven that they sort of have that mindset, by delaying Watch_Dogs in order to improve it.

I'm sure it won't happen. Then the usual quality over quantity talk, do know that yearly annualisation of AC might be the reason for the new IP's Ubisoft is making? It's not like it gives them the money needed to create new IP's yearly, money to pay all kinds of bills yearly, marketing yearly, keeps them going yearly and last we have their payment for their work. One they have gotten their payment you have to consider the what they pay. The things they pay as an imduvidual for their own bills, family etc... Their own pockets is a factor but not their first priority. Ubisoft has delayed more games than W_D and they not long a go said they are willing to delay an AC.

w3r3w0lv33
03-13-2014, 10:55 PM
Personally, I wouldn't care if they removed modern day plots all together. I mean, who really picks up an assassin's creed title, and thinks "I can't wait to play the modern day plotline and see where THAT'S going!" ... seriously.

And that's the exact problem. Read my OP and tell me that you wouldn't be excited to "play the modern day plotline and see where THAT'S going!".

Seriously.

w3r3w0lv33
03-13-2014, 11:12 PM
Forced becouse it ended to fast? Or forced becouse you where disappointed and disliked it?

Lucy's death is one of the things with the most impact on the story, she planed to kill Desmond & Co, to get the AOE so they could use it on their satellite but it does not work. Soon after the world goes under...The End. Now tell how is this better
? Becouse she was killed that didn't happen, Desmond ended up with a coma instead and got his BE cured by Clay...somehow. Then he killed Vidic and Cross, Vidic was a major person involved in the Satellite Project...so since he died after being shot by a random security guard controlled by Desmond the satellite lunch has been delayed. Then we have Daniel Cross, Abstergo's best(and most crazy) agent. He was the one who killed The Mentor creating the greate purge and he was the one who kidnapped Desmond in the first place. As commented by William Miles, Cross become more of a sumbol of sort at Abstergo, less important. He could have killed Desmond at Abstergo but he went mad...as usual, he is unstable and Desmond hitting him in the head with the Power Source didn't help either. If Lucy was planned from start or not to be a sleeper agent is all speculation, something to think about is that the games confirmed she was an Assassin but never ruled out the possibility of her being a Templar. Just look at the wording of each game(AC-ACB).

Care to tell any of those ideas?


It, in my personal opinion, had no impact. I didn't feel anything. It was dissapointing, (good point), and anticlimactic to me.

It was no doubt important, but it was left poorly explained. It's should've held a bigger role in Revelations-AC III. All we get is a minute of Desmond demonstrating regret in AC: Revelations, and a minute of Desmond demonstrating pain in AC: III, plus a few side conversations. To even REALLY understand what she did, you'd have to buy DLC for AC: Revelations.

The glyphs in AC: I could've been part of something bigger; Alan Rikkin (the virtual leader of Abstergo) barely made even a cameo in the franchise, Shaun's discovery at the vault, etc.


Good idea but do every person we play need to become an Assassin?

Not at all. But it'd be hard for the Absergo employee to stay neutral after witnessing the conspiracy. And it'd be intersting to view.


I'm pretty sure it's possible to get an even deeper conspiracy than that. Has it been missing or is the smell of disappointment? I'm open for the idea but isn't the other games just as reliable as this idea of yours?

Deeper than an undercover agent infilitrating the Templar/Assassin order and uncovering all the "secret" files? AC I - AC: Revelations were fairly deep. But it didn't get too into the modern-day conspiracy as much asI had hoped. AC IV wasn't shallow, but it wasn't very deep either.


I'm sure it won't happen. Then the usual quality over quantity talk, do know that yearly annualisation of AC might be the reason for the new IP's Ubisoft is making? It's not like it gives them the money needed to create new IP's yearly, money to pay all kinds of bills yearly, marketing yearly, keeps them going yearly and last we have their payment for their work. One they have gotten their payment you have to consider the what they pay. The things they pay as an imduvidual for their own bills, family etc... Their own pockets is a factor but not their first priority. Ubisoft has delayed more games than W_D and they not long a go said they are willing to delay an AC.

When Watch_Dogs and all the new IP come out, who's to say that THEY won't start funding AC? It's a mutual relationship.

ACHILLES4713
03-13-2014, 11:40 PM
Personally, I wouldn't care if they removed modern day plots all together. I mean, who really picks up an assassin's creed title, and thinks "I can't wait to play the modern day plotline and see where THAT'S going!" ... seriously.

I do. Or at least I did through AC3. AC4's afterthought of a "go nowhere" modern day plot kinda killed my enthusiasm a little for that portion of the story.

I do like Darby as a writer, but I have to laugh at his reasoning behind the new format for the modern day narrative. Having no player character doesn't fix your problem of figuring out how far to take the story in a given game, Darby. You still have to write a concurrent modern day story along with the historical one! The only thing you've done is eliminated the need for writing a player character, which for all the good intentions that may be behind that decision, is still being lazy in some respects.

I'm fine with having a first-person perspective, but there still needs to be a voiced, fleshed out character that I can embody/follow along with. Controlling a floating camera, walking around like a dumb mute just makes the whole experience numb and passive. With Desmond and (Nolan North's fantastic portrayal), I was right there with him, fully engaged with his motivations and frustrations. I felt like I had a connection with the world.

I really hope they rethink this new direction for the modern day narrative. By all means make it optional since its understandable that not everyone would gravitate to it, but it doesn't mean you have to toss it aside and not put forth the effort to write and interesting story. Seriously, there is no reason, given the size of Ubisoft's workforce, that they couldn't designate writers to focus on just the modern day plot, and others to focus on the historical plots.

w3r3w0lv33
03-13-2014, 11:48 PM
I do. Or at least I did through AC3. AC4's afterthought of a "go nowhere" modern day plot kinda killed my enthusiasm a little for that portion of the story.

I do like Darby as a writer, but I have to laugh at his reasoning behind the new format for the modern day narrative. Having no player character doesn't fix your problem of figuring out how far to take the story in a given game, Darby. You still have to write a concurrent modern day story along with the historical one! The only thing you've done is eliminated the need for writing a player character, which for all the good intentions that may be behind that decision, is still being lazy in some respects.

I'm fine with having a first-person perspective, but there still needs to be a voiced, fleshed out character that I can embody/follow along with. Controlling a floating camera, walking around like a dumb mute just makes the whole experience numb and passive. With Desmond and (Nolan North's fantastic portrayal), I was right there with him, fully engaged with his motivations and frustrations. I felt like I had a connection with the world.

I really hope they rethink this new direction for the modern day narrative. By all means make it optional since its understandable that not everyone would gravitate to it, but it doesn't mean you have to toss it aside and not put forth the effort to write and interesting story. Seriously, there is no reason, given the size of Ubisoft's workforce, that they couldn't designate writers to focus on just the modern day plot, and others to focus on the historical plots.

+10000000 Internetz

ACHILLES4713
03-14-2014, 12:02 AM
+10000000 Internetz

Lol! Thanks :)

Fatal-Feit
03-14-2014, 01:34 AM
I do. Or at least I did through AC3. AC4's afterthought of a "go nowhere" modern day plot kinda killed my enthusiasm a little for that portion of the story.

I do like Darby as a writer, but I have to laugh at his reasoning behind the new format for the modern day narrative. Having no player character doesn't fix your problem of figuring out how far to take the story in a given game, Darby. You still have to write a concurrent modern day story along with the historical one! The only thing you've done is eliminated the need for writing a player character, which for all the good intentions that may be behind that decision, is still being lazy in some respects.

I'm fine with having a first-person perspective, but there still needs to be a voiced, fleshed out character that I can embody/follow along with. Controlling a floating camera, walking around like a dumb mute just makes the whole experience numb and passive. With Desmond and (Nolan North's fantastic portrayal), I was right there with him, fully engaged with his motivations and frustrations. I felt like I had a connection with the world.

I really hope they rethink this new direction for the modern day narrative. By all means make it optional since its understandable that not everyone would gravitate to it, but it doesn't mean you have to toss it aside and not put forth the effort to write and interesting story. Seriously, there is no reason, given the size of Ubisoft's workforce, that they couldn't designate writers to focus on just the modern day plot, and others to focus on the historical plots.

Lol, I totally agree. I've always been fond of reading emails and messages. It would have been nice to actually interact with some of the characters or at least through emails if not in person. Like give the players some multiple choices which can result in different types of interesting conversations with characters like Melanie, John, Olivier, and some no-faces. IMO, it'd be perfect because it's optional, engaging, and supports replayability.

[edit] It'd also give players another reason to log out of the animus mid-campaign. The only time I ever explored the office was when the story manually took me out of the animus, or after I've completed everything in the animus.

dxsxhxcx
03-14-2014, 08:51 AM
I do. Or at least I did through AC3. AC4's afterthought of a "go nowhere" modern day plot kinda killed my enthusiasm a little for that portion of the story.

I do like Darby as a writer, but I have to laugh at his reasoning behind the new format for the modern day narrative. Having no player character doesn't fix your problem of figuring out how far to take the story in a given game, Darby. You still have to write a concurrent modern day story along with the historical one! The only thing you've done is eliminated the need for writing a player character, which for all the good intentions that may be behind that decision, is still being lazy in some respects.

I feel the same, it's funny how one of his justifications for this new concept seems to be to avoid to waste resources on the modern days (like you can see below), but IMO the removal of a unique (third person) protagonist didn't make that any easier for them, they still need to create a unique setting for the modern days and they still are creating unique mechanics for the modern days (hack puzzles) and guess what, the story isn't becoming smaller just because of what they did, the only thing they did was dumb down the story that they are so fond of by making the role of the character we control in it pointless. IMO if they continue with these "self contained" stories and each new game put the character we control in a new role (if I'm not wrong they already said the next game won't be at Abstergo Entertainment) this will make things even harder for them because they'll need to rethink the new role of this character for each game, how this is easier than what they were doing with Desmond still remains a mistery to me.



]
[/COLOR]
Also, as I explained in an earlier post, when you split a game into two time periods, you essential require the team to make twice as many game assets ... this is anincredible waste of resources. If we focused on just one time period, we could use those resources to polish and improve the main game. This is why the Modern Day sections always felt a little underdeveloped in each game. We always focus on the historical aspect first, because it is hands down the most interesting piece of the puzzle for us, and the most popular aspect of the series. The Historical stories are the reason we make these games. This has been the case since AC2... ever since we realized very few people wanted a 50/50 present-past split.





there's also this:


we would rather tell a good story well, rather than tell a great story poorly.

well, unfortunatelly IMO they failed at it, the only thing they achieved with it was that for the first time I didn't want to be interrupted by the modern days because of how lame it was..

Fatal-Feit
03-14-2014, 10:47 AM
well, unfortunatelly IMO they failed at it, the only thing they achieved with it was that for the first time I didn't want to be interrupted by the modern days because of how lame it was..

Oh well. Like Darby said; You can't satisfy everyone. It was entertaining enough for me. Well, at least more than AC:1, AC:2, and AC:R, IMO. The only disappointment was the lack of interaction with the world. Like people have said, it feels more like I'm just a floating camera than playing my actual self.

Hans684
03-14-2014, 08:37 PM
It, in my personal opinion, had no impact. I didn't feel anything. It was dissapointing, (good point), and anticlimactic to me.

I respect that.


It was no doubt important, but it was left poorly explained. It's should've held a bigger role in Revelations-AC III. All we get is a minute of Desmond demonstrating regret in AC: Revelations, and a minute of Desmond demonstrating pain in AC: III, plus a few side conversations. To even REALLY understand what she did, you'd have to buy DLC for AC: Revelations.

It's biggest role was in the DLC for ACR, AC3 only touched upon it for the people that didn't know or had the ACR DLC.


The glyphs in AC: I could've been part of something bigger

Any ideas?


Alan Rikkin (the virtual leader of Abstergo) barely made even a cameo in the franchise

That only means he is not gonna be an assassin target now but later like Vidic, then have to build his charecter before killing him. The focus now have recently been Lethia England(don't remember her name), that makes me believe she is one of our future antagonist before Alan Rikkin. It makes sence to assassinate the people working for Alan before assassinating him.


Shaun's discovery at the vault, etc.

The discovery about the symbols that connects to the French Revolution? I doubt that means something, have you seen all the "hints" pointing to China or Shao Jun? Sums it up.


Not at all. But it'd be hard for the Absergo employee to stay neutral after witnessing the conspiracy. And it'd be intersting to view.

The employee is a flouting tablet that can't talk, I'm sure it can stay natural. And we already have had someone like that; Edward James Kenway.


Deeper than an undercover agent infilitrating the Templar/Assassin order and uncovering all the "secret" files? AC I - AC: Revelations were fairly deep. But it didn't get too into the modern-day conspiracy as much asI had hoped. AC IV wasn't shallow, but it wasn't very deep either.

AC: Initiates.


When Watch_Dogs and all the new IP come out, who's to say that THEY won't start funding AC? It's a mutual relationship.

If you have one golden egg and the chicken that made it came back to make more, do throw the old egg away or keep everything?

It would be bad bisness to just throw away AC just becouse of new IP, anything that gives huge amount of money is bad bisness to throw away. It would damage Ubisoft at some point. Just like it would be a good bisness move to rebirth POP after the "pause" it currently is having. You need to look at it with a tactical mind.

Templar_Az
03-14-2014, 08:53 PM
I enjoyed the modern segments in AC:IV; especially the hacking. Altough I would rather have third-person view rather than first-person.