PDA

View Full Version : Game Features That SHOULD and SHOULDN'T Return in ACV



Wolfmeister1010
03-15-2014, 01:15 AM
So, we all are coming up with some very brilliant ideas for combat, parkour, and such to be implemented into the next AC, and Ubi would totally benefit from the ideas of their biggest fans: us! But, what about the systems that have already been in the previous games? Which ones would you want to return (that were not in AC4) and which ones would you want to NOT return? I will start:

SHOULD Return:

1. Seasons-miss the snow!
2. Stalkers- best thing about Revelations for me, kept me on edge
3. Signature "shing!!" Hidden blade sound-almost never happens except during some air assassinations. Where did it go?? Should happen every time you assassinate someone!
4. Villa Style hideout- AC3 and 4 both had "hideouts" but they were both kinda halfassed, especially the pirate hideout. The AC2 villa was great because you could see the gradual change and renovation occurring.


Should NOT Return:

1. Contextual "booting"-annoying, unrealistic, being knocked into a wall wouldn't kill you, always causes bodies to fly off rooftops and get me spotted. Useless.
2. Double Counters and Double streak kills- although they look cool, they reduce combat to "press B to kill two people automatically". Not worth it.
3. Streaks- reduces combat to nothing but holding a single button to kill everyone. We should go back to AC1 style combat. Streaks only work in Batman, where enemies can realistically survive more than one streak attack because batman doesn't use weapons.
4. ANY SORT OF "MANAGEMENT" SYSTEM- the guild management was bad enough after Brotherhood, and the Kenway Fleet system was just brutally boring. Nope nope nope.
5. Assassin Guild-great choice they did keeping it out of AC4. Took away all challenge. Now, that sense of aid should come from co op assassins.
6. Naval- no more naval. It worked wonderfully, but to bring back naval AGAIN?...


P.S. I wish to take this opportunity to address something.. Some people have told me that apparently "I" posted a very bizarre and disrespectful thread last night (last night for me) and it was taken down so I have no idea what it was about. But, i promise that whatever it was was not ME and was likely my brother again taking my Ipad. I apologize if "my" thread offended anyone, although I still do not know what it was about, only that "I" said really mean things!

LieutenantRex
03-15-2014, 01:34 AM
I agree with almost everything except the Brotherhood feature. I loved calling in Assassins. It made me feel a part of something bigger. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Wolfmeister1010
03-15-2014, 02:10 AM
The option to have AI come in and do all of the work that is already laughably easy to do yourself?

I-Like-Pie45
03-15-2014, 02:20 AM
I liked the recruit system, WM

It reminded me of when I installed the unlimited companions mod in FO: NV

You can just sit back n chill while everyone else does the dirty work for you. Its just like watching a movie except you are playing video game.

player input is an antiquated dodo that is soon to pass like its namesake, and very good that it is.

More games should follow AC's example of summoning AI to do everything for you. This would've saved bad games like TLoU, Red Dead Redemption, Metal Gear Solid, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Wind Princess' Skyward Mask, Arkham City, and Dark Souls

Also, I think AC5 should implement a system like Nintendo and GTA5 that lets you have the game beat it for you if its too hard.

Also also, you didn't like the Homestead, WM? That comes off as a surprise.

roostersrule2
03-15-2014, 02:24 AM
AC3 combat should return.Seasons should return, but improved.
NCP's should were more or less depending on seasons, snow deforming should look better, FROZEN LAKES.
If naval is to return they should be linear and cinematic (AC3 style) naval missions.
Jesper Kyd should return, he's a champ.
Recruits should return, improved though.
Third person Modern Day should return.

SixKeys
03-15-2014, 02:26 AM
SHOULD return:

-Agreed with the hidden blade "Shing!". I miss that sound.

-Crafting customization items like armor, weapon pouches and outfits. Just don't lock them behind social chests/convoys etc.

-Being able to choose an interior or exterior route to your target, like Laurens Prins' mansion in AC4. More interior locations in general.

-Guard dogs.

-Stalkers, ambushes and other engaging random events.

-Little contextual animations. I loved how a few times in AC3 Connor would rub his hands during cold weather or gesture with his hands while talking to someone. They should have small things like this even outside story-related missions.

-Walk and talk. Why remove this in AC4? One of the few things AC3 got right. I hate having to stop every five meters while listening to my companion because I'm walking too far ahead.

-Blending with non-grouped NPCs. The AC3 system was a nice idea in concept, it just needed some tweaking.

-Children. Just make them part of the background and not annoying as hell like in AC3. And give them more than two lines of dialogue to recycle over and over again, FFS.

SHOULD NOT return:

-I'm slightly torn on the hideout issue. It's cool to have a place that you can upgrade and see it change over time, but they've gotten more superfluous. The Homestead in AC3 was way too big and the mansion itself was boring. The hideout in AC4 was visually better, but there was rarely a story-related reason to visit Great Inagua, so it was easy to forget it was there. When I first heard about AC4 being largely naval-based, I thought our hideout was going to be inside the ship which would have been a cool change. The hideout concept needs some kind of change if they want to keep it in the games.

-Any kind of forced online connectivity BS. I shouldn't be punished for not wanting to take part in boring community challenges (which half the time don't even work) or be stuck in some story mission, just because Ubi's servers just happen to be down at that crucial moment when the game wants to teach me about some boring online feature (Kenway's fleet). This goes for transmedia as well: the games should always tell a coherent story on their own. I shouldn't have to buy crappily written novelizations or import expensive comics just to find out who Daniel Cross is.

ze_topazio
03-15-2014, 02:39 AM
5. Assassin Guild-great choice they did keeping it out of AC4. Took away all challenge. Now, that sense of aid should come from co op assassins.


Oh hell no! keep that co-op bullcrap out of my Assassin's Creed singleplayer experience.

I-Like-Pie45
03-15-2014, 02:41 AM
but ze_topazio

my vaguely distantly related through the common ancestor bro

think of all the trolling of people for youtube that could be accomplished with this

i also think it could be pretty cool if we could pay female recruits or courtesans to catfight each other for our assassin's amusement

prince162010
03-15-2014, 02:49 AM
.
5.Now, that sense of aid should come from co op assassins !

Really cool point , agreed

Wolfmeister1010
03-15-2014, 02:52 AM
Oh hell no! keep that co-op bullcrap out of my Assassin's Creed singleplayer experience.

I feel like having an option to have assassins played by real people by your side would be a fresh thing to bring to the series. It would be an option, of course.

TO_M
03-15-2014, 03:12 AM
Things that shouldn't return:

- Optional objectives, while there are probably (a lot of) people who like these I just can't stand them for some reason and hated them since they were introduced in ACB.

- sequences/missions/assassinations which are heavily scripted. Give me the freedom to approach things in several different ways. Examples that come to mind are Vieri and Franceso de Pazzi in AC:2 in which you are detected no matter the approach you take which is infuriating to me. AC:3 also suffered heavily from these scripted events/assassinations. I understand that sometimes it is neccesary to have a scripted event to tell a story but if if limits the gameplay or is overdone is really ruins the experience (for me personally atleast)

-The current follow and eavesdrop missions. In AC:4 they were heavily overdone and the combination of trying to listen what the targets are saying, trying to stay inside the circle and having to avoid detection from the guards and targets isn't that interesting to me. I'd rather they'd change the ways in which these kinds of missions would work.

- This one might just be me, but in AC:3 and AC:4 I was getting kind of annoyed by the fact that the majority of the assassination targets are killed in "exotic" locations instead of the cities. For instance in AC:4 there are only 2 assassinations in Kingston and 1 in Havana (though I don't really count that one, since it ended up being a lame "boss battle" instead.

- All the "tutorial" missions whenever a new weapon/feature is introduced in the game, just include a short text describing how it works, don't waste an entire memory on showing us how you can use the new weapon/features. The rowboat for example wasn't explained in the story missions and people figured out how to use those just fine. Players don't have to be handheld for every little thing.

Things that should return:

- Replayable contract missions, while the assassination contracts from AC:4 are a definite improvement over the ones from AC:3 (I get angry just thinking about those), but sadly enough those aren't replayable.
- Designing the sequences so that each one (or the majority of them) ends with an assassination, this is what I loved about AC:1, each sequence was dedicated to the assassination of a target. In the more recent games it's a random mix of targets that have a decent enough story dedicated to random guys who we're just supposed to assassinate (Burgess and Cockram come to mind). The assassinations should be the highlight of the seuqnece imo, the "boss battle" if you will.

- Having to escape after an assassination, it adds to the experience imo.

- Greater player freedom, similar to the freedom you had in AC:1, by this I mean that you would only desynchronize when you died, the added desynchronizations in some missions is just ridiculous. For example in sequence 12, memory 1 when you have to kill the Italian ambassador. How ridiculous is it that if I kill his guards and then him I desynch because he "wasn't vulnerable yet" ? I have to wait untill he reaches one of those stupid haybales (Great job with the "optional" objectives again btw)

Dome500
03-15-2014, 04:16 AM
Things that shouldn't return:

- Optional objectives, while there are probably (a lot of) people who like these I just can't stand them for some reason and hated them since they were introduced in ACB.

- sequences/missions/assassinations which are heavily scripted. Give me the freedom to approach things in several different ways. Examples that come to mind are Vieri and Franceso de Pazzi in AC:2 in which you are detected no matter the approach you take which is infuriating to me. AC:3 also suffered heavily from these scripted events/assassinations. I understand that sometimes it is neccesary to have a scripted event to tell a story but if if limits the gameplay or is overdone is really ruins the experience (for me personally atleast)

-The current follow and eavesdrop missions. In AC:4 they were heavily overdone and the combination of trying to listen what the targets are saying, trying to stay inside the circle and having to avoid detection from the guards and targets isn't that interesting to me. I'd rather they'd change the ways in which these kinds of missions would work.

- This one might just be me, but in AC:3 and AC:4 I was getting kind of annoyed by the fact that the majority of the assassination targets are killed in "exotic" locations instead of the cities. For instance in AC:4 there are only 2 assassinations in Kingston and 1 in Havana (though I don't really count that one, since it ended up being a lame "boss battle" instead.

- All the "tutorial" missions whenever a new weapon/feature is introduced in the game, just include a short text describing how it works, don't waste an entire memory on showing us how you can use the new weapon/features. The rowboat for example wasn't explained in the story missions and people figured out how to use those just fine. Players don't have to be handheld for every little thing.

Things that should return:

- Replayable contract missions, while the assassination contracts from AC:4 are a definite improvement over the ones from AC:3 (I get angry just thinking about those), but sadly enough those aren't replayable.
- Designing the sequences so that each one (or the majority of them) ends with an assassination, this is what I loved about AC:1, each sequence was dedicated to the assassination of a target. In the more recent games it's a random mix of targets that have a decent enough story dedicated to random guys who we're just supposed to assassinate (Burgess and Cockram come to mind). The assassinations should be the highlight of the seuqnece imo, the "boss battle" if you will.

- Having to escape after an assassination, it adds to the experience imo.

- Greater player freedom, similar to the freedom you had in AC:1, by this I mean that you would only desynchronize when you died, the added desynchronizations in some missions is just ridiculous. For example in sequence 12, memory 1 when you have to kill the Italian ambassador. How ridiculous is it that if I kill his guards and then him I desynch because he "wasn't vulnerable yet" ? I have to wait untill he reaches one of those stupid haybales (Great job with the "optional" objectives again btw)

100% agree aside from the "targets in exotic locations point".

And the most important point of all (mentioned multiple times in your text): Give us more freedom of how we want to do things, and support stealth in 90% of all main and side missions and activities please.

Wolfmeister1010
03-15-2014, 04:27 AM
Mission constraints should not return in ANY form. It is time to let them go. They have had 4 games to get them right and they still havent. They even PROMISED to us that the mission constraints would be very basic and unrestricting in AC4, yet they were just as restricting as AC3. In a fort takeover demo there was a constraint that said "run assassinate the leader" and we all got kinda scared about that, but then Ash reassured us that "90% of the mission constraints are nowhere near that restricting". LOL. It is really quite hilarious how they made a whole demo video about all the ways you could assassinate Julien du Casse, like going up the back of the ship, up the rigging, up the side, swim to front, climb the mast, air assassinate, shoot, use berserk dart to get him killed by his guards, use rope dart, ect...

Yet in the final game NOPE you have to air assassinate him or else you dont get full credit.

Shame on Ash for fulfilling SO much of what he promised, yet lying to our faces about those dam mission constraints.

pirate1802
03-15-2014, 07:56 AM
SHOULD Return:

1. Seasons-miss the snow!

Agreed. Moar seasons and moar NPCs walking with hoods drawn during rains and such.


2. Stalkers- best thing about Revelations for me, kept me on edge

Agreed. But make they a little harder to kill. They were piss easy to kill in Revs. Still, a good addition that I miss nowadays.


3. Signature "shing!!" Hidden blade sound-almost never happens except during some air assassinations. Where did it go?? Should happen every time you assassinate someone!

Agreed!


4. Villa Style hideout- AC3 and 4 both had "hideouts" but they were both kinda halfassed, especially the pirate hideout. The AC2 villa was great because you could see the gradual change and renovation occurring.

Disagreed. Villa was good for nostalgic reasons but really, I'd prefer a AC3-style Homestead over any other AC hideout any day. Also a little confused, you say AC2 villa was great because you ould see the changes, but AC3 showed changes too and on a far greater scale than AC2 did (which was basically broken building-fixed building duality)? Anyway yes AC4 hideout was one of the few big disappointments of the game for me and I'd be super happy to see AC3-type Homestead returning.

Here's more:

- Contextual animations. What happened to them? They were in AC3 and they still are, partially in AC4 (Eddy standing among a bunch of drunk pirates would sway and act all drunk) but why not have it in other places?

- "Tomb" missions. Ever since AC2 they have gradually decreased the parkour-centric missions and replaced with generic-type missions. Don't want. Want the AC2-type old puzzle missions back.

- Healthy based combat system. Take off this combat-based BS.



Should NOT Return:

1. Contextual "booting"-annoying, unrealistic, being knocked into a wall wouldn't kill you, always causes bodies to fly off rooftops and get me spotted. Useless.

What is this "booting" ? Like kicking people off rooftops and such? If yes then its awesome and I'd definitely want it returning.


2. Double Counters and Double streak kills- although they look cool, they reduce combat to "press B to kill two people automatically". Not worth it.

Completely agreed.


3. Streaks- reduces combat to nothing but holding a single button to kill everyone. We should go back to AC1 style combat. Streaks only work in Batman, where enemies can realistically survive more than one streak attack because batman doesn't use weapons.

Again completely agreed.


4. ANY SORT OF "MANAGEMENT" SYSTEM- the guild management was bad enough after Brotherhood, and the Kenway Fleet system was just brutally boring. Nope nope nope.

Disagreed. I thought Kenway's Fleet was refreshingly interesting compared to other management systems, probably because it took place in real time compared to ingame time of older games. If future management systems are like this, I'd be onboard with it.

5. Assassin Guild-great choice they did keeping it out of AC4. Took away all challenge. Now, that sense of aid should come from co op assassins.

Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand yes they made the game easier, but on the other.. they made me feel like a master assassin ordering his troops around. And in some places they were genuinely useful, like killing the den captains in ACR.


6. Naval- no more naval. It worked wonderfully, but to bring back naval AGAIN?...

Yup. Thats done with. It was awesome but we need to move past it.


They even PROMISED to us that the mission constraints would be very basic and unrestricting in AC4, yet they were just as restricting as AC3.

I thought they were indeed much more unrestrictive than AC3. Although some of them were AC3-level obnoxious, like skinning crocodiles in the middle of a mission (wtf?) and blowing up a given number of barrels, by and large they didn't get in my way and didn't make me feel like a loser by giving me only 50% sync if I ignored them (which I did on many occasions).

oliacr
03-15-2014, 10:59 AM
SHOULD Return:

1. Seasons-miss the snow!
2. Stalkers- best thing about Revelations for me, kept me on edge
3. Signature "shing!!" Hidden blade sound-almost never happens except during some air assassinations. Where did it go?? Should happen every time you assassinate someone!
4. Villa Style hideout- AC3 and 4 both had "hideouts" but they were both kinda halfassed, especially the pirate hideout. The AC2 villa was great because you could see the gradual change and renovation occurring.


Should NOT Return:

1. Contextual "booting"-annoying, unrealistic, being knocked into a wall wouldn't kill you, always causes bodies to fly off rooftops and get me spotted. Useless.
2. Double Counters and Double streak kills- although they look cool, they reduce combat to "press B to kill two people automatically". Not worth it.
3. Streaks- reduces combat to nothing but holding a single button to kill everyone. We should go back to AC1 style combat. Streaks only work in Batman, where enemies can realistically survive more than one streak attack because batman doesn't use weapons.
4. ANY SORT OF "MANAGEMENT" SYSTEM- the guild management was bad enough after Brotherhood, and the Kenway Fleet system was just brutally boring. Nope nope nope.
5. Assassin Guild-great choice they did keeping it out of AC4. Took away all challenge. Now, that sense of aid should come from co op assassins.
6. Naval- no more naval. It worked wonderfully, but to bring back naval AGAIN?...
I can agree with all of your "should return" list. But not with everything on the "should not return" I don't have any problems with the double counters and streak kills, and streaks it was nice. The Assassin Guild was good in Revelations too so I don't see why not. Naval was good indeed, but not again, not again now for ACV maybe 1-2 games later.

I would really like to see the return of the Tombs or Lairs from AC2 and ACB, I really liked those.
AAnd of course the Horses :) Really liked.

Consus_E
03-15-2014, 12:00 PM
Thing that Should Return
-Seasons: I would be very happy to see the return of seasons. However I'd like to see them return only if appropriate for the setting. I'd also like to see Autumn and Spring added.
-Elite Guards: Something that I felt AC4 lacked was a truly difficult guard archetype. I really want to see an equivalent to Jagers again, but this time without the stupid wanted system. Also possibly an equivalent to the Templars from AC1 that are scattered throughout the map and can always detect the player.
-Sheaths/Scabbards/holsters/quivers: I really miss having them in AC1.
-Short Blades: I liked the variety of having an alternative to my sword.
-Homestead Missions: I thought these were great side missions that added a lot to the game, and it gave me a good reason to return to the assassins base.
-Ziplines: Don't really care for the hookblade but... If Connor can zipline without a hookblade then any Assassin should be able to.
-Bombs: These were great in Revelations, I truly have no idea why they didn't keep them in AC3!
-Apprentices: I really miss having my small army of pawns to do my biding, but at the same time I can agree with the point that they were a bit OP and made the game a little too easy (but let's be honest the crossbow, kill streaks, and smoke bombs may have had something to do with the lack of difficulty as well) So I would like to see the apprentices return with the condition that they be significantly less powerful, and making them useful in other ways...
-Underwater Diving: I liked in AC4 and I think it could add an interesting twist to aquatic stealth missions.
-AC2/AC:B Puzzles: Yes please! Also with more relevance to the actual plot and not some random stuff that becomes pointless latter on.
-Assassin Dens: NOT DEN DEFENSE But the concept of controlling dens in urban environments and hunting targets in restricted areas.
-Plantations: I really liked the way these worked in both AC4BF and AC4FC I think having both variations would be great.
-Liberation Missions: Really loved these in Freedom Cry!
-Mission Feedback: I think this is could really benefit the franchise going forward. I only wish I could give a more complex review of missions instead of just the current star rating.
-AC3 Forts: Really loved these in AC3... Also a reset option for said forts!

Things that Should Not Return
-Paul Revere: "This way Connor!"
-Desmond: Let's move on please...
-Sync Requirements: I don't really have that much of a problem with them but they don't really seem to serve any practical purpose.
-Sailing: I enjoyed it but I don't want AC to be come "Sailing Creed"
-Hunting: I hate QTE's and shooting random creatures just isn't that thrilling especially considering how much it was simplified in AC4.
-Grenadiers: The bane of my existence! Why is it that they have to throw a grenade every 10 seconds!!!
-Random Couriers: Just feels pointless to chase them honestly.
-Throw Money: Why do we even still have this?!
-Abstergo Entertainment: I am completely fine with being a first person mute character, just as long as I don't have to work for Ubiso- Abstergo Entertainment anymore.

Kirokill
03-15-2014, 12:19 PM
I agree with some of what people said here, like the assassinate sound. But I miss few things like the hunting society and thieves challenges, they added more reason to play the game, and effects with the people around the world, which seemed to be left out in AC4.
On the other hand the virtual system in ACB was a nice addition for training that is no longer useful due to the change in engine in the next titles (excluding revelations).

pirate1802
03-15-2014, 03:08 PM
Oh another thing. Plantations must return in one for or another. Any resetting stealth playground should be there in future ACs. Loved it to death in AC4 and would certainly want them. Also yes to Templar Dens.

Dome500
03-15-2014, 03:47 PM
SHOULD Return:

1. Seasons-miss the snow!

Agreed, if the game plays in a location where seasons are present.


2. Stalkers- best thing about Revelations for me, kept me on edge

Yeah, I liked them to.
And with that . I want the wanted status back. You can create/invent a new one (and new methods to reduce it if you want), as long as it is not the AC3 one, but I want the wanted system back.



4. Villa Style hideout- AC3 and 4 both had "hideouts" but they were both kinda halfassed, especially the pirate hideout. The AC2 villa was great because you could see the gradual change and renovation occurring.

Disagreed. Villa was good for nostalgic reasons but really, I'd prefer a AC3-style Homestead over any other AC hideout any day. Also a little confused, you say AC2 villa was great because you ould see the changes, but AC3 showed changes too and on a far greater scale than AC2 did (which was basically broken building-fixed building duality)? Anyway yes AC4 hideout was one of the few big disappointments of the game for me and I'd be super happy to see AC3-type Homestead returning.


I actually liked all of the Hideouts. They were very different every time.

The AC2 villa, the ACB and ACR underground hideouts (with library, guild management, etc), the Homestead.
Yes, I want an equivalent of Homestead missions to return, but believe me it can be presented in ANY context, I do really not have any restrictions here.

So, what I am saying is:

A new hideout? => yes please
More Hideout missions? => Yes please
More story context for the hideout (and reasons to go there once in a while)? => YES
Hideout upgrades (looking better over time when you upgraded it, more advantages over time)? => I would be okay with that
Multiple Hideouts across the game world (especially if the game plays in more than 1 city)? => Maybe
Multiple buildings (mostly your buildings or those of allies, with advantages for yourself when upgrading) to upgrade throughout the game world? => Would be cool

But please: Something new.

AC2 was the first hideout
ACB+ACR was a new form of hideout
AC3 was a new form of Hideout

AC5 should be a new form of hideout as well. Something that fits the location, setting and the protagonist of the game (I found the hideout villa fitting for AC2, the underground hideout fitting for the Brotherhood theme and the Homestead fitting for the colonial-style of AC3)



- Contextual animations. What happened to them? They were in AC3 and they still are, partially in AC4 (Eddy standing among a bunch of drunk pirates would sway and act all drunk) but why not have it in other places?

Yep.

Not TOO many please, but AC3 did a good job with them, I'd like them to build on that (even though I understand why they were not really necessary in the small AC4 villages/towns and the Caribbean setting).


- "Tomb" missions. Ever since AC2 they have gradually decreased the parkour-centric missions and replaced with generic-type missions. Don't want. Want the AC2-type old puzzle missions back.

This.
Event though it is probably not a job for me, I was always fascinated by Archeology. Exploring those tombs gave me that feeling of exploring really, really old and ancient places, witnesses of times long gone. It gave me a feeling of deep respect and awe. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I was always fascinated by old places and ruins, and those tombs were fun, gave me nice little puzzles to solve, and awesome caves and tombs to explore.


3. Streaks- reduces combat to nothing but holding a single button to kill everyone. We should go back to AC1 style combat. Streaks only work in Batman, where enemies can realistically survive more than one streak attack because batman doesn't use weapons.

Agreed.


4. ANY SORT OF "MANAGEMENT" SYSTEM- the guild management was bad enough after Brotherhood, and the Kenway Fleet system was just brutally boring. Nope nope nope.

Strongly disagree. Liked all management systems (except maybe the AC4 one with Kenways fleet, though I think that is a matter of personal taste), because they gave you nice stuff to do. The best though IMO was in Revelations. Assassins, Master Assassins, Big Contracts, taking over cities (well, in terms of influence), etc. IT was just cool to see the struggle of the Templars and Assassins for control and influence in the Mediterranean area. Something like that (of course again fitting to the location and time and conflicts at that time) would be cool.



They even PROMISED to us that the mission constraints would be very basic and unrestricting in AC4, yet they were just as restricting as AC3.
I thought they were indeed much more unrestrictive than AC3. Although some of them were AC3-level obnoxious, like skinning crocodiles in the middle of a mission (wtf?) and blowing up a given number of barrels, by and large they didn't get in my way and didn't make me feel like a loser by giving me only 50% sync if I ignored them (which I did on many occasions).


Yeah, I agree. Less "optional sync objectives". Optional Objectives, in my opinion, should be things like "do not kill anyone except of the target" "stay undetected" or "also kill the "optional target" during the mission" (for example also a Templar but not you main target) or "sabotage the defenses before attacking the base/fort/?".

Furthermore optional objectives should have nothing to do with a synchronization level.

Things like that would enable you to have additional objectives which can serve as challenges or guidelines but do not punish you if you want to play otherwise.
Just objectives you CAN do, but you have no disadvantage if you do not do it.

But the most important thing here is that we have to get rid of the whole "desynchronization if you do not exactly do what the game wants you to do" system.
Desynchronizations have to be a rare thing in the future. I want to be able to choose the stealthy or the combat way, I want to be able to eavesdrop without having to stay EXACTLY in the very narrow circle (from the rooftops for example). Restrictions like this kill the dynamic and systemic experience, they kill creativity and improvisation.

If I loose a target there needs to be a way to find it again. That way there is no "game over" (desync) and you can continue without getting frustrated.
Let's say you loose the target you had to tail. Now there will be a big green circle on the map in the direction the target went. And you have to use eagle vision to find the target again. Once you find him/her again the tailing will continue.

Now let's imagine you got detected. The target will flee, and you will have to find him again in the same way.
An alternative could be, if you wanted to follow the target to get to a special secret location, you have to find another way to find out the location. Eavesdropping an associate of the target for example or interrogation a bodyguard. Some kind of "fallback" mission (nothing big, just something very small (no cutscenes for the fallback missions).

Another option would be to enable the player to say further behind, that way desyncronizations are not hat frequent.

I know those are not the best ideas. But we definitely have to get rid of the whole desyncronization system, it is too restrictive in some areas and situations.
I am sure the developers can find ways that are 10 times better and much less complicated than the things I can come up with, but freedom is the key to the future of the franchise.


Also possibly an equivalent to the Templars from AC1 that are scattered throughout the map and can always detect the player.

An interesting idea. Yeah I agree. 2 different types of enemies. Some are normal guards, others are Templars and therefore direct foes/enemies that will attack you on sight.


I liked the variety of having an alternative to my sword.

Indeed. More alternatives to swords. Different weapons including Daggers, Swords, Throwing Knifes, etc.


These were great in Revelations, I truly have no idea why they didn't keep them in AC3!

They were pretty redundant and there were too many types.

But I liked the distraction bombs. Those should seriously return. Firecrackers or Cherry Bombs (in addition to smoke bombs which HAVE to be in the game).


Apprentices: I really miss having my small army of pawns to do my biding, but at the same time I can agree with the point that they were a bit OP and made the game a little too easy (but let's be honest the crossbow, kill streaks, and smoke bombs may have had something to do with the lack of difficulty as well) So I would like to see the apprentices return with the condition that they be significantly less powerful, and making them useful in other ways...

Yeah, agreed.
I'd like to have a system that mixes the "not-so-OP" assassins of Connor (because there were not so many) with the system of Revelations

Here is what I'd like to see:


A set number of apprentices, the Assassins in ACB/ACR were WAY too many and could do almost everything, that's why they were so OP
A real personality for all my apprentices
The return of Assassin-Apprentice-Missions
Being able to customize the weapons and tools my apprentices are using (only a limited number of weapons and tools (I'd say 2x weapons and 2 gadgets/tools max.) as well as the color and look of their robes (some outfits are also available for them (very limited though)
Being able to control the Assassins more. I was thinking that you hold down a special "Brotherhood/Apprentice button" and can press different buttons while holding down the "Brotherhood button" to order:

Bodyguard => Assassin appears and stays with you until you order him to leave (same key/button) (only 1 Assassin at a time)
Distract => Assassin causes a distraction at the location you mark
Stealth Kill => The Assassin Kills the Assigned target/targets (you can mark up to 2 targets)
Steal/Lure away => An Assassin either steals from guards or lures them to them (based on male/female)
Revolt => An Assassin starts a revolt
Cycle => You can cycle through your apprentices to choose who comes next when you call for them
It would basically work very easy. You can order those things and the Assassin disappears afterwards. If you choose "bodyguard" you are able to order the things below as well, but the Assassin can only do 2 - 3 actions before he disappears (if you choose Steal he will disappear though (for obvious plausibility reasons). Assassins can only be called once every X minutes (I'd say 5 minutes or so, maybe more, to not make it too OP)
The system needs restrictions of course. But the reduced number, the individuality of the Assassins and the more sophisticated tasks, as well as the tools you can customize for them (meaning not every Assassin will be able to do every action, based on what he or she has equipped (if you do NOT choose "bodyguard" the game will automatically pick an Assassin who is able to do what you want him/her to do).



Anyway, that's kind of my list. IMO the rules and mechanics above would make for a more balanced experience and still allow for the amazing Brotherhood feeling.


Assassin Dens: NOT DEN DEFENSE But the concept of controlling dens in urban environments and hunting targets in restricted areas.

Agreed. It's exactly like the Assassin Brotherhood management Mini-Game in ACR, it's basically a fight for influence in the city between Templars and Assassins.

Den Defense should not return, but a good way to still enable that "back and forth" would be to just let the Templars take the Dens over once in a while and you will have to re-capture them. You can of course, later on in the game, "upgrade" you dens and then the chance (%) of the Templars taking over will be reduced (this will all run in the background, no den defense or similar things required). Once you have a Master Assassin you can assign him to the Den and then it is save.

Of course I would be open to changes of context, meaning the "DENS" are actually only representative in my suggestion. You can have all kinds of different buildings fitting the location and time of the game, it doesn't have to be towers or dens. Just little areas in the city being controlled by one of the two (or 3 (new idea?)) fractions in a struggles for influence.


Plantations: I really liked the way these worked in both AC4BF and AC4FC I think having both variations would be great.

Agreed. Plantations or similar concepts, where you have to actively use Stealth, can disable alarm systems and have to get a key or something similar, in order to achieve a goal (free slaves, steal goods, etc) is really cool. Lots of fun.


Mission Feedback: I think this is could really benefit the franchise going forward. I only wish I could give a more complex review of missions instead of just the current star rating.#

Agreed.

Maybe in addition to the star rating one could add what he liked (standard options like "Stealth" "Combat" "Story" "Gameplay" "Freedom of play" of which you can choose multiple ones).
I know that essays will not help and are far too much to read, but if you would include some standards elements we can "check" and ask us which of those elements we did particularly like in the mission and which we didn't like (in the style of a poll) that would be nice.
Anyway, feedback in general is a good feature.


AC3 Forts: Really loved these in AC3... Also a reset option for said forts!

Agreed as long as you open up those side activities next time around. Here is what i am talking about:

When I board a ship, or take a forts, I always get different objectives I HAVE to do (cut down flag, kill captain, kill crew, etc), but why don't you give me ALL OF THEM and tell me "fulfill 2 of those 4/5 options" Would be way better and give me more freedom.

Also, I want to be able to have a Stealthy option to do stuff. IN AC4 for example I wished I somehow could have sneaked into a naval fort from behind (swimming in water, finding somewhere I can get in), killed the leader of the fort, sabotaged the weapons, and then order my crew to come on land and attack or something like that.
Same goes for ship boarding. Would have loved to order my quartermaster to take the helm of the Jackdaw and follow the ship I marked. Then I jump to the other side, sneak my way aboard, kill the crew and then order my men to board the ship.

Things like that would have been cool. I hope such ideas are included next time into whatever form of "forts" or similar side activities are in the next game.


-Random Couriers: Just feels pointless to chase them honestly.

Agreed.

Rugterwyper32
03-15-2014, 04:43 PM
I'll add a more elaborate post later covering everything I think should and shouldn't return, but for now I'll make a smaller one regarding my take on recruits and why they shouldn't return for the most part. Sure, they make you feel like a master assassin, but that's exactly the problem. Should we really be playing a master assassin or someone bringing the guild back from the brink every time? Besides making things too easy, it limits the storylines that could be covered to those two options, or it would just be a very, very late-game addition which wouldn't have much of a point by then.
In a way, the one way I could see it working is a Dark Souls-like system to call other people online for support but also risk getting invaded by other players who could serve as the stalkers from Revelations, just actually dangerous. Wouldn't that be fun.

Dome500
03-15-2014, 05:01 PM
I'll add a more elaborate post later covering everything I think should and shouldn't return, but for now I'll make a smaller one regarding my take on recruits and why they shouldn't return for the most part. Sure, they make you feel like a master assassin, but that's exactly the problem. Should we really be playing a master assassin or someone bringing the guild back from the brink every time? Besides making things too easy, it limits the storylines that could be covered to those two options, or it would just be a very, very late-game addition which wouldn't have much of a point by then.
In a way, the one way I could see it working is a Dark Souls-like system to call other people online for support but also risk getting invaded by other players who could serve as the stalkers from Revelations, just actually dangerous. Wouldn't that be fun.

Not IMO.

I agree that the whole "I am a mater assassin and have dozens of Assassins at my disposal should not be used every time and makes you too OP.


But IMO you can also include that otherwise. You do not need to be THE master. But if you are the sole and only Assassin in the whole game it's also unrealistic on the other hand, at least since the Assassins area Brotherhood most of the time.

I think if you were an "experienced" Assassin, you could be able to call your "brothers" (which are on the same level or slightly below you in rank) and let them help you. Would work the same way.
For me Connor for example was never the "mentor". He was a guy who knew more than his fellow Assassins, he recruited them yes, but it was only a partnership, they assisted him because they fought for the same cause. You don't have to be an Assassin Grandmaster to have that feature. And yes, you don't need it in every game, but every once in a while, every 2 - 3 games it doesn't hurt IMO as long as the feature is different, maybe has a different story context (example ACB/ACR in comparison with AC3 => completely different context) and is a tweaked and improved version of the previous one.

Perk89
03-15-2014, 05:10 PM
This list is pretty awful. Nothing about AC1 should return to the franchise, most especially the combat.

Rugterwyper32
03-15-2014, 05:38 PM
Not IMO.

I agree that the whole "I am a mater assassin and have dozens of Assassins at my disposal should not be used every time and makes you too OP.


But IMO you can also include that otherwise. You do not need to be THE master. But if you are the sole and only Assassin in the whole game it's also unrealistic on the other hand, at least since the Assassins area Brotherhood most of the time.

I think if you were an "experienced" Assassin, you could be able to call your "brothers" (which are on the same level or slightly below you in rank) and let them help you. Would work the same way.
For me Connor for example was never the "mentor". He was a guy who knew more than his fellow Assassins, he recruited them yes, but it was only a partnership, they assisted him because they fought for the same cause. You don't have to be an Assassin Grandmaster to have that feature. And yes, you don't need it in every game, but every once in a while, every 2 - 3 games it doesn't hurt IMO as long as the feature is different, maybe has a different story context (example ACB/ACR in comparison with AC3 => completely different context) and is a tweaked and improved version of the previous one.

To a degree i can agree. If we're talking about an already set brotherhood or a game here and there where you take care of the recruitment, I don't think I'd mind it, but maybe it should work in a way where you're actually followed and you can tell the assassins following you where to go and you'd have to be mindful of their actions rather than them just coming out of thin air.

shobhit7777777
03-15-2014, 06:23 PM
I'd like the Brotherhood element to make a return

It was one of the best additions IMO

The Brotherhood could add a lot of depth and tactical options to the game. I'd like greater control over my Assassins. There are so many ways I can foresee using my recruits to craft a wicked plan.

I missed the brotherhood in AC4....especially since Eddie had his entire crew at disposal....start a drunken brawl, snipe a target, create a distraction etc.

inferno33222
03-15-2014, 06:38 PM
Should NOT Return:

I agree with just about everything you said. Killstreaks need to go. They make the game far too easy. The same can be said for double kill counters, even though they look cool. I loved the naval in AC4, but wouldn't want them to beat it to death, though I wouldn't mind if it returned as an optional extra, like in AC3.

1. Contextual "booting"-annoying, unrealistic, being knocked into a wall wouldn't kill you, always causes bodies to fly off rooftops and get me spotted. Useless.


Not sure what you mean by this, can someone explain?



3. Signature "shing!!" Hidden blade sound-almost never happens except during some air assassinations. Where did it go?? Should happen every time you assassinate someone!

I miss that noise so much!!! What every happened to it? In AC2 it was perfect. Low Profile = No Noise; High Profile = SHING!

Dome500
03-15-2014, 06:57 PM
Not sure what you mean by this, can someone explain?

I think he is talking about Edward kicking the guys against walls and off of rooftops.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 06:57 PM
Should NOT Return:

1. Contextual "booting"-annoying, unrealistic, being knocked into a wall wouldn't kill you, always causes bodies to fly off rooftops and get me spotted. Useless.
2. Double Counters and Double streak kills- although they look cool, they reduce combat to "press B to kill two people automatically". Not worth it.
3. Streaks- reduces combat to nothing but holding a single button to kill everyone. We should go back to AC1 style combat. Streaks only work in Batman, where enemies can realistically survive more than one streak attack because batman doesn't use weapons.
4. ANY SORT OF "MANAGEMENT" SYSTEM- the guild management was bad enough after Brotherhood, and the Kenway Fleet system was just brutally boring. Nope nope nope.
5. Assassin Guild-great choice they did keeping it out of AC4. Took away all challenge. Now, that sense of aid should come from co op assassins.
6. Naval- no more naval. It worked wonderfully, but to bring back naval AGAIN?...


I disagree with all of this
1 - I dont know what youre talking about
2 + 3 - these are exactly he reasons why ACR and AC3 are my favorites for combat...it feels burtal and fun...Nothing about AC1 was fun for me and I want nothing besides the assassinate missions to feel like AC1
4 + 5 - I love managing and building up my brotherhood and fleet. I would only suggest that instead of just XP and money that completing this gave materials we could use in game rather than feeling useless aka 'trade items' within this management system to actually feel worthwhile and not just a mini game within AC
6 - We dont need naval to be part of missions, but i wouldnt mind it staying for travel or a choice of pirating...

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 07:00 PM
SHOULD return:



SHOULD NOT return:

-Any kind of forced online connectivity BS. I shouldn't be punished for not wanting to take part in boring community challenges (which half the time don't even work) or be stuck in some story mission, just because Ubi's servers just happen to be down at that crucial moment when the game wants to teach me about some boring online feature (Kenway's fleet). This goes for transmedia as well: the games should always tell a coherent story on their own. I shouldn't have to buy crappily written novelizations or import expensive comics just to find out who Daniel Cross is.

Yes!!! Leave online in the online section!

Wolfmeister1010
03-15-2014, 07:21 PM
I disagree with all of this
1 - I dont know what youre talking about
2 + 3 - these are exactly he reasons why ACR and AC3 are my favorites for combat...it feels burtal and fun...Nothing about AC1 was fun for me and I want nothing besides the assassinate missions to feel like AC1
4 + 5 - I love managing and building up my brotherhood and fleet. I would only suggest that instead of just XP and money that completing this gave materials we could use in game rather than feeling useless aka 'trade items' within this management system to actually feel worthwhile and not just a mini game within AC
6 - We dont need naval to be part of missions, but i wouldnt mind it staying for travel or a choice of pirating...

1. I mean how when you are fighting a guard near a ledge, you automatically kick them through the air like superman.
2-3. It looks brutal but it takes away ALL the challenge. I am sorry, but as long as "press B to automatically kill two people" and "press b to kill 10 people in a row" still exists, the combat will ALWAYS stay baby tier. If sacrificing the brutal aesthetic value of double counters means that we have to actually use our brains in combat, then we should all be for it. It doesnt have to go back to exactly like AC1, but the streaks and double counters hold back all the challenge.
4. Management is just opinion I suppose.
5. Again, it seems that you value convenience over challenge. Of COURSE it was "cool" and fun to have your own army of badass assassins at your disposal and watch them grow. But, the cold, hard truth is that THAT made an already laughably easy game even more ridiculously easy. There is NO way that any sort of recruit system can return in which it doesnt take away the challenge of the game.
6. No way. Pirating belongs in the pirate game. They should focus on using their recourses to make new and fresh systems.

You seem to value visual reward and convenience over quality gameplay. We need to make sacrifices in order to have the gameplay achieve that level of difficulty we want. We can spend 10 years pitching small ideas and tweaks to the combat system in which we "alter" the streak system or make the double counter system more "difficult" or whatever. But, the truth is that as long as those systems are in the game in any form, the combat will still say baby tier easy.

What do you want? Cool badass double kill animations? Or good gameplay?

I-Like-Pie45
03-15-2014, 07:43 PM
How about both, WM?

Its possible for both cool combat animation and good combat gameplay to coexist at once

TO_M
03-15-2014, 08:30 PM
This list is pretty awful. Nothing about AC1 should return to the franchise, most especially the combat.

This is objectively wrong.

And while the combat from AC1 might not look as cool or smooth as the combat from other games, it was at least challenging. And it motivated players to stay out of combat if possible which is supposed to be point of an Assassin (imo atleast)

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 08:37 PM
2-3. It looks brutal but it takes away ALL the challenge. I am sorry, but as long as "press B to automatically kill two people" and "press b to kill 10 people in a row" still exists, the combat will ALWAYS stay baby tier. If sacrificing the brutal aesthetic value of double counters means that we have to actually use our brains in combat, then we should all be for it. It doesnt have to go back to exactly like AC1, but the streaks and double counters hold back all the challenge.

5. Again, it seems that you value convenience over challenge. Of COURSE it was "cool" and fun to have your own army of badass assassins at your disposal and watch them grow. But, the cold, hard truth is that THAT made an already laughably easy game even more ridiculously easy. There is NO way that any sort of recruit system can return in which it doesnt take away the challenge of the game.

You seem to value visual reward and convenience over quality gameplay. We need to make sacrifices in order to have the gameplay achieve that level of difficulty we want. We can spend 10 years pitching small ideas and tweaks to the combat system in which we "alter" the streak system or make the double counter system more "difficult" or whatever. But, the truth is that as long as those systems are in the game in any form, the combat will still say baby tier easy.

What do you want? Cool badass double kill animations? Or good gameplay?

1. Combat
You can only do single button kills with air assassinations and with surprise attacks and chained kills do have timing to them..i found myself especially in ACR and AC3 killing and pausing waiting for an opponents guard to come down before i would go in for the one button kill.....taking away timed one button kills will turn this game into a button masher......

2. Recruits
I never called in my recruits to do anything but help liberate territories. I'm not even asking for the call in to come back...just a fleshed out system that allows me to manage for raw materials to craft in game items that i can use rather than trade items to keep sending them on quests...

3. Convenience vs Challenge.
"What do you want? Cool badass double kill animations? Or good gameplay"
Assassins Creed is my favorite series PERIOD. and it is my favorite for a reason. - Its gameplay.
Its gameplay is already perfect for me.
Assassins Creed Revelations was the first game of the past gen that i played and got me interested in gaming again after a 5 year break....
I game to play, not to work. I hate when games feel like a job.
Luckily for YOU 99/100 games feel like a job...
Assassins creed, minecraft, elderscrolls to name a few are the 1/100 that dont.
Go play the other 99 games...Assassins creed doesnt need to go in that category and make it 100/100 as in ACIV they kind of did...
AC IVs campaign was the first time i drug my feet to do a story mission..in the past 5 games i was excited for them....
AC is the only series i can count on to give me that 1/100 experience bc the minecrafts and elderscrolls are few and far between

Wolfmeister1010
03-15-2014, 08:48 PM
I dont want gaming to be "work" either. But, i dont want the game to be able to be played while half conscious. Literally, when I am in combat, my eyes glaze, i lean back, i become so unbelievably bored, my eyes are half closed, and I just keep pressing "b, x, b, x, x, x, x, x, b, x, x, b, x, x, x, x"

Assassins Creed should not be like..like freaking MINECRAFT. Where you just put in the game, take a drag from a joint, and start punching trees.

You WANT AC to play itself? You WANT it to be an experience where you dont have to think about it?

I completely respect you and your opinions, i just..I just need to sit down and take this all in.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and I still respect and value you as a wonderful forumgoer who pitches wonderful ideas and opinions. We are lucky to have passionate AC. Fans like you on these forums.

But in this instance..I PRAY to the GODS that you are the only one who feels this way.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 08:52 PM
I dont want gaming to be "work" either. But, i dont want the game to be able to be played while half conscious. Literally, when I am in combat, my eyes glaze, i lean back, i become so unbelievably bored, my eyes are half closed, and I just keep pressing "b, x, b, x, x, x, x, x, b, x, x, b, x, x, x, x"

Assassins Creed should not be like..like freaking MINECRAFT. Where you just put in the game, take a drag from a joint, and start punching trees.

You WANT AC to play itself? You WANT it to be an experience where you dont have to think about it?

I completely respect you and your opinions, i just..I just need to sit down and take this all in.

You're playing both minecraft and AC wrong if they bore you.....
You need some yoga and meditation in your life to quiet your mind and lose yourself in these games... lol
Im not even consciously aware im pressing buttons when I play AC...

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 08:57 PM
I would also like to add that when a game is 'challenging' where you constantly die in a section...
This is when the game feels like a job and pulls you out of the immersion..
Because 1 of 2 things happen when you get to this point
1 - You sit and watch for patterns and try to figure out what you're going to do to get past a point (VS natural feeling progression)
or
2 - you youtube a walkthrough

Im not saying sitting and planning is a bad thing...it actually creates immersion in batman games...but that is because it is choice and not a forced 'find the way we want you to do it or you will die in 2 min'
You can try to get past the point without getting into combat, but if your plan fails no big deal, combat is fast, easy, and satisfying. It wont drag on forever or frustrate you.

IMO its never good when a game with a combat system feels like its punishing you for getting into a combat situation (whether its by triggering an alarms or bringing forward a challenging force for you to deal with)

IE Jak II - GREAT game, but my mind and body has never been so stressed in my life.
One hit or accidental bump with a car and an army is on you and an alarm across the entire city is going off..
That just isnt FUN (Jak 2 is still one of my all time fav games, but def not because of its challenge)

I would love if they went back and did AC1/AC2 style boss fights (1-3 max) where that one single opponent was a challenging opponent that required timing and skill to defeat rather than the entire game dumping stress on me...

Wolfmeister1010
03-15-2014, 09:33 PM
IMO its never good when a game with a combat system feels like its punishing you for getting into a combat situation (whether its by triggering an alarms or bringing forward a challenging force for you to deal with)

Oh...oh god...oh god no...oh god please no...

No no no....oh god.... No no no...

I need..I need to take a break...

Oh jesus no no no

Hans684
03-15-2014, 09:41 PM
1. I mean how when you are fighting a guard near a ledge, you automatically kick them through the air like superman.

Always disliked that.


2-3. It looks brutal but it takes away ALL the challenge. I am sorry, but as long as "press B to automatically kill two people" and "press b to kill 10 people in a row" still exists, the combat will ALWAYS stay baby tier. If sacrificing the brutal aesthetic value of double counters means that we have to actually use our brains in combat, then we should all be for it. It doesnt have to go back to exactly like AC1, but the streaks and double counters hold back all the challenge.

That isn't the only "problem" regarding challenge, we have guards that die on one counter, bad. We have tools that can kill every guard in one counter, bad. We have kill streaks, bad. I could go on but I would be typing in days. On the other hand the combat of AC1 isn't really much different, only difference is that it is dragged, slow. I end up sleeping before killing half of the guards and there isn't much of a challenge either. Our current combat taps us one the back, the old combat pushed little bit with long breakers in between. There has never been a challenge only to fast and easy combat or to slow/dragged and easy combat.


5. Again, it seems that you value convenience over challenge. Of COURSE it was "cool" and fun to have your own army of badass assassins at your disposal and watch them grow. But, the cold, hard truth is that THAT made an already laughably easy game even more ridiculously easy. There is NO way that any sort of recruit system can return in which it doesnt take away the challenge of the game.

If we give them a tactical use instead of a powerful use it can work. It needs the right amount limitations.


6. No way. Pirating belongs in the pirate game. They should focus on using their recourses to make new and fresh systems.

The pirate game? Do you mean ACIVBF? The pirating is a fresh and new system. Yes people desire fresh and new, but when they have it they refuse to look. Give a game new and fresh systems and "it's not the same series anymore!!", only improve the game but don't give it any new and fresh and "it's the same pile of **** every year, it's becoming COD. They only care about money!!!!". But, the cold, hard truth is that all kind of fans is hypocritical to the bones.


You seem to value visual reward and convenience over quality gameplay. We need to make sacrifices in order to have the gameplay achieve that level of difficulty we want. We can spend 10 years pitching small ideas and tweaks to the combat system in which we "alter" the streak system or make the double counter system more "difficult" or whatever. But, the truth is that as long as those systems are in the game in any form, the combat will still say baby tier easy.

"We want"? Is that you, the entire fan base, the entire forum? I don't mind challenge at all but we currently are "pitching ideas and tweets to the combat system in with we 'alter' the combat system or make the counter system more 'difficult'" or whatever. But, the truth is that those systems would still make it easy, not baby tier but easy still.


What do you want? Cool badass double kill animations? Or good gameplay?

I know exactly what I want, that each AC is improved(core and all that) and unique. That each setting is hugely different from each other with no more yearly releases. That they feel different, is different but still true to the core. And that it allows several play styles/difficulty, that adds to re-playability while giving people what "they want". My aim is not to please everyone. There will always be "cool" animation either double kill, easy or hard.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 10:11 PM
Oh...oh god...oh god no...oh god please no...

No no no....oh god.... No no no...

I need..I need to take a break...

Oh jesus no no no

Sorry that I enjoy FREEDOM in an open world game...
I hate 'feeling' like i have to play a certain way.
And being punished for fighting makes you feel like youre doing something you arent 'supposed' to
The bell system in AC IV was ridiculous.
It sucked the fun out of the campaign...

I mean Sly 2 used this kind of system...get seen and youre punished by having to fight 5 enemie that take 100 hits to kill....It felt like a chore....

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 10:24 PM
Look at it this way......
Lets say that next AC all missions are timed, you have to defeat all enemies within 30 sec...only problem is they are spread out...if you do this stealthily you run out of time and are punished by having to replay the mission until you realize you have to fight them in combat...

THIS is what you are suggesting...a punishment for not playing a certain way...
Because you dont want to engage in combat you have to sit through loading screens.

This is all a 'challenging' combat system will do..
If you dont play in stealth you are punished with frustration...

WHY not just be satisfied with both worlds existing?
A stealth system and a casual combat system?

It's like you dont feel special enough because anyone can pick up an AC game and enjoy it...
Like youre longing for ownership..for bragging rights...like dark souls... WHY?!

TO_M
03-15-2014, 10:29 PM
Sorry that I enjoy FREEDOM in an open world game...
I hate 'feeling' like i have to play a certain way.
And being punished for fighting makes you feel like youre doing something you arent 'supposed' to
The bell system in AC IV was ridiculous.
It sucked the fun out of the campaign...

I mean Sly 2 used this kind of system...get seen and youre punished by having to fight 5 enemie that take 100 hits to kill....It felt like a chore....

You're right that the player shouldn't be "punished" for choosing to fight instead of a stealthy approach if the option is there.
However, you should realize that the fighting system in the AC games are too easy. It shouldn't be possible (imo) for an assassin to easily defeat more than 4/5 men (and that's also stretching it a bit). While the one-man army thing might seem cool (AC:R and AC:3 trailers come to mind) it comes off very unrealistic.
a good example of the fighting being too easy is shown after you assassinate Laurens Prins and the guards come storming in, the cutscene shows the situation as that you have to use the escape route to quickly get away. But since Edward can easily take care of all the guards, there is no "danger" at all and I don't feel the need to escape at all.

People have the "fight or flight" instinct, but in the AC games the "fight" instinct always seems to come out on top since the player can easily take out 20/30 guards in succession since they're easy as crap and they all attack neatly after each other. It's unrealistic and doesn't offer any challenge at all.

GunnerGalactico
03-15-2014, 10:33 PM
Look at it this way......
Lets say that next AC all missions are timed, you have to defeat all enemies within 30 sec...only problem is they are spread out...if you do this stealthily you run out of time and are punished by having to replay the mission until you realize you have to fight them in combat...

THIS is what you are suggesting...a punishment for not playing a certain way...
Because you dont want to engage in combat you have to sit through loading screens.

This is all a 'challenging' combat system will do..
If you dont play in stealth you are punished with frustration...


Just a question.. are you talking about getting a desynchronisation for not playing a certain way?

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 10:37 PM
Just a question.. are you talking about getting a desynchronisation for not playing a certain way?

Im talking about punishment in general for not playing a certain way...
Whether it is a desync or a new 'butterfly effect' system where enemies will start to sense your presence if you sit too long and attack you...
Both would force combat on you

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 10:39 PM
You're right that the player shouldn't be "punished" for choosing to fight instead of a stealthy approach if the option is there.
However, you should realize that the fighting system in the AC games are too easy. It shouldn't be possible (imo) for an assassin to easily defeat more than 4/5 men (and that's also stretching it a bit). While the one-man army thing might seem cool (AC:R and AC:3 trailers come to mind) it comes off very unrealistic.
a good example of the fighting being too easy is shown after you assassinate Laurens Prins and the guards come storming in, the cutscene shows the situation as that you have to use the escape route to quickly get away. But since Edward can easily take care of all the guards, there is no "danger" at all and I don't feel the need to escape at all.

People have the "fight or flight" instinct, but in the AC games the "fight" instinct always seems to come out on top since the player can easily take out 20/30 guards in succession since they're easy as crap and they all attack neatly after each other. It's unrealistic and doesn't offer any challenge at all.

Ask a master assassin if taking on 5 men at once is unrealistic... Realism is a mental constraint... it is not a universal constant...

GunnerGalactico
03-15-2014, 10:43 PM
Im talking about punishment in general for not playing a certain way...
Whether it is a desync or a new 'butterfly effect' system where enemies will start to sense your presence if you sit too long and attack you...
Both would force combat on you

Okay, understood..

You're right though, the player should decide what course of action or approach they want to take and not be restricted to play a certain way.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 10:45 PM
But I will say I kind of miss the flee the scene idea the original AC had...............
I would almost prefer a limited combat system with social stealth where you get close to your target..eliminate them and run through alleys and roof tops until you find a hiding spot to lose the guards vs Hitman: Black Flag
Where you have to sneak through bushes and closets...
then get out of the yellow circle...
Kind of make cities more alive and ac a bit more grounded...

TO_M
03-15-2014, 10:48 PM
Ask a master assassin if taking on 5 men at once is unrealistic... Realism is a mental constraint... it is not a universal constant...

Master Assassin's are highly skilled, and taking out a large number of enemies by yourself should take a lot of skill, which in the AC games it does not.

Not to mention that even "master assassins" are not supposed to be one-man armies and they shouldn't be.

GunnerGalactico
03-15-2014, 10:57 PM
But I will say I kind of miss the flee the scene idea the original AC had...............
I would almost prefer a limited combat system with social stealth where you get close to your target..eliminate them and run through alleys and roof tops until you find a hiding spot to lose the guards vs Hitman: Black Flag
Where you have to sneak through bushes and closets...
then get out of the yellow circle...
Kind of make cities more alive and ac a bit more grounded...

I also kind of miss the yellow and red blinkers near the health bar.. every time you walk pass the guards, they are constantly wary of your presence even if you do not trigger an open conflict. You had to be mindful of your actions.

Dome500
03-15-2014, 11:02 PM
2. Recruits
I never called in my recruits to do anything but help liberate territories. I'm not even asking for the call in to come back...just a fleshed out system that allows me to manage for raw materials to craft in game items that i can use rather than trade items to keep sending them on quests...

On a side note: Recruits make combat more realistic by adding allies for you where you would - in reality - absolutely need some. That way it appears as if you actually defeat enemies as a Team effort instead of looking like a one-man-army.

Btw regarding gameplay in general and double kills => I actually like them. I agree that kill-streaks (i.e. one-button-chain-killing) are absolutely redundant and boring, but I actually loved the combat in AC3. In AC3 you were able to make double kills, they didn't appear too often (which would make them unrealistic) or too rarely (like in AC4), they were perfect IMO. Also animations like being able to kill one enemy and shoot the other (as animation) or to have different strategies for different enemies was really awesome (either kill or counter => kill or (counter =>) break defense => kill or similar).

If I had to say one thing AC3 really did make good then it is combat. It was not perfect, but with a little tweaking (IMO) AC3 had the best combat regarding the different kill combination, archetypes, human shielding and the very limited health (really liked that latter element).

As for Stealth => take and example from AC4 and improve it. AC4 did really improve on (LoS-)Stealth. Social Stealth should be AC3's system tweaked and improved.


You WANT AC to play itself? You WANT it to be an experience where you dont have to think about it?


Yeah, one needs balance. And I think in terms of combat (only in terms of combat) AC3 did have a very good balance (at least in the version 1.06).


You're playing both minecraft and AC wrong if they bore you.....
You need some yoga and meditation in your life to quiet your mind and lose yourself in these games... lol
Im not even consciously aware im pressing buttons when I play AC...

Which does not mean that he is playing it wrong and you are playing it right. It's a matter of taste and they need to find a balance between the 2 points you two got.


I would also like to add that when a game is 'challenging' where you constantly die in a section...
This is when the game feels like a job and pulls you out of the immersion..

Which is not the goal. The goal is to make it challenging enough to keep you on your toes, meaning you will die if you do not think, but easy enough to not let you die really quick.


You can try to get past the point without getting into combat, but if your plan fails no big deal, combat is fast, easy, and satisfying. It wont drag on forever or frustrate you.


Imagine AC3's combat slightly tweaked and with only 3/4 of the enemies you normally have in a fight in AC3.
I think that would be a good balance.


We have tools that can kill every guard in one counter, bad.

Yeah, but you do not want the combat to go on forever.

I think ACB is the example of way too easy. You can just kill dozens of guards with 1 button.
While AC1 and AC2 is the example of boring and too long (sorry guys). The enemies kept attacking you, you had to wait real long, make a lot of counter, throw aways, etc. It was basically a game of patience. Fun combat should be fluid and active as well as reactive.

AC3 (for me personally) is the middle ground here. You need you brain to actually beat the enemies, health is pretty low (in comparison with the other AC games) but it does not take too long, is both active and reactive.

Regarding tools though I have to disagree. Tools are here to shorten the combat, give the player and advantage and allow him to kill enemies quickly or escape.

The smoke bomb for example is the perfect Assassins tool, and I hope they do not get rid of gadgets like Bows, Crossbows, Blowpipes, Smokebombs, Firecrackers or similar stuff, because it helps you in combat. You might see it as OP. But seriously, I see it as realistic tool, that can aside from helping you out of a situation also explain how an Assassin can beat so many foes. Of course he uses tools. It creates variety, makes you more flexible and improves improvisation. Tools should enable you to get and advantage over your enemies. That is what tools are for. If that is too easy for you then don't use them.



People have the "fight or flight" instinct, but in the AC games the "fight" instinct always seems to come out on top since the player can easily take out 20/30 guards in succession since they're easy as crap and they all attack neatly after each other. It's unrealistic and doesn't offer any challenge at all.

To be honest, in AC3 I caught myself more than once fleeing because I knew I might make the fight but that it would really be challenging and I didn't want to fight in that moment.

Btw. How many enemies you eliminate is always relative to the number of enemies that can detect you at any time. The player has to be able to at least defend himself properly.

I would recommend a difficulty setting for the future AC titles, but aside from that I think games like AC do not have to be 100% realistic. ACB was really over-the-top easy. AC3 on the other hand actually fit my taste in terms of combat (even if it failed big time with it's broken stealth system).

STDlyMcStudpants
03-15-2014, 11:07 PM
l

On a side note: Recruits make combat more realistic by adding allies for you where you would - in reality - absolutely need some. That way it appears as if you actually defeat enemies as a Team effort instead of looking like a one-man-army.

Agreed. Some territories in Brotherhood would have given me a headache if it werent for my recruits.. especially the guy on that hill with the horse, and the one in the watchtower on the docs haha

Dome500
03-15-2014, 11:28 PM
Agreed. Some territories in Brotherhood would have given me a headache if it werent for my recruits.. especially the guy on that hill with the horse, and the one in the watchtower on the docs haha

That's actually not what I meant, I found Brotherhood had the easiest combat system, but I think it makes the game more immersive to have that Brotherhood and see it as a team effort if you win big fights.

Anyway, glad you agree.

frodrigues55
03-16-2014, 12:56 AM
I loved the brothehood system. I personally found it fun and worked quite well when I didn't want to show my face to the enemies. It somehow made the Order more present, more involved with the storyline. I think part of the reasons why AC3 and 4 felt more distant from the order to me is because you are alone. Well, AC's system was great but those people were not assassins.

I can't write eveything I want back, but I realized a lot of good things were lost in translation when AnvilNext entered the scene.

I also think the teams need more passion, to understand more of the game before creating the systems. Some of the stuff seem to be there just because it's supposed to be.

And please, bring back the attention to immersion and detail, especially regarding social stealth/detection. We already pointed out on another thread how the tailing missions are very amateurish, with those stupid turn-around-scratches-head movement which makes no sense.

Or how you are hanging outside a window eavesdropping NPCs that have those robotic/stupid movements and still don't see you.

Or how people see you but all it takes is for you to blend with some plants right in front of them and they suddenly don't see where you went.

Or how Assassins can walk around with those heavy armory and weapons and nobody seemed to mind. Some settings don't allow this to happen. It blended well with AC1's and 4's setting but for the other games, most of the time it was just weird.

So I hope they make it simpler. Take the Assassins back to the shadows.

Goxxi
03-16-2014, 01:21 AM
What I really want and what do I expect from next Assassin's Creed game , let's see :


I want more mystic story , more conspiracies , more political, more philosophicaly oriented , more mind-blowing twists.

- I want that setting (which ever would be) takes a more relevant place in the story and that we experience that setting and spirit of that age completely.

- I want that important historical figures of that epoch to get a more relevant roles and to be important for the story (like they were in AC2 and Ezio triology and not to be like in AC3 where they were irrelevant and had a totally secondary roles , like when George Washington was a mostly insensible character and where Benjamin Franklin was appeared on 2 minutes where he was talking about his fetish for MILF's)

- I want back puzzles like we had in AC2 and Brotherhood , I really missed the glyphs in last several sequels.

- I want more indoor locations and "tomb" style type of mission.

- I want some intresting small innovation in gameplay , for example the protagonist could dance a waltz or to play piano.

So this is what I really want and everything else is less important.
And definitely I do not want back den defense, towers , and similar boring , repetative and pointless stuffs.

Layytez
03-16-2014, 03:07 AM
I want them to stop focusing on historical characters so much. I understand putting them in the game but shoehorning the main character to have known all of this important figures is pushing it.

Wolfmeister1010
03-16-2014, 03:21 AM
It seems that a reoccuring want is the want for more interior locations. I agree!

I remember that there was a poll a while ago, asking us if we wanted things like Victorian London as a location, co op, more interior locations, and if we want to change how the city looks.

Considering that London and co op are very likely rumors for the next AC..I would not be surprised if the other bits are attended to as well...!!!

pirate1802
03-16-2014, 04:48 AM
I want them to stop focusing on historical characters so much. I understand putting them in the game but shoehorning the main character to have known all of this important figures is pushing it.

Completely agreed.

Wolfmeister1010
03-16-2014, 05:10 AM
Having Connor be a part of EVERY SINGLE EVENT was kinda weird wasn't it. I can understand the bunker hill, tea party, and battle of chesapeake. But having him ride on the horse with Revere?That is pushing it. Luckily, if the French Rev stuff is true, there were not nearly as many big events during that revolution, so we shouldn't have to worry about that

Fatal-Feit
03-16-2014, 08:48 AM
Having Connor be a part of EVERY SINGLE EVENT was kinda weird wasn't it. I can understand the bunker hill, tea party, and battle of chesapeake. But having him ride on the horse with Revere?That is pushing it. Luckily, if the French Rev stuff is true, there were not nearly as many big events during that revolution, so we shouldn't have to worry about that

I know I'm definitely alone on this, but secretly I wanted it to be an expanded DLC. Huehuehue... --No really.

@Topic; I actually want something like the Kenway Fleet to return. It offered plenty of entertainment when I'm at work or in class. I see no harm if they continue to expand upon it.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-16-2014, 08:56 AM
Having Connor be a part of EVERY SINGLE EVENT was kinda weird wasn't it. I can understand the bunker hill, tea party, and battle of chesapeake. But having him ride on the horse with Revere?That is pushing it. Luckily, if the French Rev stuff is true, there were not nearly as many big events during that revolution, so we shouldn't have to worry about that

Am I the only one that called it?
'Let me guess CONNOR was really the one that yelled the british are coming" before anything was said about the mission ahah
I was just waiting to discover electricity 'put this on your kite ben'

GunnerGalactico
03-16-2014, 09:54 AM
Am I the only person who thinks having an AC game set during the French Revolution with Connor in it is a bad idea?

I just cannot picture him in that setting. :nonchalance:

grace_jason15
03-16-2014, 11:50 AM
I think the double counters, instead of just pressing the counter button (O, B, shift etc) to kill them both, it would be better to add button pressing sequences ( like the ones which occur while killing animals). That way the it would be challenging yet awesome.

oliacr
03-16-2014, 01:22 PM
I think the double counters, instead of just pressing the counter button (O, B, shift etc) to kill them both, it would be better to add button pressing sequences ( like the ones which occur while killing animals). That way the it would be challenging yet awesome.

That can be very boring. Quick time events in every battle, no.

AssassinHMS
03-16-2014, 02:42 PM
That can be very boring. Quick time events in every battle, no.

Agreed.

In my opinion, this is how combat should be handled:
The combat system itself should consist on a sequence of multiple strikes and parries where the goal is to catch the opponent by surprise with swift and deadly combos (quickstep-strike-punch-strike, for example). Every time the player kills an enemy, a brief animation should play that varies according to the bodypart hit.
If the player knows how to handlethe combat system, fighting one enemy alone should not prove much of a challenge (given the Assassin knows how to fight, despite not being a warrior). However, he cannot counter or block two or more attacks from different opponents at the same time. This means that, when facing two or three opponents, the player will have to narrow them down to one by stunning or incapacitating the rest from a distance with the use of ranged weapons (throwing knives, bombs, etc.). Fighting more than 3 enemies at once is highly discouraged and the best option is to run.

This way, combat is never discouraged as long as the player has a functional brain. Yes, you can't fight more than 3 or 4 enemies at once but you can divide them in smaller groups by using the tools at your disposal or the environment itself and take each group down quickly in order to prevent them from calling for backup.

Dome500
03-16-2014, 03:24 PM
I think the double counters, instead of just pressing the counter button (O, B, shift etc) to kill them both, it would be better to add button pressing sequences ( like the ones which occur while killing animals). That way the it would be challenging yet awesome.

NO.

Please no QTE's. That is even more annoying than any kind of simplification in the combat system.


Agreed.

In my opinion, this is how combat should be handled:
The combat system itself should consist on a sequence of multiple strikes and parries where the goal is to catch the opponent by surprise with swift and deadly combos (quickstep-strike-punch-strike, for example). Every time the player kills an enemy, a brief animation should play that varies according to the bodypart hit.
If the player knows how to handlethe combat system, fighting one enemy alone should not prove much of a challenge (given the Assassin knows how to fight, despite not being a warrior). However, he cannot counter or block two or more attacks from different opponents at the same time. This means that, when facing two or three opponents, the player will have to narrow them down to one by stunning or incapacitating the rest from a distance with the use of ranged weapons (throwing knives, bombs, etc.). Fighting more than 3 enemies at once is highly discouraged and the best option is to run.

This way, combat is never discouraged as long as the player has a functional brain. Yes, you can't fight more than 3 or 4 enemies at once but you can divide them in smaller groups by using the tools at your disposal or the environment itself and take each group down quickly in order to prevent them from calling for backup.

Which is in the end not the point of Assassins Creed.

Assassins Creed always encouraged both ways and I respect that and some people even love that fact.
Turning AC into a full Stealth Game will not work and it would loose a lot of followers.

Here is what I imagine:

- Combat System similar to AC3's combat system (with a few tweaks)
- Additional option for our Assassin: Dodge (+ Counter, Break Defense, Attack, Shove and Disarm, which are all already established in prev. games)
- Additional Enemy archetypes
- Enemies deal more damage than in previous games
- Health is as low as Connors Health
- Armor has a separate bar
- If Armor is broken it has to be repaired, otherwise it is not as effective
- Armor will block melee/sword attacks for a few hits, though it will not block bullets, so bullets will draw directly from health AND damage the armor slightly
- Different difficulties: Apprentice - Assassin - Master Assassin (Easy - Normal - Hard) Changes damage taken by enemies and your max. Health


EDIT: Btw. There are indeed one-click-kill enemies in AC3, replace them with enemies you have to attack twice and increase the percentage of not-normal enemy archetypes and you solved the problem. Too much cannon fodder is bad.

Stealth system of AC4 => Improved Version#

That way I think you can fight at least 10 enemies at the same time, maybe even more (something you could do since AC1 in ALL the games), but you will have to be on your toes since it will be challenging and if you are hit you are loosing armor fast, and if armor is broken you will loose health fast.


More challenging => but not impossible.
IMO that is the best way. Make it very challenging but NOT discouraging and still possible to fight a LOT of enemies at the same time, but you'll have to be good and have quick reaction to do it.

_________________________________________

Btw, just had some ideas for improvements:

1. I want the ability to start a little riot/revolt again. Almost all the times in history there were people which were unhappy with the political situation, give me the ability to start small street riots to distract the guards in the next game again. Nothing big, just something that raises the guards attention

2. Can we make the hidden-blade kill animations faster? I take Connor as and example: I jump of an elevated position and air assassinate an enemy below me. Only 1 additional enemy is nearby. The problem here is that Connor goes down and it takes him about 2 or 3 seconds where he just has his blade in the dead mans body and THEN he stands up. Enough time to alarm the other enemy who is nearby. Now what I'd like to see is Connor (or rather the future protagonist) to jump down on the enemy, stick his blade in his chest and then immediately roll (you know, a parkour roll in order to not loose momentum) on if you are pressing the "sprint" button. This way he can air assassinate, roll and then get the other guy who is nearby and just turned around.

3. Also, A.I.: Please find a balance between AC3 and AC4. In AC3 they were too sensitive, reacted to fast sometimes and they could see too far (especially rooftop guards). In AC4 however (IMO) they were too slow to detect you. I like it that they now have and investigation phase where they search for you if they saw you long enough. But please, make that time shorter. 3 difficulties could help to adjust such things to the needs of different audiences (that also counts for combat difficulty (enemy damage, Assassin health)).

4. PLEASE give us smoke-bomb aiming again, I really miss it. I don't only want to throw a smoke bomb to my feet or at an enemy, but in front of enemies and stuff. It has a tactical usage. That would be great to have gadget-aiming again, especially in terms of smoke bombs (short click = quick throw (to feet), holding = aiming curve appears, precise aiming and throwing)

Sushiglutton
03-16-2014, 04:04 PM
Very good post Dome :)! I just wanted to add that I think building on AC3s combat is much better than starting from scratch yet again. I think the foundations are ok. Building good combat seems to me to be a highly iterative process. Pretty much all franchises gradually improve their systems by adding new features and streamlining some things (doesn't mean dumbing down, an example could be quickfire gadgets). I think they have every chance to make the combat in AC3 highly enjoyable if they have the ambition and will to do so (after seven games I'm not so sure about that). A brand new combat system would just mean a very stripped down and shallow expereince as only the basic moves to make it function would likely be added.

AssassinHMS
03-16-2014, 04:38 PM
Which is in the end not the point of Assassins Creed.

Assassins Creed always encouraged both ways and I respect that and some people even love that fact.
Turning AC into a full Stealth Game will not work and it would loose a lot of followers.

Here is what I imagine:

- Combat System similar to AC3's combat system (with a few tweaks)
- Additional option for our Assassin: Dodge (+ Counter, Break Defense, Attack, shove)
- Additional Enemy archetypes
- Enemies deal more damage than in previous games
- Health is as low as Connors Health
- Armor has a separate bar
- If Armor is broken it has to be repaired, otherwise it is not as effective
- Armor will block melee/sword attacks for a few hits, though it will not block bullets, so bullets will draw directly from health AND damage the armor slightly
- Different difficulties: Apprentice - Assassin - Master Assassin (Easy - Normal - Hard) Changes damage taken by enemies and your max. Health

Stealth system of AC4 => Improved Version#

That way I think you can fight at least 10 enemies at the same time, maybe even more (something you could do since AC1 in ALL the games), but you will have to be on your toes since it will be challenging and if you are hit you are loosing armor fast, and if armor is broken you will loose health fast.

More challenging => but not impossible.
IMO that is the best way. Make it very challenging but NOT discouraging and still possible to fight a LOT of enemies at the same time, but you'll have to be good and have quick reaction to do it.

Oh, so the point of AC is to make the player feel like Hulk? Strange...I always thought Assassins's Creed was about putting the player in the shoes of an Assassin. Oh, you mean what Ubisoft made AC to be in order to please the market. Right, right...then sure, AC is just a historical game where you beat the crap out of people and pretend to be an Assassin by wearing some white pijamas.
Thanks Ubisoft! Now people think the Assassins are a bunch of super-heroes with super strengh and super reflexes.

Oh, so you respect that Ubisoft lets players aproach a mission any way they want (including killing everyone when they are bored)? Haha, yeah I respect Satan too. Let me put it this way, Ubisoft gives the option to turn a well crafted mission into a casual bloodbath for one and one reason alone, because it is mainstream. Instead of thinking, instead of planning a strategy, today gamers prefer to mash some buttons and kill their way to the finish line. Shuting off the brain should not be an option. Combat should require thought, it should require brain activity. If you decide to play super-man and randomly jump into the battle, you die. However, if you think beforehand and come up with a strategy like dividing and conquering then you can win. Games like AC should reward brain activity and creativity and punish stupidity and foolishness.

Fighting your way through an army is just STUPID and has no place in AC.

The core mechanics need to be balanced. If you overpower one of them, like combat, you destroy the balance and you damage all core mechanics. Why use stealth if you are fighting ants? Why escape from ants? Why have a deep stealth system that requires thought if you can defeat an entire army if you get bored? Either all the core mechanics are put in their place and require thought or they won't evolve properly because there is no reason for them to evolve.

Assassin's Creed is about putting the player in the shoes of an Assassin. You rely on stealth, on your brain and on your hidden blade. You do not rely on superpowers. You decide whether to fight or to stealth your way, but you must always plan beforehand like a real Assassin. If you shut off your brain then your run or die.

If people want to play as Hulk, if they want to be mass-murder psycopaths, if they want to shut their brains off, then they chose the wrong franchise. AC needs core balance and challenge, not more people demanding it to please everyone and asking for blood orgies.

Kirokill
03-16-2014, 05:32 PM
I dislike difficulties, if they are added they would be like enemies with eyes of a bat, infinite clip guns, swing 3 swings a second, take 20 hits to die, dodge hits like a maniac on hard difficulty.
In few words: Unrealistic undead enemies.
It's one of the main reasons I dislike games with difficulties, I don't wanna mention any game here though.

pirate1802
03-16-2014, 06:05 PM
Fighting your way through an army is just STUPID and has no place in AC.

Because such a thing never happened in the "pure" ACs, obviously.

Dome500
03-16-2014, 06:40 PM
Oh, so the point of AC is to make the player feel like Hulk? Strange...I always thought Assassins's Creed was about putting the player in the shoes of an Assassin. Oh, you mean what Ubisoft made AC to be in order to please the market. Right, right...then sure, AC is just a historical game where you beat the crap out of people and pretend to be an Assassin by wearing some white pijamas.
Thanks Ubisoft! Now people think the Assassins are a bunch of super-heroes with super strengh and super reflexes.

Okay I see this topic is pretty hot.

A few things:

1. From the get-go Ubisoft said Assassins Creed is not a pure Stealth game
2. Assassins Creed was never and was never said to be realistic
3. Assassins Creed would not be selling 10 - 12 millions and have annual releases if it was a pure Stealth game.
4. A little bit flexibility in terms of realism and plausibility is not bad in an open world game like AC
5. Making a pure Stealth game in an open world is really difficult and very hard to accomplish, especially if it includes having to build this on a special concept but in lots of different time periods
6. If you want to play pure Stealth play Splinter Cell
7. Some people are action fans, others Stealth fans. It's not bad for a game that is not said to be only one of the two to support both ways without punishing the player for either way. Example is Dishonored. Combat is challenging on the highest difficulty but you can easily kill dozens of enemies if you are skilled and use your abilities in the right way. Yes I know - Dishonored has fantasy elements. But AC has lots of conspiracy half-explainable elements as well. And a game is a game - it should not reflect reality except it is a simulation
8. In AC1 I once killed 60 enemies on a market place because the enemies all walked at the place I killed one guy and saw the bodies and saw me. I fought with them (they apparently re-spawned over and over) and countered all of them. It was plain boring, but I did not loose a lot of health while killing those ~ 60 guys.


My point is - I understand peoples point about wanting the combat to be challenging. I agree.
But the combat should not be punishingly frustrating in a way that allows you to fight 4 guys at the same time max. That's not fun. That's forcing a playstyle.

Does it have or should it have disadvantages going in all open combat? Yes, it takes a lot of time, patience, you have to apply different strategies, watch out to not make mistakes, have to fight different archetypes and you have to keep a look at you (hopefully in the next titles) very low health because the enemies are (again, hopefully in the future) making a lot of damage.

That is my take on it. Balancing between god-like fighting machine, actual vulnerability and inability to win a combat. Actual vulnerability, while still being able to fight a lot of enemies is the ideal state IMO.



Oh, so you respect that Ubisoft lets players aproach a mission any way they want (including killing everyone when they are bored)? Haha, yeah I respect Satan too. Let me put it this way, Ubisoft gives the option to turn a well crafted mission into a casual bloodbath for one and one reason alone, because it is mainstream. Instead of thinking, instead of planning a strategy, today gamers prefer to mash some buttons and kill their way to the finish line. Shuting off the brain should not be an option. Combat should require thought, it should require brain activity. If you decide to play super-man and randomly jump into the battle, you die. However, if you think beforehand and come up with a strategy like dividing and conquering then you can win. Games like AC should reward brain activity and creativity and punish stupidity and foolishness.

And how would divide an conquer work? Seriously, you might be able to pick them one by one or in small groups, but in the end this is Stealth and not Combat. Dividing them with smoke bombs and the like takes you out of combat and get you into the "clever ambush" zone where you "semi-stealth" your way through Panther style (if you are playing SC then you know what I mean),

Having challenging combat? Yes
Having combat where you can NOT in ANY way fight with more than 4 enemies without dying? No
If you would establish something like that Ubisoft would have to make groups of enemies not more than 4 - 6, would have to change the rules of enemies detecting you and the whole detection system completely.

In the end you'd end up with some kind of Splinter Cell / Dishonored / Thief hybrid in 3rd person, which around 4 million player would play. The other ones would just go ahead and play GTA, Watch Dogs and the like.

Open World games are not made for punishing action routes.
And Assassins Creed is per definition and open world game.

I also think Stealth should be increases, A.I. should be smarter and Combat should be made more challenging (AC3 combat + more damage from enemies, less health for you and more archetypes to apply different strategies to) and that we should have more gadgets (mainly for Stealth and semi-stealth, like distracting, stunning, K.O.ing and silently killing, etc).

But it doesn't work that way. If you are SUCH a Stealth purist I'd recommend to your playing another game.


Why use stealth if you are fighting ants? Why escape from ants? Why have a deep stealth system that requires thought if you can defeat an entire army if you get bored? Either all the core mechanics are put in their place and require thought or they won't evolve properly because there is no reason for them to evolve.

Well that's simple, because I want to, feel more badass that way, because combat is sometimes boring and it takes so long and because you can actually die in combat (in AC3 at least, like I said, they should build on AC3's combat system and make you a little bit more vulnerable even) and because it is easier to escape, and because of immersion. There is a saying "the player makes the game". Meaning if the mechanics are there, the player is actually is responsible for the way he experiences a game. Meaning if we have a system that balances vulnerability and combat ability in a way to make combat NOT punishing, but also not the better alternative, the player himself is responsible for how the game plays out. If I - as a player - want to imagine that I am better off with Stealth, then it is that way, even if both options are EXACTLY on the same level and both have their advantages/disadvantages.

In a pure Stealth game that plays in modern times I can understand why Stealth HAS to be the better option regarding all the weapons that can kill you within seconds these days, but in a game like AC? Nah, there is room for flexibility.



Assassin's Creed is about putting the player in the shoes of an Assassin.

Yeah, but not SOME assassin.
I mean this game is playing in a fictional universe after all....


If people want to play as Hulk, if they want to be mass-murder psycopaths, if they want to shut their brains off, then they chose the wrong franchise.

No they didn't. I think YOU chose the wrong franchise my friend.

Oh, and btw: Yet another reason to play Stealthy: if you want to play non-lethal and spare the guards because you don't want to play like a murdering psychopath.


I dislike difficulties, if they are added they would be like enemies with eyes of a bat, infinite clip guns, swing 3 swings a second, take 20 hits to die, dodge hits like a maniac on hard difficulty.
In few words: Unrealistic undead enemies.
It's one of the main reasons I dislike games with difficulties, I don't wanna mention any game here though.

Why do you play Assassins Creed again? :D
In AC the enemies are bain-dead most of the time.

With difficulty I mean the following modifiers:

- Damage made by enemies
- Health of your character/assassin
- Range of Sight/Detection
- Time it takes to detect an enemy

Assassins Creed 1 - 4 enemies would be the equivalent of the "easy" difficulty then.
Then there is normal and hard which increases the above mentioned elements.

D4rkAssass1n123
03-16-2014, 07:02 PM
ok why is everyone saying the combat system from ac3 is better than the combatsystem from ac4? for me it was the same only that in ac4 there were less double counters (which is good) so why does everybody want the combatsystem from ac3 back?

Dome500
03-16-2014, 07:22 PM
ok why is everyone saying the combat system from ac3 is better than the combatsystem from ac4? for me it was the same only that in ac4 there were less double counters (which is good) so why does everybody want the combatsystem from ac3 back?


1. Less double counters => me don't like. A. It means enemies are attacking less at the same time. They shouldn't all wait for each other seriously. B. I love double counters (hate kill-streaks btw.) because they are just BA.

2. AC4 is a little bit more clunky in terms of combat and you have less different enemy archetypes

3. Edward has more health, like AC1 - ACR had, Connor has very little health (which I personally like because it makes it more challenging)

4. In AC3 enemies are still blocking attacks with their swords/weapons (even if not all the time) That's better for immersions sake than in AC4 where you just slash 20 times at the body until he dies. But that's a matter of personal taste guess.

4. Connors moves are cooler than Edwards, but that's again a matter of personal taste.

Some minor differences but I think they are important.

frodrigues55
03-16-2014, 07:30 PM
ok why is everyone saying the combat system from ac3 is better than the combatsystem from ac4? for me it was the same only that in ac4 there were less double counters (which is good) so why does everybody want the combatsystem from ac3 back?

Because at least it looked cool, not choppy and jerky. It was fluid for the most part.


I think the double counters, instead of just pressing the counter button (O, B, shift etc) to kill them both, it would be better to add button pressing sequences ( like the ones which occur while killing animals). That way the it would be challenging yet awesome.

That's a scary thought, to be honest :p I avoided AC3's animals like a plague for this same reason, but you can't avoid fights lol.

Kirokill
03-16-2014, 07:41 PM
That's a scary thought, to be honest :p I avoided AC3's animals like a plague for this same reason, but you can't avoid fights lol.

Seems like I am the only one who liked AC3 hunting system more than any other hunting system, including AC4 and FarCry, but I haven't played many games so I can't be good at voicing my preference.

frodrigues55
03-16-2014, 07:48 PM
Seems like I am the only one who liked AC3 hunting system more than any other hunting system, including AC4 and FarCry, but I haven't played many games so I can't be good at voicing my preference.

I was fine with the hunting. It was actually very well thought out and it basically covered a lot of areas. The problem was the intrusive QTE's with the predators. It was getting trully annoying to be running around the frontier only to have your activity interrupted by those stupid oaks.

Megas_Doux
03-16-2014, 09:00 PM
Here we go with the things I like to see:

1 The "finish him" off move from AC I, I really love how Altair put those poor guards out of their misery..
2 Huge platforming levels like those of AC II and ACB, a BIIIIIG wasted chance in AC IV, if you ask me.
3 Grey morals, more Haythams less Borgias!
4 The rich and uber diverse "sandbox" like content of AC IV.
5 Background music during freeroam.
6 Glyphs/Rifts wise puzzles.
7 Templar Dens/Forts or some related to the setting hideouts.
8 Assassin Bureaus.
9 Plot twists.
10 Animus Hacks/cheats, and even more varied than before.

The ones I wish never return, or at least not in a near future:

1 If hunting is present, NO MORE QTE, please.
2 Having a majority of linear/scripted assassinations.
3 An AC heavliy based on naval, couple of missions would be nice, though*
4 Mandatory armor.
5 Our protagonist being present on historical events just because......I am looking at you, Revere´s Ride, Declaration of Indepecence and so on seen in AC III.
6 Filler collectibles/ side missions.



*AC IV is my favorite gameplay wise, but naval being all over the place again would not be pleasant.

TheHumanTowel
03-16-2014, 10:17 PM
Ask a master assassin if taking on 5 men at once is unrealistic... Realism is a mental constraint... it is not a universal constant...
lol do you know much master assassins do you?

itsamea-mario
03-16-2014, 10:20 PM
Jesus Christ STD shut up.

Wolfmeister1010
03-16-2014, 10:46 PM
Guys STD is allowed his opinions without ridicule. We all might not share it but..but you know.be nice?IDK

itsamea-mario
03-16-2014, 11:02 PM
No he isn't.

RinoTheBouncer
03-16-2014, 11:12 PM
I don’t want the combat to be frustratingly challenging like ACIII. I honestly, avoided a lot of enemies and felt like the game forced me to do it stealthily because it was insanely difficult unless I got a club with me. I’m more interested in a game that lets me spend 25 hours going through the story because it’s a long game, rather than spend 20 hours because I get desynchronized 40 times each mission and when I get more “skilled” I finish it in 10 hours.

My point is. The game should be long because it is a long, detailed and entertaining game not because you’ll end up dragging for so long because of it being too hard or too boring.

oliacr
03-16-2014, 11:21 PM
I don’t want the combat to be frustratingly challenging like ACIII. I honestly, avoided a lot of enemies and felt like the game forced me to do it stealthily because it was insanely difficult unless I got a club with me. I’m more interested in a game that lets me spend 25 hours going through the story because it’s a long game, rather than spend 20 hours because I get desynchronized 40 times each mission and when I get more “skilled” I finish it in 10 hours.

My point is. The game should be long because it is a long, detailed and entertaining game not because you’ll end up dragging for so long because of it being too hard or too boring.

I think AC3 had the easiest combat or brotherhood, I don't know.

thebudworth2013
03-16-2014, 11:36 PM
SHOULD

Customization - Like in AC 2 where you could have a dagger AND a sword.
Fluency when climbing - I noticed in AC IV that the free running wasn't as fluent as it was in the others
Seasons

SHOULDN'T

NPCs intervening when i'm in a fight - VERY annoying
Tailing missions - Obviously not altogether but reduce the amount
Management
Missions where you HAVE to be stealthy - Give us more choice

Dome500
03-16-2014, 11:43 PM
Here we go with the things I like to see:

1 The "finish him" off move from AC I, I really love how Altair put those poor guards out of their misery..
2 Huge platforming levels like those of AC II and ACB, a BIIIIIG wasted chance in AC IV, if you ask me.
3 Grey morals, more Haythams less Borgias!
4 The rich and uber diverse "sandbox" like content of AC IV.
5 Background music during freeroam.
6 Glyphs/Rifts wise puzzles.
7 Templar Dens/Forts or some related to the setting hideouts.
8 Assassin Bureaus.
9 Plot twists.


The ones I wish never return, or at least not in a near future:

1 If hunting is present, NO MORE QTE, please.

3 An AC heavliy based on naval, couple of missions would be nice, though*
4 Mandatory armor.


This 100%


5 Our protagonist being present on historical events just because......I am looking at you, Revere´s Ride, Declaration of Indepecence and so on seen in AC III.


Oh yes.

I don't mind the protagonist being present at historical events like wars, battles, public events, parts of revolutions, but not like the ones mentioned above.

1. Things like Paul reveres ride were totally ridiculous and unnecessary (Connor could have just ridden ALONGSIDE Paul while they are talking about the upcoming events/what happens now)
2. Things like being present at the Declaration of Independence need a good, plausible REASON, not just "because he knows some of the guys"
3. No future Assassin should be THE reason why a fraction won a war or a conflict (as an ORGANIZATION of Assassins that might be half-way explainable, even if far fetched, but as one single guy? Nope. And the part the ACTUAL people played in that time should not be shoved away as much as it partially was in AC3.


2 Having a majority of linear/scripted assassinations.

Not sure what you mean with that.

If you mean you want open and choose-your-own approach assassinations for the future with a lot more freedom how to kill your target then YES PLEASE.


6 Filler collectibles/ side missions.

Clarification please, of what do you think when talking about "Filler Side Missions"? (the collectibles part is clear and agreed on that, although I do not mind them there should be less next time around, they were really too much in AC4 IMO)

If you mean the assassinate missions and Templar Hunts and Naval Missions and the like, I actually like them very much and hope they continue and other similar missions are added that fit the next location/time.

Dome500
03-16-2014, 11:52 PM
I don’t want the combat to be frustratingly challenging like ACIII. I honestly, avoided a lot of enemies and felt like the game forced me to do it stealthily because it was insanely difficult unless I got a club with me. I’m more interested in a game that lets me spend 25 hours going through the story because it’s a long game, rather than spend 20 hours because I get desynchronized 40 times each mission and when I get more “skilled” I finish it in 10 hours.

My point is. The game should be long because it is a long, detailed and entertaining game not because you’ll end up dragging for so long because of it being too hard or too boring.



That is why I think there HAS to be a difficulty setting in the future.
Some people think combat is too hard. Others think it's way too easy.
I personally think AC3 was a really good balance of both. You still could kill 20 guys in a fight but you would loose some health.

@Rino => I really don't want to offend you, but compared to other games I played even AC3 has very easy combat and if one has a little practice you are actually able to defend yourself against every enemy while it is still challenging.

The ultimate goal (IMO) in the combat system is to send the following message:

1. Do you want it to take long, be challenging and require quick reactions (in an easy system aside from that)? Then choose combat
2. Do you want it to be short, quiet and with planning ahead? Choose Stealth
3. Do you want neither of those? Then take a bunch of smoke bombs and bullets with you.

You can't expect a game to be ridiculously easy UNLESS it has difficulties.

If the game would have basic difficulties (Easy, Normal, Hard) it could make a lot of different audiences happy.

You want to play AC for the story and/or the feeling of being a OP badass mass-murderer? Go easy difficulty.
You want to have it real challenging (not frustratingly hard) and dangerous, and do you want to use a lot of Stealth? Go hard difficulty.
You want a mix of both? Normal Difficulty.

Easiest - THING - in - the -world. Some basic modifiers are needed, nothing else. And WHY THE HELL does Ubisoft not do that? I ask myself this since years.


I get desynchronized 40 times

Okay sorry, but how do you fight? oO I got desynchronized about 3 times in the whole game, and that only because I had to figure out how to get those Jägers down.

Oh btw. - this type of enemy does not need to be in the game IMO - it's challenging enough if you replace them with other archetypes and add some additional archetypes to it.


Missions where you HAVE to be stealthy - Give us more choice

Yes, but please in both ways. I want the game to be more accessible for all routes, Stealth, Social Stealth, Combat and Semi-Stealth. But basically the 2 options Stealth and Combat should be supported in at least 90% of the main missions, side missions and side activities.

frodrigues55
03-17-2014, 01:54 AM
Clarification please, of what do you think when talking about "Filler Side Missions"? (the collectibles part is clear and agreed on that, although I do not mind them there should be less next time around, they were really too much in AC4 IMO)

If you mean the assassinate missions and Templar Hunts and Naval Missions and the like, I actually like them very much and hope they continue and other similar missions are added that fit the next location/time.

Templar Hunt was such a really nice surprise. It's basically the perfect side mission for AC, it did everything right and they never talked about it pre-release, which made it even a greater treat.

Side activities like that and even more light hearted ones are great for further character and story development, like Christina's Memory or everything Homestead releated (apart from that stupid pigs mission). It opens the game up for more storytelling without proper connection to the plot, which contributes for a great experience on that world.

Still, AC4 was a big big missed oportunity when it comes to tombs exploration, I can't believe they let it pass but still flooded the game with those animus fragments aka the most boring AC side mission ever.

Megas_Doux
03-17-2014, 02:10 AM
Not sure what you mean with that.

If you mean you want open and choose-your-own approach assassinations for the future with a lot more freedom how to kill your target then YES PLEASE.

.

I meant the ones in AC III, only Pitcairn and Johnson give you certain freedom, the rest of the targets were more or less linear. I am glad that problem was addressed in AC IV.





Clarification please, of what do you think when talking about "Filler Side Missions"? (the collectibles part is clear and agreed on that, although I do not mind them there should be less next time around, they were really too much in AC4 IMO)

If you mean the assassinate missions and Templar Hunts and Naval Missions and the like, I actually like them very much and hope they continue and other similar missions are added that fit the next location/time.

No problem!

In AC III the "assassination contracts" you are given have NO context, you just go and kill them, whereas the templar hunts do, I like that. In terms of collectibles, compare the almanac pages vs the shanties, both are the same in terms obtain them, the thing is that the almanac pages just serve as "collectibles" just for the sake of it, the shanties instead, increase at least for me, the already rich atmosphere of the game.

frodrigues55
03-17-2014, 02:27 AM
In AC III the "assassination contracts" you are given have NO context, you just go and kill them, whereas the templar hunts do, I like that.

I wonder if AC3's contracts were made that way because of time constraints or because the developers didn't think people would care. I mean, assassinations contracts are really just that. The difference is that the other games presented you a little tiny paragraph with some generic text that didn't change much from one to another. Perharps they didn't imagine the huge fan reaction this would cause lol.

That's not to say I don't like the pingeons and a little backstory, but there was never depth on Assassinations contracts anyway.

Templar Hunts, on the other hand....

I-Like-Pie45
03-17-2014, 02:59 AM
I think they should get rid of missions where you desync if you're spotted. save players the frustration of having to constantly restart upon being spotted by bad ai, and instead let them improvise regarding what happens upon detection like better games with stealth mechanics let you do

Dome500
03-17-2014, 04:23 AM
In AC III the "assassination contracts" you are given have NO context, you just go and kill them, whereas the templar hunts do, I like that. In terms of collectibles, compare the almanac pages vs the shanties, both are the same in terms obtain them, the thing is that the almanac pages just serve as "collectibles" just for the sake of it, the shanties instead, increase at least for me, the already rich atmosphere of the game.

Absolutely agreed.

Also - every Assassination Contract Mission in AC4 has a little text explaining why the Templar has to die - it sounds like a minor thing but it makes ALL the difference. AC3 did handle that pretty bad (no story context - just "kill X").

Fatal-Feit
03-17-2014, 05:03 AM
Still, AC4 was a big big missed oportunity when it comes to tombs exploration, I can't believe they let it pass but still flooded the game with those animus fragments aka the most boring AC side mission ever.

activity*

To be fair, it wasn't any worse than the past installments. At least AC:IV offered some exploration through a variety of cities and islands. I almost fell asleep running from point B back to point A for the 100th time just gathering Flags and other tedious collectible in Rome.

frodrigues55
03-17-2014, 12:50 PM
activity*

To be fair, it wasn't any worse than the past installments. At least AC:IV offered some exploration through a variety of cities and islands. I almost fell asleep running from point B back to point A for the 100th time just gathering Flags and other tedious collectible in Rome.

LOL yeah, flags and feathers were pretty annoying too, but having to get out of the ship, swin and them come back really took the boring to another level lol. I got to the point where I would crash my ship on the rocks just so I could be the nearest I could to those stupid islands, but the games pulls the ship back when that happens :rolleyes:

Dome500
03-17-2014, 02:58 PM
AC2 did at least give you a reward for collecting most of the collectibles.

But even with that I do so not like collectibles like that.

I mean treasures? Sure, they give you money and blueprints, they were useful.
The chase after Captain Kidd (AC3) ? It was okay, at least it gave you some die quests and a reason to collect those things.
Shanties? They gave you new songs, so YES PLEASE. (in contrast to the almanacs in AC3 which gave you as good as nothing).
Mayan stones? Sure, they gave you the Armor.

But I think AC4 did a LITTLE bit exaggerate with collectibles.

On a side note: I hope they stop this "armor deflects bullets" bull**** they did in AC3 and AC4.
It's cool to deflect bullets really, but if I want to do that then establish a "cheat" to do that, not an armor. I want to wear the cool armor without being invincible to bullets. That#s just a minor thing really, but it kind of bothered me that we would get 2 artifacts which basically both deflected bullets 2 games in a row.

Sushiglutton
03-17-2014, 03:40 PM
I think the rewards you get from collectibles is secondary. The most important thing by far is that the activity to collect them is fun in itself. I couldn't care less about outfits or colored sails. I play games because I think it's a fun thing to do, not to get virtual rewards. In this regard AC4 failed as almost all its collectibles (exception being templar keys) were an absolute chore to collect. I think they should drastically reduce the number of them and instead focus on quality.

Philliesfan377
03-17-2014, 03:45 PM
On a side note: I hope they stop this "armor deflects bullets" bull**** they did in AC3 and AC4.
It's cool to deflect bullets really, but if I want to do that then establish a "cheat" to do that, not an armor. I want to wear the cool armor without being invincible to bullets. That#s just a minor thing really, but it kind of bothered me that we would get 2 artifacts which basically both deflected bullets 2 games in a row.

Well at least in AC4, you had the option to wear the Mayan outfit, whereas in AC3 you couldn't take the Shard of Eden off.

Dome500
03-17-2014, 03:54 PM
Well at least in AC4, you had the option to wear the Mayan outfit, whereas in AC3 you couldn't take the Shard of Eden off.

Really? I thought that would only come with the Captain Kidd outfit.... (I unlocked it after I finished the story).

Philliesfan377
03-17-2014, 03:57 PM
Really? I thought that would only come with the Captain Kidd outfit.... (I unlocked it after I finished the story).

Nope, Connor wore it regardless of what outfit you chose.

frodrigues55
03-17-2014, 05:01 PM
I think the rewards you get from collectibles is secondary. The most important thing by far is that the activity to collect them is fun in itself. I couldn't care less about outfits or colored sails. I play games because I think it's a fun thing to do, not to get virtual rewards. In this regard AC4 failed as almost all its collectibles (exception being templar keys) were an absolute chore to collect. I think they should drastically reduce the number of them and instead focus on quality.

Yeah, they were so proud with the number of islands, but they were just a bore. I'm still so fed up with those stupid animus fragments that I can't even talk about anything else lol.

Parts of the collectibles were fun to me, especially the ones inside forests. And ambientation of islands and fisherman villages were really engaging, it's just that not everything worked that well and the gameplay started to get mechanic because of the random stuff thrown on your way to collect.

AC4 had a trully beatiful world, they didn't need that bunch of tiny activities on the way. Much of it was fun, but it also had a lot of underused potential and missed oportunities.

I feel like a ***** complaining, because the game still had a lot to offer and great variety. But if the smallest activities like animus fragments/empty islands were scaled back, the ride would be more enjoyable I think. I sure as hell do not want another naval game just so they could improve this, but if they cut some of those activities and added real tomb/temple exploration, it would be awesome.

I'm still amazed by that naval location on AC3 where you enter that abandoned mansion. I thought we would get that sort of activity on AC4, but expanded. I'm a bit bummed it didn't happen. :(

Dome500
03-17-2014, 06:40 PM
I'm still amazed by that naval location on AC3 where you enter that abandoned mansion. I thought we would get that sort of activity on AC4, but expanded. I'm a bit bummed it didn't happen.

Agreed, didn't imagine that there were so many islands which were just a small variation of the other ones.
Less islands and more variety would ha
I'm still amazed by that naval location on AC3 where you enter that abandoned mansion. I thought we would get that sort of activity on AC4, but expanded. I'm a bit bummed it didn't happen.e sufficed, though one has to say that the big islands were very interesting and different from each other. But the small one weren't.


but if they cut some of those activities and added real tomb/temple exploration, it would be awesome.

This.

frodrigues55
03-17-2014, 10:51 PM
Agreed, didn't imagine that there were so many islands which were just a small variation of the other ones.
Less islands and more variety would have sufficed, though one has to say that the big islands were very interesting and different from each other. But the small one weren't.


Oh yeah, I think AC4's side activities did more rights than wrong. Big islands/fishermen villages were certainly a plus in my book.

Come to think about it, there's only two aspects of side acitivities that I really loathed:

- The stupid animus fragments (yes I'm traumatized). Actually, anything on those small islands with only one or two collectables.

- The stupid sharks, which prevented me from enjoying underwater. They made what could be one of my favorite parts suck, because I couldn't properly enjoy and explore. Those bloody sharks were not challanging, they were an annoyance and whoever thought about them is a mess. Plus, it makes no sense Edward couldn't even take a knife with him just so I could put an end on those annoying carnivore things.

Dome500
03-17-2014, 11:08 PM
- The stupid sharks, which prevented me from enjoying underwater. They made what could be one of my favorite parts suck, because I couldn't properly enjoy and explore. Those bloody sharks were not challanging, they were an annoyance and whoever thought about them is a mess. Plus, it makes no sense Edward couldn't even take a knife with him just so I could put an end on those annoying carnivore things.

It also didn't make sense the sharks would just bite you one time and then swim away..... (often happened to me)

Megas_Doux
03-18-2014, 12:43 AM
I think the rewards you get from collectibles is secondary. The most important thing by far is that the activity to collect them is fun in itself. I couldn't care less about outfits or colored sails. I play games because I think it's a fun thing to do, not to get virtual rewards. In this regard AC4 failed as almost all its collectibles (exception being templar keys) were an absolute chore to collect. I think they should drastically reduce the number of them and instead focus on quality.

I have to agree!!!!

I mean, instead of the many little mayan stones, why not 4 platforming levels set on mayan ruins or mines????? It is sad, because AC IV´s setting had a lot of potential in terms of locations like that.

Fatal-Feit
03-18-2014, 01:22 AM
I have to agree!!!!

I mean, instead of the many little mayan stones, why not 4 platforming levels set on mayan ruins or mines????? It is sad, because AC IV´s setting had a lot of potential in terms of locations like that.

I was expecting AC:IV to have tonnes of platforming, lol. Still contemplating on whether it's a bad thing or a good thing that it hadn't, TBH.

mou119
03-18-2014, 08:53 PM
Things that SHOULD return:

VR training (ACB).
Beaked hoods.
Lock target / Enter combat mode manually.
Modern and elegant HUD and menus (AC1 and ACB had the best imo), preferably in black, white, grey and red only.
Spears.
Ability to throw weapons.
Jesper Kyd.
Animals used as markers (Rats leading you out of tunnels, pidgeons marking places where you can leap off, eagles marking synch spots, seabirds marking harpooning locations, etc. More of this instead of HUD icons and such would be great).
AC1 Animus design.
AC1 / AC2 style Abstergo industries building.
Modern day story in first person (ACIV).
Rotate camera during cutscenes (AC1).
Controls properly adapted to mouse and keyboard (AC1, Ezio trilogy).
Crossbows.

Things that SHOULD NOT return:

Abstergo Entertainment.
Assassin becoming desaturated when hidden (Ezio trilogy, ACIV).
Underwater missions (ACIV).
Natural environments (ACIII, ACIV).
Quick time events.
Things you can interact with glow yellow.
Far Cry 3 wallhack when using eagle vision.
Saturated colours.
Oculus rift style animus.
Distracting HUD with too many unnecessary floating elements.
Cutscenes in modern day segments (If in first person).
Emphasis on firearms.

Rugterwyper32
03-18-2014, 09:23 PM
Things that SHOULD NOT return:
Natural environments (ACIII, ACIV).


While for the most part I don't have many disagreements with this (a lot of them being "I don't really care if they do so or not"), this one I highly disagree with. Natural environments bring a very interesting element to the series, and when it comes to history it allows for seamless additions of smaller locations into the series that could be important to the history explored, plus adding a different type of lifestyle of the era/location. And it's just damn fun to run around from tree to tree and then to smaller villages or whatnot. I'm still imagining a 30 Years War game that combines the amazing cities of Central Europe with the nature of the area having impressive medieval style castles in it and villages that have avoided the war or have been ravaged by it.

Man that would be wonderful.

Wolfmeister1010
03-18-2014, 09:51 PM
I find it hilarious how many people say that ACV should be "in Victorian London!!" Or in "french Revolution!!", and then these same people go on to complain about emphasis on guns.

How do you expect that to work out? Lol.

Wolfmeister1010
03-18-2014, 09:53 PM
While for the most part I don't have many disagreements with this (a lot of them being "I don't really care if they do so or not"), this one I highly disagree with. Natural environments bring a very interesting element to the series, and when it comes to history it allows for seamless additions of smaller locations into the series that could be important to the history explored, plus adding a different type of lifestyle of the era/location. And it's just damn fun to run around from tree to tree and then to smaller villages or whatnot. I'm still imagining a 30 Years War game that combines the amazing cities of Central Europe with the nature of the area having impressive medieval style castles in it and villages that have avoided the war or have been ravaged by it.

Man that would be wonderful.

I understand completely why they had to get rid of rock climbing and stuff in AC4: to prevent players from attempting to climb and access inaccesable areas on the islands. But, i would love to see it return as a feature in the next installment. Although if the rumors are true and we are looking at London/France, then I bet that most of the parkour will be set in those big cities.

Rugterwyper32
03-18-2014, 10:08 PM
I understand completely why they had to get rid of rock climbing and stuff in AC4: to prevent players from attempting to climb and access inaccesable areas on the islands. But, i would love to see it return as a feature in the next installment. Although if the rumors are true and we are looking at London/France, then I bet that most of the parkour will be set in those big cities.

Was it to be the French Revolution, though, there's no doubt we'd end up having to go to Versailles. And was that the case, there's one big thing that shouldn't be forgotten, which would give us our good ol' treerunning

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VZ__uEPN4j4/UQ-QH85jZWI/AAAAAAAAPKE/6QzECUfF_og/s1600/Versailles+3.jpg

So if anything, chances are we'd get that. And it's still a good idea to keep treerunning for certain areas in the cities and whatnot, more explorable routes. We'll see what happens though. But I do hope they keep some nice element using more natural environments and making their worlds more seamless when it comes to exploration. Going out from the wonders of the big cities out into the vastness of nature.

Wolfmeister1010
03-18-2014, 10:21 PM
Was it to be the French Revolution, though, there's no doubt we'd end up having to go to Versailles. And was that the case, there's one big thing that shouldn't be forgotten, which would give us our good ol' treerunning

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VZ__uEPN4j4/UQ-QH85jZWI/AAAAAAAAPKE/6QzECUfF_og/s1600/Versailles+3.jpg

So if anything, chances are we'd get that. And it's still a good idea to keep treerunning for certain areas in the cities and whatnot, more explorable routes. We'll see what happens though. But I do hope they keep some nice element using more natural environments and making their worlds more seamless when it comes to exploration. Going out from the wonders of the big cities out into the vastness of nature.

Well, the problem is that if the rumors are true, then Paris and London are the only cities. And, on a different note, if we are not going to Versailles, which was a major location in the french Revolution, then it is likely that the French Revolution will not be as big a part of the game as the American Revolution was in AC3, and the protagonist will not be shoehorned into evey event like Connor was. The protag will not even spend all of his time in France to begin with!

Just theories of course, going off the idea that with no Versailles, you cannot have a "true" FRENCH REVOLUTION game, but instead, a game with the French Revolution happening in the background.

mou119
03-18-2014, 10:38 PM
While for the most part I don't have many disagreements with this (a lot of them being "I don't really care if they do so or not"), this one I highly disagree with. Natural environments bring a very interesting element to the series, and when it comes to history it allows for seamless additions of smaller locations into the series that could be important to the history explored, plus adding a different type of lifestyle of the era/location. And it's just damn fun to run around from tree to tree and then to smaller villages or whatnot. I'm still imagining a 30 Years War game that combines the amazing cities of Central Europe with the nature of the area having impressive medieval style castles in it and villages that have avoided the war or have been ravaged by it.

Man that would be wonderful.

I thought the treerunning in ACIII and ACIV looked kind of clunky, it just felt like the mechanics weren't created for organic structures. I don't like that the trees are fitted into a grid to form a path. If they improve the treerunning so that it works in dense forests where trees have natural shapes and are placed randomly but close to each other, I will have no problem. Otherwise I prefer that they focus on cities. Just my opinion...

Another thing I don't like about the natural environments is that they have those confusing and unclear boundries made of vegetation. Next time they should definetely make the boundries cliff walls.


I find it hilarious how many people say that ACV should be "in Victorian London!!" Or in "french Revolution!!", and then these same people go on to complain about emphasis on guns.

How do you expect that to work out? Lol.

I hope you weren't talking about me because Victorian London and the french revolution are both settings I don't want at all. I want to go back to crossbows.

Wolfmeister1010
03-18-2014, 10:47 PM
I thought the treerunning in ACIII and ACIV looked kind of clunky, it just felt like the mechanics weren't created for organic structures. I don't like that the trees are fitted into a grid to form a path. If they improve the treerunning so that it works in dense forests where trees have natural shapes and are placed randomly but close to each other, I will have no problem. Otherwise I prefer that they focus on cities. Just my opinion...

Another thing I don't like about the natural environments is that they have those confusing and unclear boundries made of vegetation. Next time they should definetely make the boundries cliff walls.



I hope you weren't talking about me because Victorian London and the french revolution are both settings I don't want at all. I want to go back to crossbows.

No I wasnt referring to you. What you said just reminded me lol.

Also, programming navigation into natural, non uniform objects is hard enough, don't expect them to be able to make it completely realistic. But, it would be nice if they improved the geometry a bit and made it a bit more fluid, more trees, more branches, more leaves, ect. AC3's trees looked like clay. ACIV's trees on next gen looked very pleasant to me. Maybe on FULL exclusive next gen, we might get some really neat looking trees.

DumbGamerTag94
03-19-2014, 12:05 AM
Well, the problem is that if the rumors are true, then Paris and London are the only cities. And, on a different note, if we are not going to Versailles, which was a major location in the french Revolution, then it is likely that the French Revolution will not be as big a part of the game as the American Revolution was in AC3, and the protagonist will not be shoehorned into evey event like Connor was. The protag will not even spend all of his time in France to begin with!

Just theories of course, going off the idea that with no Versailles, you cannot have a "true" FRENCH REVOLUTION game, but instead, a game with the French Revolution happening in the background.

History is never "in the background" in AC. Granted that it was taken a bit far in AC3 however a French Revolution AC would have to take part in major events otherwise it would suck. When u say French Revolution people want to Storm the Bastille or Versailles, you want blood and rebellion on the streets of Paris, be headings etc. not all taking part but at least witnessing. Putting these things in the background would just mean having conversations and missions with nothing but a bunch of grumpy unknown pissed off French men. You might as well ditch the time period then and set the damn thing in candy land if there's no direct historical events. That being said they need to make sense to be there maybe the protagonist has friends in the anti royal factions etc n ends up in some of these places through them. Maybe bring back some features from AC3 as random events like the firing squads in New York and prison convoys(TOKW). That would help the immersion in a French Revolution. I think this kind of thing is probably what u meant but I'm just sick of people saying the history should be "in the background". When that has never been done in AC and shouldn't be. Just that it should flow with the story better and be probable. No actual major events an the game would be rather boring and Uneventful and you would have to avoid any major figures rendering any time period or setting virtually irrelevant. But the French Rev could be an awesome setting In my opinion.

Wolfmeister1010
03-19-2014, 01:21 AM
History is never "in the background" in AC. Granted that it was taken a bit far in AC3 however a French Revolution AC would have to take part in major events otherwise it would suck. When u say French Revolution people want to Storm the Bastille or Versailles, you want blood and rebellion on the streets of Paris, be headings etc. not all taking part but at least witnessing. Putting these things in the background would just mean having conversations and missions with nothing but a bunch of grumpy unknown pissed off French men. You might as well ditch the time period then and set the damn thing in candy land if there's no direct historical events. That being said they need to make sense to be there maybe the protagonist has friends in the anti royal factions etc n ends up in some of these places through them. Maybe bring back some features from AC3 as random events like the firing squads in New York and prison convoys(TOKW). That would help the immersion in a French Revolution. I think this kind of thing is probably what u meant but I'm just sick of people saying the history should be "in the background". When that has never been done in AC and shouldn't be. Just that it should flow with the story better and be probable. No actual major events an the game would be rather boring and Uneventful and you would have to avoid any major figures rendering any time period or setting virtually irrelevant. But the French Rev could be an awesome setting In my opinion.

By "in the background" I mean that the stories are about fictional characters interacting with real characters to create a plot with a certain time or era in the background, just like the crusades, and just like the renaissance.

AC3 made the mistake of literally including EVERY SINGLE EVENT of the Revolutionary war, every important one anyway, as part of Connor's story. Whereas in ACR, Ezio was fighting Sultans and Templars in both fictional and nonfictional events, during the time of the ottoman empire in Istanbul. That era was in the "background" of the game. Many of the characters and events that occurred in ACR were not documented in history, whereas in AC3, almost every single mission/event actually happened, and many people are unhappy that the game shoehorned Connor into them. Do you get it?

As for the French Revolution, of course the game could occur in Paris during the time of the French Revolution and not have the protagonist be involved in many of the events. There could easily be a self sustained story that SOMETIMES intertwines with real history and events.

dxsxhxcx
03-19-2014, 01:41 AM
By "in the background" I mean that the stories are about fictional characters interacting with real characters to create a plot with a certain time or era in the background, just like the crusades, and just like the renaissance.

AC3 made the mistake of literally including EVERY SINGLE EVENT of the Revolutionary war, every important one anyway, as part of Connor's story. Whereas in ACR, Ezio was fighting Sultans and Templars in both fictional and nonfictional events, during the time of the ottoman empire in Istanbul. That era was in the "background" of the game. Many of the characters and events that occurred in ACR were not documented in history, whereas in AC3, almost every single mission/event actually happened, and many people are unhappy that the game shoehorned Connor into them. Do you get it?

As for the French Revolution, of course the game could occur in Paris during the time of the French Revolution and not have the protagonist be involved in many of the events. There could easily be a self sustained story that SOMETIMES intertwines with real history and events.


and I really hope this is the case no matter the setting they choose, the cool thing about AC is see both worlds (the fictional with the Assassins and Templars and the real one with real events, characters and cities) coexist, but they tried so hard to put Connor right in the middle of every single event that took place during the revolution that it made it look like they were more worried about retell the story of the american revolution than to take advantage of it to enhance the story about the never-ending battle between Assassins and Templars (that IMO should be the focus of the story)

DumbGamerTag94
03-19-2014, 01:51 AM
By "in the background" I mean that the stories are about fictional characters interacting with real characters to create a plot with a certain time or era in the background, just like the crusades, and just like the renaissance.

AC3 made the mistake of literally including EVERY SINGLE EVENT of the Revolutionary war, every important one anyway, as part of Connor's story. Whereas in ACR, Ezio was fighting Sultans and Templars in both fictional and nonfictional events, during the time of the ottoman empire in Istanbul. That era was in the "background" of the game. Many of the characters and events that occurred in ACR were not documented in history, whereas in AC3, almost every single mission/event actually happened, and many people are unhappy that the game shoehorned Connor into them. Do you get it?

As for the French Revolution, of course the game could occur in Paris during the time of the French Revolution and not have the protagonist be involved in many of the events. There could easily be a self sustained story that SOMETIMES intertwines with real history and events.
Relax we are on the same page. Sort of. I agree that AC3 did a very bad job by forcing unnecessary events such as Paul Revere's ride, Battle of the Chesapeake, Signing of the Declaration, Washington's appointment as Commander in Chief(these were all terribe and gag worthy for even being forced into the story). Other events were more suited to the game like the Boston Tea Party, Bunker Hill, Monmouth. (battle of Long Island and subsequent Great Fire of New York would have suited the story well instead of the prison missions but alas). We both agree that history shouldn't be forced, but I disagree with the non historical figures and plot. ACR had a very weak plot IMO I felt it was one of the worst in the series. The problems with Suleman his father and uncle was nice, and the insurgent Byzantines was interesting, however the lack of action and major events/figures I have heard of made me disconnect with the story. AC2 and AC4 both did a very good job of balancing this IMO Both of these included a cast consisting almost entirely of actual historical figures you have heard of and didn't seem to force much into the story(AC4 slightly with Blackbeard's Death but at least it was probable and was weaved well into the story) AC3 I found very interesting and personally I enjoyed the period, but the over saturation of events and figures, and the seeming lack of reasoning explained in game for Connor to be in these places made it ridiculous and fairly laughable ruining a good game(with even better missed potential) IMO. My point is that I get more connected to a story when I know a figure or event like AC1 was rather dull until King Richard shows up about mid way through and I got a little hype, and they threw in Arsuf at the end for a climactic historical encounter which I thought helped save that game from being aweful (for the record I do like AC1 just don't think its very good compared to the rest)

I guess AC2 is the best example of what AC should keep doing. Actual events and historic figures throughout but we don't get too close to them (like Washington and Sam Adams in AC3) and the story flows and makes sense for the protagonist to be there. I feel going to fictional characters and events would make a historic setting irrelevant. AC needs to keep actual historic events and people throughout but just do it better. Pick and choose which events are important for us to see. Don't put us in absurd or illogical ones like Paul Revere's Ride.

That was my point sorry if that came across confrontational.