PDA

View Full Version : Do we really need tall buildings in Assassin's Creed?



Dev_Anj
03-29-2014, 03:21 PM
This has bothered me for a while. I've seen that quite a few people complain about the lack of verticality in Assassin's Creed 3 and 4, and say that they want tall buildings and towers.

So I've been thinking, how important is the tallness of buildings in Assassin's Creed exactly? Because truth be told, I've found that climbing buildings that are too tall in the Assassin's Creed franchise just tends to be a chore for me. Sure I know that once we get to the top, we get a good view of the surroundings, but before that the climbing itself has always felt very uneventful for me. I think that Assassin's Creed should put more of a focus on good combat, good stealth, good missions, good level design, good assassinations and good side activities instead of just having tall buildings.

Kirokill
03-29-2014, 03:28 PM
Yes we need for view points.
But we need tall buildings a bit more frequent than only ones for view points. I didn't mind AC3 and AC4 buildings I just like to climb and run.

Tall buildings means more texturing and putting hand-holding points. Not a very hard to work things like combat and detection.

They need to either lessen the watching on the roofs. Or a better change to detection, it bothered me more in AC4 than AC3 walking on roofs because of those guys, were like one on every two roofs.

Farlander1991
03-29-2014, 03:38 PM
If it's enough to just hold high profile and up to climb a tall building, then yes, tall buildings can become a chore. But if there's an element of path-finding involved, then it's a different matter entirely.

Assassin_M
03-29-2014, 03:45 PM
it's a fetish for tall buildings that some people have and I don't know the reason for it..

I recently replayed AC2 and AC3 at the same time. I was doing a side by side analysis and I found out that AC III's buildings are really not THAT short or small compared to AC2. at least in NY, Boston has some pretty short buildings.

I also tried examining 2 complaints. the roof guards and the lack of verticality of AC3's parkour due to wide streets.
Regarding the first complaint, it's largely not exclusive to AC3, at least in Venice (since Florence acts as a tutorial city) there're guards around EVERY landmark and the rooftops around it. I can't approach anywhere without being seen at all and this is problematic in AC2 more because AC2's detection meter fills SO much faster than it does in AC3.
Regarding the second complaint, I tried parkouring in Florence, Venice, NY and Boston. I did it by running from one point on the map and across it to the other end using only buildings and not killing anyone. surprisingly, I did it easily in Boston and NY. there was enough to let me cross wide streets like wires, clotheslines and tress and enough buildings to reach the opposite end of the map. It was a little harder in Florence, I only had to touch the ground once. Now, with Venice...that was a whole other story...there were rooftops guards EVERYWHERE, I had to swim and touch the ground twice to get to my destination.

So yeah, I think some people are misled with their complaints..

Farlander1991
03-29-2014, 03:53 PM
I did it by running from one point on the map and across it to the other end using only buildings and not killing anyone.

This is a cool idea.

Why did I never try that? :p :D

SixKeys
03-29-2014, 04:37 PM
it's a fetish for tall buildings that some people have and I don't know the reason for it..

I recently replayed AC2 and AC3 at the same time. I was doing a side by side analysis and I found out that AC III's buildings are really not THAT short or small compared to AC2. at least in NY, Boston has some pretty short buildings.

I also tried examining 2 complaints. the roof guards and the lack of verticality of AC3's parkour due to wide streets.
Regarding the first complaint, it's largely not exclusive to AC3, at least in Venice (since Florence acts as a tutorial city) there're guards around EVERY landmark and the rooftops around it. I can't approach anywhere without being seen at all and this is problematic in AC2 more because AC2's detection meter fills SO much faster than it does in AC3.
Regarding the second complaint, I tried parkouring in Florence, Venice, NY and Boston. I did it by running from one point on the map and across it to the other end using only buildings and not killing anyone. surprisingly, I did it easily in Boston and NY. there was enough to let me cross wide streets like wires, clotheslines and tress and enough buildings to reach the opposite end of the map. It was a little harder in Florence, I only had to touch the ground once. Now, with Venice...that was a whole other story...there were rooftops guards EVERYWHERE, I had to swim and touch the ground twice to get to my destination.

So yeah, I think some people are misled with their complaints..

I have to disagree here. It may be that our experiences are simply different, but my experience with the parkour is pretty much the exact opposite. In AC2 it's easy to parkour without being seen, even in Venice, as long as you figure out the best path and keep an eye on the guards' line of sight. In AC2, there are guards surrounding every landmark, but there is always at least one side that is designed to allow easy entry. It's part of the climbing puzzle. In my experience, the AC3 guards' patrol movements are more unpredictable and there are nearly always more than one, so that even if you wait until one turns his back, you can still be detected by their buddy who happens to turn at the wrong moment. This sometimes happens in AC2 as well (notably in San Gimignano where you can have multiple guards on top of the same tower) but far less frequently. In AC2, climbing high enough also rewards you some safety, as the guards' line of sight doesn't reach all the way to the top. Even if they start detecting you while climbing, they lose sight of you once you're high enough. This is supposed to be the case in AC3 as well, but I had it happen at least once that I kept getting detected no matter which side of the tower I was climbing, and even when I reached the viewpoint, I was still getting detected. Viewpoints should be a safe spot IMO, a sort of reward for making it that far.

As for buildings being connected, it may be the case that if you're determined to parkour in a straight line from one end of the city to the next, without detours, that you will sometimes land in a dead end in AC2. But what AC2 does better, IMO, is offering clear view to alternate paths. If you get to the edge of a building and there's no way to cross over directly, you can glance around once and immediately spot an alternate path (clothesline, balcony etc.). In AC3, sometimes things that look like alternate paths aren't actually that. One time a clothesline will support your weight, another time Connor will drop right through it. A tree will look perfectly climbable from a distance, but when you jump towards it, Connor bounces off of it.

GreySkellig
03-29-2014, 04:48 PM
I did it easily in Boston and NY. there was enough to let me cross wide streets like wires, clotheslines and tress and enough buildings to reach the opposite end of the map. It was a little harder in Florence, I only had to touch the ground once. Now, with Venice...that was a whole other story...there were rooftops guards EVERYWHERE, I had to swim and touch the ground twice to get to my destination.

Totally agree. I actually preferred the city layout in AC3 to most of the series titles--New York may be my favorite city in sheer terms of parkour (although I think that honor still goes to Istanbul/Constantinople). In AC3 there was always a way to get where you wanted without touching the ground, but you had to actually plan a few steps ahead, look for the right path, etc. Much more interesting than in AC4's Havana where you can literally just hold the high profile buttons down and parkour for blocks with your eyes closed. That said, there was seldom reason to run anywhere in AC3 since the cities were dead boring. I'm hoping Paris brings back that feeling of wandering a huge city, finding cool little areas or giant landmarks. The cities in AC4 felt compressed.

SixKeys
03-29-2014, 04:57 PM
I'm hoping Paris brings back that feeling of wandering a huge city, finding cool little areas or giant landmarks..

Does anyone else miss randomly running into Templar knights in secluded areas like in AC1? You'd be strolling or parkouring along, minding your own business, then you turned a corner into a quaint little garden.... "ICH WERDE DICH TÖTEN, KETZER!!!"

Bloody heart attack, every time. But it made exploring the cities a lot more unpredictable and interesting. Even places that looked safe could be hiding a Templar in a corner.

Kirokill
03-29-2014, 05:01 PM
"ICH WERDE DICH TÖTEN, KETZER!!!"

What language is that?

I don't remember AC1 well but I think they are the patrolling guys with a red helmet?
The ones you sometimes get asked to kill for information right?

I-Like-Pie45
03-29-2014, 05:12 PM
What language is that?

I don't remember AC1 well but I think they are the patrolling guys with a red helmet?
The ones you sometimes get asked to kill for information right?

Deutsch

Dev_Anj
03-29-2014, 05:43 PM
Does anyone else miss randomly running into Templar knights in secluded areas like in AC1? You'd be strolling or parkouring along, minding your own business, then you turned a corner into a quaint little garden.... "ICH WERDE DICH TÖTEN, KETZER!!!"

Bloody heart attack, every time. But it made exploring the cities a lot more unpredictable and interesting. Even places that looked safe could be hiding a Templar in a corner.

Me. I'll never forget running through Damascus's markets by the canal and turning around a corner, only to be yelled at and challenged to a swordfight by one of those enemies. The worst part was I hadn't even unlocked counter attacking before meeting him. I ran away and travelled for at least 3 blocks before hiding.

I'd like them to return, and be expanded upon. I didn't like how other guards would attack you only because this templar wanted to fight you, even in places they didn't fit like Damascus and Jerusalem. They were also placed more or less like "Assassin flags" i.e arbitrary collectibles. Having them go through more actions would be nice.

Dome500
03-29-2014, 05:49 PM
it's a fetish for tall buildings that some people have and I don't know the reason for it..

I recently replayed AC2 and AC3 at the same time. I was doing a side by side analysis and I found out that AC III's buildings are really not THAT short or small compared to AC2. at least in NY, Boston has some pretty short buildings.

I also tried examining 2 complaints. the roof guards and the lack of verticality of AC3's parkour due to wide streets.
Regarding the first complaint, it's largely not exclusive to AC3, at least in Venice (since Florence acts as a tutorial city) there're guards around EVERY landmark and the rooftops around it. I can't approach anywhere without being seen at all and this is problematic in AC2 more because AC2's detection meter fills SO much faster than it does in AC3.
Regarding the second complaint, I tried parkouring in Florence, Venice, NY and Boston. I did it by running from one point on the map and across it to the other end using only buildings and not killing anyone. surprisingly, I did it easily in Boston and NY. there was enough to let me cross wide streets like wires, clotheslines and tress and enough buildings to reach the opposite end of the map. It was a little harder in Florence, I only had to touch the ground once. Now, with Venice...that was a whole other story...there were rooftops guards EVERYWHERE, I had to swim and touch the ground twice to get to my destination.

So yeah, I think some people are misled with their complaints..



LOl, okay first off, I do not think it's a fetish. I really do not mind more small buildings. I love tall buildings however. It's rather the actual verticality that makes it so cool.
I do actually not need buildings as tall as all the view points every few miles, that just ruins the gameplay flow, but if the buildings have more than 2 levels that would be really cool.
I agree that NY has higher buildings than Boston and that SOME places in AC2 (like San Gimignano for example) have buildings that are comparable in height, but I also have to say that if you look at the average height the buildings in AC3 are smaller, and the guards can even often see you from the streets. Anyway.

As for the "detection time" I actually found that the other way around. I think AC3's guard detect you much faster, but I thought about it and think you might be right.
The problem in AC3 IMO with the rooftop guards is not that they are too many or detect you too fast, since AC2 does not seem to bother most people. The problems are the following:

1. The RANGE of detection is far longer in AC3 which means rooftop guards detect you from further away.
2. The guards and in those little "watch-posts" which means you can not just run up to them and kill them, because everytime you do that you have to jump over the railing first and the chance is high the enemy detects you until you did that. If he does not detect you however, you are able to kill him. Due to the hypersensitivity of the guards in AC3 however the other guard (although looking into another direction will turn around and attack you. And since Connor takes his sweet time with all his ari assassinations (maybe his blade is stuck....) you are not able to kill the enemy in time before he officially "engages into combat".
3. Combine this with the fact that as soon as a rooftop guard detects you, no matter how fast you kill him, suddenly about 12 guards/enemies from the streets "auto-detected" you and are starting to climb up the building to attack you (although they are not in your LoS and the rooftop guard you just killed did NOT fire a shot before you killed him), which happens about 1 of 2 times.
4. The last thing you can add is the fact thatthe supposed "silent" weapon "bow" is alarming everyone nearby that you just shot a bow and where exactly it came from. They do not investigate and THEN see it might have been coming from position X, no, they insta-detect you
5. Then there is the lack of any other silent weapons for long range kills. Ezio had throwing knifes and a pistol, later on a crossbow (Brotherhood/Revelations) But Connor has only 5 poison darts and the bow which alarms everyone for no reason

That all combined makes Ezios rooftop-guards (for me) a lot more enjoyable then AC3'S rooftop guards. They are obstacles in AC2 (+B/R) yes, but they are not THAT hard, hypersensitive and difficult to stealth-kill. And they alarm a lot of other guards from the streets.

IN AC2 you could run up to a (single) rooftop guard, kill him silently, then see another guard that just turns around and starts to detect you, kill him with a 2-throwing-knifes throw, then go on running. It's FLUID. In AC3 it is an obstacle that does not slow you down but it really BREAKS the fluidity of rooftop movement. In AC4 this is a little bit better, especially once you have pistols and sleep darts. It is just much better in all the other games IMO for the above mentioned reasons.

Of course everyone will have a different opinion about this, but that is mine.


What language is that?

It's German. If you remember a part of the Templars and Crusaders (those lead by Sibrand) were part of the German Order.
Templars established their order in multiple European countries, among those were France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and several others.

"Ich werde dich töten Ketzer" = "I will kill you, heretic"
and
"Dein Gott hat dich verlassen" = "Your god has left you"
and
"Wir sind the wahren Söhne Gottes" = "We are the true children of God"

I found it quite amusing to hear the German language in AC1 :D Since it's my native language.

JustPlainQuirky
03-29-2014, 05:50 PM
One does not simply not jump off a tall building in AC.

Kirokill
03-29-2014, 06:49 PM
It's German. If you remember a part of the Templars and Crusaders (those lead by Sibrand) were part of the German Order.
Templars established their order in multiple European countries, among those were France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and several others.

"Ich werde dich töten Ketzer" = "I will kill you, heretic"
and
"Dein Gott hat dich verlassen" = "Your god has left you"
and
"Wir sind the wahren Söhne Gottes" = "We are the true children of God"

I found it quite amusing to hear the German language in AC1 :D Since it's my native language.

This is quite interesting. I was too interested in AC1 for revealing Jerusalem and other cities. And the Arabic speeches.
Fun fact: Altair after defeating Al Mualim says: Nothing is true BUT everything is permitted. He adds a but, that is in Arabic pronounced Bal (the vowel is short as if you say bull).

Oh and AC1 has quite the best horse mechanic of all next released AC games.


One does not simply not jump off a tall building in AC.

Done it in every game.

RatonhnhakeFan
03-29-2014, 07:02 PM
We don't, we just need a way to stay up in the heights for most of the time. The problem of AC3 cities wasn't that the buildings were too short, but that they were too much spaced away from each other without enough stuff to fill the 'gaps'. More trees, carriages, kiosks, lamps to allow the players for mostly uninterrupted run above street level would perfectly fix the problem of less compact buildings layout compared to a city like Venice for example.

I-Like-Pie45
03-29-2014, 07:06 PM
I nominate the Kowloon Walled City for next city

RatonhnhakeFan
03-29-2014, 07:12 PM
I nominate the Kowloon Walled City for next city

If they did people would complain that it's impossible to get to the ground level :p Srsly though, ne of the biggest urban WTFs in history

I-Like-Pie45
03-29-2014, 07:48 PM
If they did people would complain that it's impossible to get to the ground level :p Srsly though, ne of the biggest urban WTFs in history

:)

http://www.meteoweb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/kowloon-walled-city-1.jpg
http://www.greggirard.com/content/gallery/Girard_kowloon015.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/KowloonWalledCityAlley2.jpg

D.I.D.
03-29-2014, 07:52 PM
I don't just want the occasional tower. I want lots of 3+-storey buildings close together, and narrow streets are a bonus too. I want to be able to climb extensively in 8 directions on a vertical surface, while also being able to leap away from that surface to grab a different one.

It's not only about being able to move like a spider, but also about a sense of scale. I feel very "large" in the AC world of recent games, which was a nice change, but I immediately loved seeing how small Arnaud looks against the city in the Unity trailer. I want to be like a speck within the size of the world, and get that feeling of swooping in, causing mayhem, and then disappearing into the upper city again. I want the sense that "up there" is my world and "down there" belongs to everyone else, and if either party wanders into the other's doman then they will be at a certain disadvantage.

Sushiglutton
03-29-2014, 08:06 PM
Being able to climb around historical cities is the core feature of Assassin's Creed imo.
The chore-value as a function of challenge is U-shaped. When a gameplay task is too hard it becomes a chore to do. But the same is true for when something is too easy. Climbing the historical landmarks in AC has become way too easy (it was never hard), which makes it a chore. You just run from landmark to landmark and hold the stick forward to automatically "jump" all the way to the top. Then you tap to synch. It's mind numbing and therefor boring. They need to think about bringing in some minor climbing challenges for the landmarks. Preferably some new move that you can control (similar to leap/grab for example).
The height of the landmarks is vital. What's cool is the sense of scale and draw-distance as you look down on the people below. New gen means these things can be taken to the next level.

SixKeys
03-29-2014, 08:07 PM
I want the sense that "up there" is my world and "down there" belongs to everyone else, and if either party wanders into the other's doman then they will be at a certain disadvantage.

Perfectly said. This is the feeling I got the first time I played AC1. Every time I got tired of pushing through the crowds and dealing with beggars and madmen, it felt so liberating to just scale the building in a few swift moves, and up on the rooftops was my world. Where I was free to run in any direction and climb anything I saw. It felt almost god-like, being the only person up there, surveying the ants below. Being able to lift myself up above the rest of the world felt like flying, whereas on the ground I felt restricted and clumsy. None of the games after AC1 have quite been able to replicate that feeling for me, and I suspect it's because we don't have narrow streets filled with large crowds. We need more NPCs so that climbing out of the crowd makes us feel free again.

Dome500
03-29-2014, 09:12 PM
Perfectly said. This is the feeling I got the first time I played AC1. Every time I got tired of pushing through the crowds and dealing with beggars and madmen, it felt so liberating to just scale the building in a few swift moves, and up on the rooftops was my world. Where I was free to run in any direction and climb anything I saw. It felt almost god-like, being the only person up there, surveying the ants below. Being able to lift myself up above the rest of the world felt like flying, whereas on the ground I felt restricted and clumsy. None of the games after AC1 have quite been able to replicate that feeling for me, and I suspect it's because we don't have narrow streets filled with large crowds. We need more NPCs so that climbing out of the crowd makes us feel free again.

Absolutely agreed except for 1 little thing: AC2 made me feel the same. But from AC2 onwards this feeling was basically gone.

It is a feeling of superiority when you are on the rooftops, but it comes with the disadvantage of not being close to targets, of having to look out for rooftop guards, not falling off buildings and keeping your orientation. It also comes with the disadvantage of not being able to really feel the people around you, suck in the culture and environments. Also, guards and NPC's CAN actually stop you even up there if you are too close to the ledges, especially if you are tailing people, enter a restricted area or do similar things.

On the ground you are close to people, hear them talk, close to your target, the blade in the crowd, you are hidden and flexible, but you are on the other hand dependent on a crowd or on corners in order to stay hidden from those you follow, you are forced to be very swift, but not too fast if you want to kill someone and get away with it.

Bottom line, both worlds have their advantages and disadvantages, and while walking in the masses and hiding there is mostly associated (by me) with the "blade in the crowd feeling, striking from the crowd and disappearing before anyone realizes or listening to enemies without them realizing it, the rooftop was always associated with freedom, fluidity and vertical superiority, for the sake of being further away from your target and further away from the events, and with the disadvantage of having to simultaneously climb/find a way to follow, keep track of your target and watch out for rooftop guards.

Hans684
03-29-2014, 10:04 PM
No but people get nostalgic without them.

GunnerGalactico
03-29-2014, 10:32 PM
Don't know about everyone else, I love climbing tall buildings... it's just exhilarating. I love having a bird's eye view of everything and keeping a watchful eye at everything that goes on around me. It's the one place where you don't feel very restricted.

Consus_E
03-29-2014, 11:01 PM
Does anyone else miss randomly running into Templar knights in secluded areas like in AC1? You'd be strolling or parkouring along, minding your own business, then you turned a corner into a quaint little garden.... "ICH WERDE DICH TÖTEN, KETZER!!!"

Bloody heart attack, every time. But it made exploring the cities a lot more unpredictable and interesting. Even places that looked safe could be hiding a Templar in a corner.

I used to love finding inventive ways of killing them (back before the addition of the air assassinations made things too easy) and thought that they made challenging combatants, which I enjoyed to.

I-Like-Pie45
03-29-2014, 11:32 PM
tower of babel for next game

tall fetish ftw

Black_Widow9
03-30-2014, 12:01 AM
I personally like the variety in building levels.

The thing about the tall buildings is that most of them are so architecturally beautiful and intricate that when I'm climbing them, I notice and appreciate them even more.

Soulid_Snake
03-30-2014, 12:01 AM
AC needs them. In AC2(ftw), climbing a tower whilst listening to that beautiful music, then getting to the top, peering over the city, breathtaking.

ze_topazio
03-30-2014, 01:55 AM
It's not necessarily the isolated tall temples and palaces, it's more the cities themselves, the narrow streets and tall buildings all cramped together, like I have said before once, I'm open to any setting, especially because god knows we need some variety to avoid fatigue with this annual thing going on, but I don't deny that I think this franchise is at its best in the middle of the big old school metropolis of Europe, Middle East and North Africa.

Calvarok
03-30-2014, 02:03 AM
Ideally, buildings would be tall enough that you can know you're safe from people on the ground. in AC3/4, fighting a guard on the roof can often alert the ones in the street, which is a hassle.

We're not just talking about tall viewpoints, which is what you seem to be mentioning. We're talking about just the typical buildings, which are what you'll use to approach places and stalk enemies. And there have been many ways to more quickly get up them introduced, like the lifts and such.

ze_topazio
03-30-2014, 02:09 AM
I do have to admit I didn't read the entire thread.

Calvarok
03-30-2014, 02:25 AM
While we're on this topic, I'd really love if Tree-running could have a lot more verticality to it. In real life, the trees in The Frontier would be way bigger in scale, and it would have been really cool to be able to get closer to the top

BoBwUzHeRe1138
03-30-2014, 02:27 AM
I have to disagree here. It may be that our experiences are simply different, but my experience with the parkour is pretty much the exact opposite. In AC2 it's easy to parkour without being seen, even in Venice, as long as you figure out the best path and keep an eye on the guards' line of sight. In AC2, there are guards surrounding every landmark, but there is always at least one side that is designed to allow easy entry. It's part of the climbing puzzle. In my experience, the AC3 guards' patrol movements are more unpredictable and there are nearly always more than one, so that even if you wait until one turns his back, you can still be detected by their buddy who happens to turn at the wrong moment. This sometimes happens in AC2 as well (notably in San Gimignano where you can have multiple guards on top of the same tower) but far less frequently. In AC2, climbing high enough also rewards you some safety, as the guards' line of sight doesn't reach all the way to the top. Even if they start detecting you while climbing, they lose sight of you once you're high enough. This is supposed to be the case in AC3 as well, but I had it happen at least once that I kept getting detected no matter which side of the tower I was climbing, and even when I reached the viewpoint, I was still getting detected. Viewpoints should be a safe spot IMO, a sort of reward for making it that far.

As for buildings being connected, it may be the case that if you're determined to parkour in a straight line from one end of the city to the next, without detours, that you will sometimes land in a dead end in AC2. But what AC2 does better, IMO, is offering clear view to alternate paths. If you get to the edge of a building and there's no way to cross over directly, you can glance around once and immediately spot an alternate path (clothesline, balcony etc.). In AC3, sometimes things that look like alternate paths aren't actually that. One time a clothesline will support your weight, another time Connor will drop right through it. A tree will look perfectly climbable from a distance, but when you jump towards it, Connor bounces off of it.

This has been my experience as well. To me, AC3's parkour and climbing was MUCH more of a chore than AC2 or any of the Ezio games.

HDinHB
03-30-2014, 06:14 AM
Being able to climb around historical cities is the core feature of Assassin's Creed imo.
The chore-value as a function of challenge is U-shaped. When a gameplay task is too hard it becomes a chore to do. But the same is true for when something is too easy. Climbing the historical landmarks in AC has become way too easy (it was never hard), which makes it a chore. You just run from landmark to landmark and hold the stick forward to automatically "jump" all the way to the top. Then you tap to synch. It's mind numbing and therefor boring. They need to think about bringing in some minor climbing challenges for the landmarks. Preferably some new move that you can control (similar to leap/grab for example).
The height of the landmarks is vital. What's cool is the sense of scale and draw-distance as you look down on the people below. New gen means these things can be taken to the next level.


This. The climbing has gone from challenging and exciting in the earlier games to tedious in the last few. On rarely do I think "oh that was fun" after a climb. I don't think that's because I have climbed too much, I think it's just become too easy in all but a few cases.

dex3108
03-30-2014, 06:42 AM
We need them for gameplay reasons too. Players will have choice take time and climb and have advantage, or take streets save time but they need to be more carful. Also no more jumping from the roof without consequences, easy eavesdropping from the roof...

Assassin_M
03-30-2014, 07:19 AM
I have to disagree here. It may be that our experiences are simply different
It's most likely that, from your post it sounds like you face a lot of glitches that I never experienced.

In AC2 it's easy to parkour without being seen, even in Venice, as long as you figure out the best path and keep an eye on the guards' line of sight. In AC2, there are guards surrounding every landmark, but there is always at least one side that is designed to allow easy entry. It's part of the climbing puzzle.[/ In my experience, the AC3 guards' patrol movements are more unpredictable and there are nearly always more than one, so that even if you wait until one turns his back, you can still be detected by their buddy who happens to turn at the wrong moment. This sometimes happens in AC2 as well (notably in San Gimignano where you can have multiple guards on top of the same tower) but far less frequently. In AC2, climbing high enough also rewards you some safety, as the guards' line of sight doesn't reach all the way to the top. Even if they start detecting you while climbing, they lose sight of you once you're high enough. This is supposed to be the case in AC3 as well, but I had it happen at least once that I kept getting detected no matter which side of the tower I was climbing, and even when I reached the viewpoint, I was still getting detected. Viewpoints should be a safe spot IMO, a sort of reward for making it that far.

As for buildings being connected, it may be the case that if you're determined to parkour in a straight line from one end of the city to the next, without detours, that you will sometimes land in a dead end in AC2. But what AC2 does better, IMO, is offering clear view to alternate paths. If you get to the edge of a building and there's no way to cross over directly, you can glance around once and immediately spot an alternate path (clothesline, balcony etc.). In AC3, sometimes things that look like alternate paths aren't actually that. One time a clothesline will support your weight, another time Connor will drop right through it. A tree will look perfectly climbable from a distance, but when you jump towards it, Connor bounces off of it.

Assassin_M
03-30-2014, 07:39 AM
Firstly, I'd like to apologize for my mistake. I looked at my analysis again and it was just once in the water and once on ground in Venice and i touched the ground once in Boston..


I have to disagree here. It may be that our experiences are simply different
It's most likely that, from your post it sounds like you faced a lot of glitches that I never experienced.


In AC2 it's easy to parkour without being seen, even in Venice, as long as you figure out the best path and keep an eye on the guards' line of sight. In AC2, there are guards surrounding every landmark, but there is always at least one side that is designed to allow easy entry. It's part of the climbing puzzle.
Not really what happened with me at all. it was sometimes easy for me but it was most of the time hard and I was pushed off of buildings more times than I can remember because I had so many guards chasing me and it was too late to change course. There's an area like that close to the thieves' hideout...to the south, where literally every other building had a guard on it. another case like that was the Dursodoro district (Carnival district) i was being chased by so many guards that I had no choice but to leap of faith (I did not count this as one of the times I couldn't reach somewhere without touching the ground or water)


In my experience, the AC3 guards' patrol movements are more unpredictable and there are nearly always more than one, so that even if you wait until one turns his back, you can still be detected by their buddy who happens to turn at the wrong moment. This sometimes happens in AC2 as well (notably in San Gimignano where you can have multiple guards on top of the same tower) but far less frequently.
The fact that say 4 guards are placed in one place rather than 4 at scattered but close places should make the guard movements predictable since it's a much smaller area that they can move in, at least that was the case with me and like I said, at least again for me, the detection meter in AC III filled slower than in AC II.


In AC2, climbing high enough also rewards you some safety, as the guards' line of sight doesn't reach all the way to the top. Even if they start detecting you while climbing, they lose sight of you once you're high enough. This is supposed to be the case in AC3 as well, but I had it happen at least once that I kept getting detected no matter which side of the tower I was climbing, and even when I reached the viewpoint, I was still getting detected. Viewpoints should be a safe spot IMO, a sort of reward for making it that far.
Most likely a glitch, once the view point music started playing for me as I climbed view points, the guards weren't chasing me anymore.


As for buildings being connected, it may be the case that if you're determined to parkour in a straight line from one end of the city to the next, without detours, that you will sometimes land in a dead end in AC2.
That's not how I did it. The objective I set for each game is to get from point A to point B (longest, farthest ends of the maps) without touching ground, water or killing anyone. It wasn't a straight line..it'd be pretty unfair if I did that, since Venice has a big canal.


But what AC2 does better, IMO, is offering clear view to alternate paths.
Not always (but I didnt list this as a problem) sometimes, the sudden shift in height of parkour paths made it hard for me to find a route. for example, between the San Marco district and the military district. The only way to pass the canal is by some close to ground scaffolding. the sudden shift from the high buildings of San Marco to the military can be confusing and make you miss parkour paths. (not saying this isnt a problem with AC III as well)


If you get to the edge of a building and there's no way to cross over directly, you can glance around once and immediately spot an alternate path (clothesline, balcony etc.). In AC3, sometimes things that look like alternate paths aren't actually that. One time a clothesline will support your weight, another time Connor will drop right through it. A tree will look perfectly climbable from a distance, but when you jump towards it, Connor bounces off of it.
Never happened to me. a Tree always supported my paths and I never fell through clotheslines. probably another glitch.




if you look at the average height the buildings in AC3 are smaller, and the guards can even often see you from the streets. Anyway.
Not the ones in NY, trust me. the ones in NY are as high as most of the buildings in Venice. i'll give you that AC III's AI is effed up, but i'v spoken about this in length


1. The RANGE of detection is far longer in AC3 which means rooftop guards detect you from further away.
wouldn't really be a problem since the meter fills slower and there is a pretty good remedy for that. the high chimneys of AC III make it easy to break the line of sight while you survey the area


2. The guards and in those little "watch-posts" which means you can not just run up to them and kill them, because everytime you do that you have to jump over the railing first and the chance is high the enemy detects you until you did that. If he does not detect you however, you are able to kill him. Due to the hypersensitivity of the guards in AC3 however the other guard (although looking into another direction will turn around and attack you. And since Connor takes his sweet time with all his ari assassinations (maybe his blade is stuck....) you are not able to kill the enemy in time before he officially "engages into combat".
My analysis is about not killing anyone. if you can evade the building with guard posts and find another route, then that's okay. I think having 4 guards on ONE building is far better than 4 on different buildings that are in close proximity to each other.


3. Combine this with the fact that as soon as a rooftop guard detects you, no matter how fast you kill him, suddenly about 12 guards/enemies from the streets "auto-detected" you and are starting to climb up the building to attack you (although they are not in your LoS and the rooftop guard you just killed did NOT fire a shot before you killed him), which happens about 1 of 2 times.
AC III AI problem, not really what i'm discussing.


4. The last thing you can add is the fact thatthe supposed "silent" weapon "bow" is alarming everyone nearby that you just shot a bow and where exactly it came from. They do not investigate and THEN see it might have been coming from position X, no, they insta-detect you
Again, my analysis is without killing anyone..


5. Then there is the lack of any other silent weapons for long range kills. Ezio had throwing knifes and a pistol, later on a crossbow (Brotherhood/Revelations) But Connor has only 5 poison darts and the bow which alarms everyone for no reason
same as above...


That all combined makes Ezios rooftop-guards (for me) a lot more enjoyable then AC3'S rooftop guards. They are obstacles in AC2 (+B/R) yes, but they are not THAT hard, hypersensitive and difficult to stealth-kill. And they alarm a lot of other guards from the streets.
That's fine but for me it was about evading those guards rather than killing them and I found that to be much easier in AC III than in AC II (at least in Venice)


IN AC2 you could run up to a (single) rooftop guard, kill him silently, then see another guard that just turns around and starts to detect you, kill him with a 2-throwing-knifes throw, then go on running. It's FLUID. In AC3 it is an obstacle that does not slow you down but it really BREAKS the fluidity of rooftop movement. In AC4 this is a little bit better, especially once you have pistols and sleep darts. It is just much better in all the other games IMO for the above mentioned reasons.
Again, this about me getting from point A to point B without killing anyone...


Of course everyone will have a different opinion about this, but that is mine.
Sure:)

oliacr
03-30-2014, 09:29 AM
I really like the tall buildings, because it was the part of the time periods. In AC3 there weren't any "really tall" buildings,but the tree-running did the job. So If we couldn't see more tall buildings, they would make more options like they did with the tree and rock climbing.
But I prefer the nice architecture.

Jexx21
03-30-2014, 09:45 AM
I can jump off short buildings just fine.

Also, it's extremely easy to find branch points to get from roof top to roof top in both Boston and New York, most of the time. There are certain streets where it's harder, but I rarely cross those paths.

RinoTheBouncer
03-30-2014, 10:49 AM
Does anyone else miss randomly running into Templar knights in secluded areas like in AC1? You'd be strolling or parkouring along, minding your own business, then you turned a corner into a quaint little garden.... "ICH WERDE DICH TÖTEN, KETZER!!!"

Bloody heart attack, every time. But it made exploring the cities a lot more unpredictable and interesting. Even places that looked safe could be hiding a Templar in a corner.

Off-topic, but your avatar is PHENOMENAL!

KJC_Obi-Wan
03-30-2014, 02:06 PM
Looking for tall buildings to climb is the first thing I do when I enter a new area in Assassin's Creed.
You climb them up, take in the atmosphere, the graphics, the beauty of the architecture and the landscape etc. With a good soundtrack it's even better.
And then comes the Leap of Faith. The higher the building the better for that. Which is why I was disappointed with the highest point in ACB the Castello Di Angelo. While it was a lot higher than the highest place in AC2, it was impossible to make a Leap of Faith from the top to the very ground-floor. On top of that there was no real sense of how high exactly it is, mainly because there was a big and wide surface directly below you. Still one could see the Sistine Chapell and the Colosseum. Which was very awesome.

Another thing that's possible with tall buildings are eagle assassinations or eagle leaps. You just look for another building or structure way below the tower/surface you're standing on, jump and try to catch the ledge of it to avoid dieing from the great height. In Florence I used to jump from one high building to another without even using heystacks. That was really exciting.

Also nothing beats viewing the Caribbean from the top of the main mast of a Man O' War in Black Flag. Sad enough that we couldn't have our own Man O' War -.-

jdowny
03-30-2014, 02:20 PM
I have to disagree here. It may be that our experiences are simply different, but my experience with the parkour is pretty much the exact opposite. In AC2 it's easy to parkour without being seen, even in Venice, as long as you figure out the best path and keep an eye on the guards' line of sight. In AC2, there are guards surrounding every landmark, but there is always at least one side that is designed to allow easy entry. It's part of the climbing puzzle. In my experience, the AC3 guards' patrol movements are more unpredictable and there are nearly always more than one, so that even if you wait until one turns his back, you can still be detected by their buddy who happens to turn at the wrong moment. This sometimes happens in AC2 as well (notably in San Gimignano where you can have multiple guards on top of the same tower) but far less frequently. In AC2, climbing high enough also rewards you some safety, as the guards' line of sight doesn't reach all the way to the top. Even if they start detecting you while climbing, they lose sight of you once you're high enough. This is supposed to be the case in AC3 as well, but I had it happen at least once that I kept getting detected no matter which side of the tower I was climbing, and even when I reached the viewpoint, I was still getting detected. Viewpoints should be a safe spot IMO, a sort of reward for making it that far.

Must say, this was my experience as well. I much preferred AC I + II's level of rooftop guards. Though, as Assassin_M said, there were a couple of places in Venice where there were too many guards, but these instances didn't frustrate me too much. I think the reason for this is that it's easier to see the guards in AC II - they're actually on the top of the roofs in plain sight, whereas in AC III they were often stood on small platforms and were more hidden. This, coupled with the fact that they often stood in groups of 3 or more, were often opposite another group, had long-range rifles and had insane detection range, and you can see why I found AC III's guards more annoying to deal with.

It depends how we're coming at the problem though. AC II might have a similar number of (or even more) guards than AC III, but their detection range was significantly lower than AC III. Though AC III's guards might take longer to fire at the player, a large part of the rooftop's appeal lies in not being noticed - of being an assassin. This feeling is quickly stopped when the player's got a dozen guards telling him to get down every few seconds. I think it's much better to have guards with lower detection range but which fills more quickly than the other way around. I want the rooftops to be my area.

I've tried to do a similar thing to Assassin_M in AC III's Boston but this was much harder than doing so in any other AC game. I'm sure it may be possible to get from one end of the map to the other without being seen or killing anyone, but it involves a hell of a lot of backtracking and experimenting. I've lost count of the number of positions where it was impossible to cross without being spotted so I had to try another route. This isn't my idea of fun, challenging though it may be. Part of this is down to Colonial architectural styles of AC III, but traversing rooftops should be fun and relatively effortless instead of tough. The player shouldn't have to kill 4 rooftop guards if his way is blocked, neither should he have to backtrack a couple of blocks or be forced to go down to ground level in order to continue.

New York is easier, disregarding the detection range of the guards. I'd even say it's fun, but to me it still doesn't match AC II's Florence or any of the cities in AC 1. These games, for me, had the optimum number of guards, detection range and power. I could kill one without alerting the rest but often I didn't have to. It was genuinely fun to travel the rooftops, and I probably spent 90% of my gameplay (outside of missions) on the roofs. This was probably closer to 40% in AC III and more like 20% in AC IV thanks to the insane snipers that game had. One of the disadvantages of playing without a HUD.

But more on topic -

Yes, I think AC games need tall buildings. At least ones tall enough to escape the notice of pedestrians. I've noticed particularly in the poor quarters of AC 1's cities that often these were not more than 2 storeys high, so I don't think they need to be enormous. I'm not sure if the OP is referring to the height of the buildings in general or simply the synch points. Either way, being able to survey a city and look down on crowds below by climbing buildings have become an intrinsic part of the AC franchise. I think it works on another level because it allows us as people to explore places (rooftops) that we couldn't do otherwise or are not allowed to. Plus it's just plain fun when there aren't too many guards.

EDIT: Forgot to add this.


Never happened to me. a Tree always supported my paths and I never fell through clotheslines. probably another glitch.

I agree, I've never had this either. However, this does touch upon pathfinding as one of the reasons I prefer the rooftops of AC II to those of AC III. Recently I've been playing through AC III and AC 1 again, comparing the two. I've found that the controls of the later games (sprinting and walking) are a big reason why I dislike them because I feel I don't have enough control. Those of the earlier games allow jogging as well which allows the player to drop down from a ledge if they want to. It's more than this though. The pathfinding of AC III onwards feels sloppy and inaccurate, often sending me in a direction I didn't intend or even a direction I wasn't pointing in - for example, sending me to a ledge 20 degrees to the right of where I'm pointing instead of the ledge further away. Or, bizarrely, sending me down a level when I want to go up.

It's not directly related to the discussion, but the inconsistency and poor pathfinding of AC III and IV has got me noticed by the guards far too many times. Hence, rooftops are not the fun places they used to be. Just thought I'd put that out there, wondered if you or others had had similar experiences.

Dome500
03-30-2014, 02:33 PM
The fact that say 4 guards are placed in one place rather than 4 at scattered but close places should make the guard movements predictable since it's a much smaller area that they can move in, at least that was the case with me and like I said, at least again for me, the detection meter in AC III filled slower than in AC II.

The problem here is with their long range combined with their number (2 - 4) and the different directions they look in they most of the time cover all the directions you can be, which means you either have to search HUGE ways around them or you have to kill them, which is also difficult because of the broken Stealth in AC3.


My analysis is about not killing anyone. if you can evade the building with guard posts and find another route, then that's okay. I think having 4 guards on ONE building is far better than 4 on different buildings that are in close proximity to each other.

See? And that is the problem. AC is a game that was never intended to be played "without killing anyone". If you are on the rooftops you kill, and if you kill then no one detects you, because in AC2 you have enough time to do so. If you do not want to kill, then both games, AC2 and AC3 are both a chore to play, since you have to search for very long ways around the enemy posts.

(That's one of the reasons why I like that Black Flag introduced non-lethal weapons btw. I also like not to kill anyone)


AC III AI problem, not really what i'm discussing.


But it ties into the problem.


Again, my analysis is without killing anyone..

And that is the problem. I mean you can say "my analysis is without killing anyone" as much as you want, the problem of that statement is that in this case you analysis is flawed, because those 2 games were never intended to be played without killing anyone. Splinter Cell, Thief, Hitman, all these games allow the player to not kill anyone (except the target). But Assassins Creed never had that design philosophy in mind.

I understand that this might be your personal playstyle, and I agree it should be a supported one, the problem however is that it was never intended by the developers and is therefore an invalid approach in such an analysis. If you want to bring up the point "one should be able to not kill anyone" then I absolutely agree, but that is another topic.

If you look at the design concept behind the rooftops it is actually one of the intended disadvantages of the rooftop level/method that you HAVE to kill someone every once in a while.

Like I said, I understand you point not wanting to kill anyone, but again, it's a flawed analysis if it does not take into account the fact that the developers never intended to go fully non-lethal or even "do not harm (non lethal or lethal) anyone".

PS: Just to say this: I am normally a full Ghost, I absolutely love it to evade everyone possible and spare as many people as possible. But I came to the conclusion that in Assassins Creed this playstyle - as much as I would LOVE to play that way - is just not possible without breaking stealth (meaning you raise dozens of alarms). With non-lethal weapons this would be possible, though I do not know if you are the non-lethal or the "total avoidance / evading" type, but I am sure there are designs that would accommodate both, although I think non-lethal weapons/tools are a good compromise. Anyway, I would LOVE to play that way, but I do really not see it happening, especially since the developers never intended that the game was played that way.

Dev_Anj
03-30-2014, 04:32 PM
If you look at the design concept behind the rooftops it is actually one of the intended disadvantages of the rooftop level/method that you HAVE to kill someone every once in a while.



No, the intended disadvantages of using rooftops is that you have to contend with guards who will ask you to go down, or turn hostile to you, you run the risk of falling down, and possibly into a bad situation, and there are fewer hiding spots. Even in Assassin's Creed 1, where on ground you could only hide among groups of scholars, haybales and benches with two people sitting on them, the hiding spots on the ground were more commonly distributed than the ones on the rooftops. Also even on later sequences, when alert guards patrolled some locations, more guards would be neutral towards you on the streets than on the rooftops.

Also I understand that viewpoints have to be tall, but my question was directed at whether the majority of the buildings needed to be tall. I always find that there is no need for most buildings to be more than two floors tall, and sometimes short buildings can also add to the environment and provide some challenges.

Dome500
03-30-2014, 05:13 PM
No, the intended disadvantages of using rooftops is that you have to contend with guards who will ask you to go down, or turn hostile to you, you run the risk of falling down, and possibly into a bad situation, and there are fewer hiding spots.

Well, yes that is basically saying what I said only explaining it in another way.
Let's put it this way: The developers intended that if you are running around on rooftops you will either have to go out of the LoS of patrols, climbing down or getting out of their range fast on the rooftops, or kill them if you want to go on running without having to go around them and stay on the rooftops.

IN AC2 (IMO) except for a few places, this is mostly allowed to you, especially since the rooftop guards are all alone you can run past them (with a little distance) while they are looking into the other direction. While in AC3 you have to go all the way around them because there are multiple guys on those platforms which means they see you from different directions and there are rarely any situations in which you can just "pass by" because everyone looks in another direction than the one you are going.

Therefore, IMO it is one of the intended disadvantages that you have to deal with those obstacles (the guards) in a way, no matter if you go down on ground level, in which case this would count as an disadvantage of this particular level of traversal, the "rooftops" (because if you go down on the streets you are not longer on the "rooftop level" which means the rooftops levels design philosophy forces you to either switch your level of traversal or deal with the enemy on the roof) that you have to deal with the enemy somehow. It is in you way. Therefore it is an obstacle that has the effect that you have to decide if you want to continue on ground level, try to pass by while he is looking in another direction, or kill him. Which is an intended disadvantage since it is making your aside from that seamless way to fulfill your objective harder. I would call that a disadvantage.

Anyway...



Also I understand that viewpoints have to be tall, but my question was directed at whether the majority of the buildings needed to be tall. I always find that there is no need for most buildings to be more than two floors tall, and sometimes short buildings can also add to the environment and provide some challenges.

I do not say that there shouldn't be small buildings as well, but tall buildings were part of the series and they are good and fun to traverse, especially if you combine them with narrow streets and big plazas. It's about the vertical advantage, the air superiority of the assassin, the bridseye-like view. The buildings being that tall give you a feeling of freedom, they make stalking your targets easier, they give you a fun way to traverse distances and they are important to bring distance between you and your pursuers. Of course I am all for a variety of different building heights, which btw. also makes it interesting to traverse the rooftops, but AC3'S buildings were pretty small and the streets were pretty wide (the opposite of what is fun to traverse). They also had a lot of obstacles which made it problematic to keep orientation, but was good to hide on the other hand.

Also, I think the question is really unnecessary considering the fact that Ubisoft decides on the settings anyway, and the settings decide how the buildings will look and how high they will be, and the further you go towards the present day the more tall architecture you will see. European was the first to become tall, but colonies and non-European countries followed later on to build tall buildings.

It's just the way it is, and for me it is just a trademark of the series to be able to climb that beautiful and high architecture. And for those who are bored of it Ubisoft introduced the lifts and similar things.

Assassin_M
03-30-2014, 05:38 PM
The problem here is with their long range combined with their number (2 - 4) and the different directions they look in they most of the time cover all the directions you can be, which means you either have to search HUGE ways around them or you have to kill them, which is also difficult because of the broken Stealth in AC3.
The guards in AC II are the same way, except their scattering makes it A LOT harder to find an alternative route. Another thing i'v discovered about AC II's rooftops guards is that their meter fills faster when you get closer to them , it's an insta detect when you're just a few feet away AND they turn around if you're approaching in high profile. NONE of this is in AC III's rooftops guards. The meter only fills faster when you're in high profile, you're never insta detected unless you bump into them and they don't turn around if you're approaching high profile. like I said, it's not a disadvantage to have long range of line if there's something to counter it. Chimneys are great to hide behind and survey the area for further paths and the things that made AC II's Venice extremely hard for me to get from one side to another are not there in AC III.


See? And that is the problem. AC is a game that was never intended to be played "without killing anyone". If you are on the rooftops you kill, and if you kill then no one detects you, because in AC2 you have enough time to do so. If you do not want to kill, then both games, AC2 and AC3 are both a chore to play, since you have to search for very long ways around the enemy posts.

(That's one of the reasons why I like that Black Flag introduced non-lethal weapons btw. I also like not to kill anyone)
Not with AC III. like I said, I went from point to point in AC III without spilling a single drop of blood. if I applied a constraint in my analysis to one game, I have it to both, otherwise my analysis would be unfair. if I did indeed needed to kill to continue my path, then my analysis would include killing people and AC III would have failed but i didn't have to kill ANYONE in AC III. it was a chore in AC II but not AC III.


But it ties into the problem.
indeed and I helped solve the problem. if you're having problems with rooftops guards in AC III because of the AI, then don't kill them at all. they're fairly easy to evade.


And that is the problem. I mean you can say "my analysis is without killing anyone" as much as you want, the problem of that statement is that in this case you analysis is flawed, because those 2 games were never intended to be played without killing anyone. Splinter Cell, Thief, Hitman, all these games allow the player to not kill anyone (except the target). But Assassins Creed never had that design philosophy in mind.
AC III was obviously made for people to traverse rooftops without killing anyone. I managed to do it. it doesn't make my analysis flawed, it makes it fair. I found out that in AC III, i can run from point A to point B using only roofs and without killing anyone. I have to apply the same constraints on AC II, like I said. If i applied killing people (which would mean that i'd go out of my way to kill people in AC III) then AC III would definitely be a chore but then it wont be a rooftop parkouring analysis. it would be an AI analysis and the main focus of the analysis would be lost, which was seeing if AC III was indeed hard to traverse rooftops in.


I understand that this might be your personal playstyle, and I agree it should be a supported one, the problem however is that it was never intended by the developers and is therefore an invalid approach in such an analysis. If you want to bring up the point "one should be able to not kill anyone" then I absolutely agree, but that is another topic.
It's not really my playing style, I only used it for this analysis and like I said, although I may sound repetitive now, I ONLY added this constraint because it WAS possible in AC III to go from rooftop to rooftop without being detected nor killing ANYONE so i HAD to apply the same mind-set while playing to AC II.


If you look at the design concept behind the rooftops it is actually one of the intended disadvantages of the rooftop level/method that you HAVE to kill someone every once in a while.
Might be the case for AC II but not AC III, which in my opinion makes AC III superior.


Like I said, I understand you point not wanting to kill anyone, but again, it's a flawed analysis if it does not take into account the fact that the developers never intended to go fully non-lethal or even "do not harm (non lethal or lethal) anyone"
Again, it's like that in AC III.


PS: Just to say this: I am normally a full Ghost, I absolutely love it to evade everyone possible and spare as many people as possible. But I came to the conclusion that in Assassins Creed this playstyle - as much as I would LOVE to play that way - is just not possible without breaking stealth (meaning you raise dozens of alarms). With non-lethal weapons this would be possible, though I do not know if you are the non-lethal or the "total avoidance / evading" type, but I am sure there are designs that would accommodate both, although I think non-lethal weapons/tools are a good compromise. Anyway, I would LOVE to play that way, but I do really not see it happening, especially since the developers never intended that the game was played that way.
I managed to go from a point on the map to the farthest point using only rooftops, without killing anyone and without being detected, if i managed it in one game then i'm sure anyone else can do it. I might prepare videos of me playing just to end this quickly

SixKeys
03-30-2014, 10:37 PM
I managed to go from a point on the map to the farthest point using only rooftops, without killing anyone and without being detected, if i managed it in one game then i'm sure anyone else can do it. I might prepare videos of me playing just to end this quickly

I would actually like to see this, just out of curiosity. :)

Dome500
03-30-2014, 11:36 PM
AC III was obviously made for people to traverse rooftops without killing anyone. I managed to do it.

No. This is just a side effect. Just because you are able to do something doesn't mean that is was intended by the developers. And if you take into account hat AC3 was much more combat-focused and that all the other AC games never had the design philosophy of being non-lethal (no matter where), then I do not understand how you come to such a conclusion just based on the fact that you were actually able to pull it off.


I managed to go from a point on the map to the farthest point using only rooftops, without killing anyone and without being detected, if i managed it in one game then i'm sure anyone else can do it. I might prepare videos of me playing just to end this quickly

Which does not mean that this applies to every situation everywhere in the game. And I am sure if search hard enough and try it you will be able to do the same in AC2.
But that was actually not the original point. If you look at rooftop parkour alone, without including any restriction, no matter if you kill, avoid or knock out, how fluid and fun is rooftop parkour in AC2 in comparison with AC3? Then I will say for me it is 100% AC 2 because I am faster, more fluid and it's way more fun without getting detected.

If you want to go from one point of the map to the other in AC3 it will take you a LOT of time and slow-paced movement. Now I actually love that kind of movement. But not in a game like AC on the rooftops. Why? Because Parkour is supposed to go fast and be fluid. And if I have to avoid around 1 dozen enemies since I can't really kill them (since it's very hard without getting detected by those hypersensitive guards) every few houses then it is a chore to do parkour.

Okay, I can agree that it is partially easier in some districts because there are fewer rooftop guards in general. Same goes for AC4. But if you are faces with a district that has a higher density of guards (of which there are also some) and compare them to those areas you mentioned in AC2 which are packed with guards, then you can absolutely say that in AC3 it is much slower and more difficult to get past them then it is in AC2, that is my experience with it at least. And I did indeed sometimes cross Venice on the rooftops without being detected once.

I can understand that this form of placement of rooftop guards and the fast detection arcs might be uncomfortable for you personally while they are more comfortable for me, that's just a matter of being a human, we have different opinions and everyone experiences something different based on very complex facts that all influence out perception and experiences.

SO let's just say it's a matter of perspective which one of the two is easier. Because I came to the conclusion it is.

Assassin_M
03-31-2014, 12:21 AM
I would actually like to see this, just out of curiosity. :)
I'll prepare it. I'll have it ready by late tonight or tomorrow


No. This is just a side effect. Just because you are able to do something doesn't mean that is was intended by the developers. And if you take into account hat AC3 was much more combat-focused and that all the other AC games never had the design philosophy of being non-lethal (no matter where), then I do not understand how you come to such a conclusion just based on the fact that you were actually able to pull it off.
Hmm...so if I can't do it in AC II it's "the game wasn't designed this way" but if I can pull it off in AC III then it's "just a side effect" just for the record, my comment about design was sarcasm. no one knows what the Devs had in mind when planning and designing parkour routes. "oh it's not intended to be that way" implies that i'm playing it wrong. which you have no basis of. I made an analysis based on the systems of the 2 games. I placed constricts to further enhance my analysis results. I don't believe AC III was designed as the most combat focused. it was the most hand holdy but definitely not the most combat focused. Its stealth was marred by the terrible AI. just look at AC IV. this is what AC III could'v been with an AI that's not psychic. I don't understand how YOU came to the conclusion that it's not what the developers intended. If I can do it, then the game obviously was programmed to do it. the design supports it. I don't see how i'm wrong. You're following a very obvious double standard here.


Which does not mean that this applies to every situation everywhere in the game.
It actually does. The guard AI are always the same everywhere around Boston and NY's rooftops. I checked.


And I am sure if search hard enough and try it you will be able to do the same in AC2.
Nope. You can't make it from point A to point B without being detected at least once.


But that was actually not the original point. If you look at rooftop parkour alone, without including any restriction, no matter if you kill, avoid or knock out, how fluid and fun is rooftop parkour in AC2 in comparison with AC3? Then I will say for me it is 100% AC 2 because I am faster, more fluid and it's way more fun without getting detected.
It actually was my original point. You just kept inserting irrelevant scenarios that have no impact on my analysis and its goal. I don't know if you read ALL of my points, i'm convinced that you don't. I told you before. I didnt have to kill ANYONE when I was parkouring in Boston and NY. why would I look at something that I can avoid?? that's what you fail to see. I didn't include this restriction to make AC III some imaginary trophy, I made it as a result of my discovery that I CAN avoid killing rooftop guards AND reach my destination easily. Their meter fills slower, their insta detect happens only when I bump into them and there're high chimneys that help break their line of sight to allow me a breather and let me survey my path.

Your logic is flawed, you say lets remove restrictions but go on to say that for you, AC II would still be the more fluid without being detected (which IS the restriction) I'm telling you MY experience.


If you want to go from one point of the map to the other in AC3 it will take you a LOT of time and slow-paced movement.
Maybe for you, it wasn't that way at all for me...


And if I have to avoid around 1 dozen enemies since I can't really kill them (since it's very hard without getting detected by those hypersensitive guards) every few houses then it is a chore to do parkour.
*sigh* I talked about this and it's a glitch for you, not me. my experience with the rooftop guards was like I described.


But if you are faces with a district that has a higher density of guards (of which there are also some) and compare them to those areas you mentioned in AC2 which are packed with guards
I do not TARGET areas with higher density of guards. I go from one point to the next trying NOT to get detected nor kill ANYONE. I'm not TRYING to be detected. what you ask goes completely against what I intended. I'm supposed to EVADE guards not actively pursue them on rooftops. this was possible in AC III's Boston and NY and AC II's Florence but not Venice.


And I did indeed sometimes cross Venice on the rooftops without being detected once.
I would like to see a video of you doing this. trying to cross from the Military district to the Carnival district without being detected once.


I can understand that this form of placement of rooftop guards and the fast detection arcs might be uncomfortable for you personally while they are more comfortable for me, that's just a matter of being a human, we have different opinions and everyone experiences something different based on very complex facts that all influence out perception and experiences.
I'm not stating an opinion nor play-style. this analysis was done to examine the complaints that AC III is worse in terms of parkour paths and vertical traversal. I found my experience to be identical, if not better, than in AC II. I can perfectly cross Venice's rooftops without being detected by killing guards but i'll risk notoriety and the loooooong wait for the gun to aim


SO let's just say it's a matter of perspective which one of the two is easier. Because I came to the conclusion it is.
It's funny how you start a post with you imposing your own facts and giving straight out Nos to other opinions but end it with "it's a matter of perspective" it just does not work that way..

DumbGamerTag94
03-31-2014, 12:29 AM
Doesn't anyone remember the tenant of the Creed....."Spare my blade, from the flesh of an innocent"(AC1). Therefore by virtue of the Creed you should never have to kill anyone unless they are a Templar, or directly aiding, or defending said Templar. So by following the Creed it should be intended by developers to not have to kill anyone unless you choose to. Thus being able to simply move across a city should not warrant you having to kill anyone. Even if they are a guard, in theory they have families,etc. and do not HAVE to die if it is not absolutely necessary. We see this explained in the Very beginning of AC1 where Altiar kills an old man. The man being there implies that he supports or is aiding the Templars, or could tell them about the Assassins being there, yet it was unethical for Altiar to have killed him.

Therefore by this precedent, and the Creed the game is named after it would imply that it is intended for you to be able to(and to avoid) killing anyone in a casual circumstance like traveling through a City. So I would say based on that you are supposed to not kill people if you can help it.

SixKeys
03-31-2014, 01:36 AM
Doesn't anyone remember the tenant of the Creed....."Spare my blade, from the flesh of an innocent"(AC1). Therefore by virtue of the Creed you should never have to kill anyone unless they are a Templar, or directly aiding, or defending said Templar. So by following the Creed it should be intended by developers to not have to kill anyone unless you choose to. Thus being able to simply move across a city should not warrant you having to kill anyone. Even if they are a guard, in theory they have families,etc. and do not HAVE to die if it is not absolutely necessary. We see this explained in the Very beginning of AC1 where Altiar kills an old man. The man being there implies that he supports or is aiding the Templars, or could tell them about the Assassins being there, yet it was unethical for Altiar to have killed him.

Therefore by this precedent, and the Creed the game is named after it would imply that it is intended for you to be able to(and to avoid) killing anyone in a casual circumstance like traveling through a City. So I would say based on that you are supposed to not kill people if you can help it.

AC2 and AC4 get around the Creed because the main character isn't actually an assassin until the last few sequences of the game. ACB, ACR and AC3 have no excuse, other than it just makes for more exciting gameplay.

MiguelSanch2014
03-31-2014, 01:42 AM
Does anyone else miss randomly running into Templar knights in secluded areas like in AC1? You'd be strolling or parkouring along, minding your own business, then you turned a corner into a quaint little garden.... "ICH WERDE DICH TÖTEN, KETZER!!!"

Bloody heart attack, every time. But it made exploring the cities a lot more unpredictable and interesting. Even places that looked safe could be hiding a Templar in a corner.

Late to the party here but agree entirely!!!!!!

Dome500
03-31-2014, 02:58 AM
Okay you know what? You win M.

You seem to have done your "analysis", and you seem to have been perfect at it and seem to have poured hundreds of hours into the research of that single thing.
Then okay, let's say AC3 is easier and better in terms of parkour than AC2.

Then explain to me 1 thing and I'll let this topic rest, because I seriously do not see us getting anywhere otherwise:

Why do a lot of people experience AC3's parkour as so absolutely annoying and not at all comfortable then, if it is - from a totally rational and objective POV which you seem to provide - a much better and more comfortable experience in AC3?

Jexx21
03-31-2014, 03:00 AM
Because people experience things differently.

Assassin_M
03-31-2014, 03:11 AM
Okay you know what? You win M.
I don't really want it to be this way. I don't want to win anything..


Why do a lot of people experience AC3's parkour as so absolutely annoying and not at all comfortable then, if it is - from a totally rational and objective POV which you seem to provide - a much better and more comfortable experience in AC3?

Because people experience things differently.
Exactly what he said ^

look at Sixkeys for example. I never told her she was wrong or that she should play it again and she didn't tell me I was wrong. Her game was so buggy to the point that she was falling through trees and clotheslines. the game wasn't that way for me.
Another thing is the game itself. When someone doesn't like something, they don't bother with it anymore...being content with one experience and that's it. This analysis took me a lot of time. I played countless hours of AC II and AC III. I don't think ANYONE has played more hours of AC II nor III than I have.

This is a case of different experiences and I accepted that the very first moment you said it in your first reply to my post but then you started providing irrelevant scenarios in defense of AC II. Sixkeys' discussion with me ended with both of us acknowledging the difference in experience. It could'v been the same way with you and I.
if none of this is satisfying, i'll be uploading 3 videos soon. Parkour in NY, Parkour in Boston and Parkour in Venice. It'll be fair and you can judge for yourself and tell me if I made ANY mistake like missing a route, doing something wrong...etc it might take sometime but i'll definitely do it.

Dev_Anj
03-31-2014, 01:58 PM
if none of this is satisfying, i'll be uploading 3 videos soon. Parkour in NY, Parkour in Boston and Parkour in Venice. It'll be fair and you can judge for yourself and tell me if I made ANY mistake like missing a route, doing something wrong...etc it might take sometime but i'll definitely do it.

Please do that Assassin_M. I'm curious to actually see a thorough analysis of parkour and parkour routes in the Assassin's Creed games.

Kirokill
03-31-2014, 02:42 PM
Please do that Assassin_M. I'm curious to actually see a thorough analysis of parkour and parkour routes in the Assassin's Creed games.

I'm in too!

Assassin_M
03-31-2014, 03:21 PM
Free running in Boston. I chose 2 points based on the distance. the farthest distance in Venice is 826 steps, so that was my base for each city (since Venice is the smallest). I apologize if the quality is ugly. I'll upload the rest through the day.
Touched the ground only once, like I said.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KliH91grW4&feature=youtu.be

Kirokill
03-31-2014, 03:24 PM
I might be early M, it says the video is private.

Assassin_M
03-31-2014, 03:27 PM
I might be early M, it says the video is private.
whelp, sorry try it again now..

Kirokill
03-31-2014, 03:42 PM
Works and interesting.

Assassin_M
03-31-2014, 03:47 PM
Works and interesting.
Great, thank you for telling me.

When I upload everything, i'll make a post talking about the videos. I'll talk about the detection meter, the distance of detection, insta detect, fluidity..etc

SixKeys
03-31-2014, 03:50 PM
I don't know what system you have, M, but there are definitely differences in our experiences. I don't know why the guards in your video have such long detection times, but if I'd have done the same, I know for sure they'd have gone from yellow to red almost instantly if I passed so close to them.

After watching the video, I'm starting to think AC3's problem may not have been so much the wide streets between buildings, but the feeling of having no variety. Almost every time you come to a dead end, your only option is to take a long detour in the other direction, then jumping off a building and grabbing on to a window, then climbing up. You end up with parkour that doesn't feel fluid but rather like a chore: constantly jumping off a roof onto the side of another house, then climbing up. Jump off, grab window, climb up. It looks and feels tedious. I would have to see a similar video from AC2 to prove my theory, but I have the feeling that what AC2 and especially AC4 did right was offer more variation in the freerunning routes. If you came to a dead end, you didn't just constantly have to jump off and heave yourself up the side of the building. You could look for clotheslines, poles to swing on, corner lamps, etc.

Kirokill
03-31-2014, 03:55 PM
Or ziplines if they made a return, you drop out of them anytime.

Assassin_M
03-31-2014, 03:58 PM
I don't know what system you have, M, but there are definitely differences in our experiences. I don't know why the guards in your video have such long detection times, but if I'd have done the same, I know for sure they'd have gone from yellow to red almost instantly if I passed so close to them.
PS3. I don't know if it's a glitch on your part or mine but that's how it always was for me.


After watching the video, I'm starting to think AC3's problem may not have been so much the wide streets between buildings, but the feeling of having no variety. Almost every time you come to a dead end, your only option is to take a long detour in the other direction, then jumping off a building and grabbing on to a window, then climbing up. You end up with parkour that doesn't feel fluid but rather like a chore: constantly jumping off a roof onto the side of another house, then climbing up. Jump off, grab window, climb up. It looks and feels tedious. I would have to see a similar video from AC2 to prove my theory, but I have the feeling that what AC2 and especially AC4 did right was offer more variation in the freerunning routes. If you came to a dead end, you didn't just constantly have to jump off and heave yourself up the side of the building. You could look for clotheslines, poles to swing on, corner lamps, etc.
well, I'v shot me playing AC II about 5 times now because of unintentional jumping to the ground, unintentional leaps of faith and the mess of guards always chasing me, so I apologize if it takes some time to upload since i'll need to thoroughly cut it up on WMM because each video is about 15 minutes long.

I wont say anything, i'll let you decide yourself. for myself, I felt much MUCH more liberated when free-running in Boston than in Venice. for one, i have free control of the camera ALL the the time in AC III.

as for the dead end and backing up, it's the same case with AC II. there are places that are like that. particularly in the San Polo district

SixKeys
03-31-2014, 04:00 PM
Wish I could try this myself but I don't have access to my PC where both games are installed at the moment. :/

luckyto
03-31-2014, 04:07 PM
I love the tall buildings. Always have. New York has a few really tall buildings. Havana has a couple. My memory may be foggy, but it seemed AC2 and AC1 were sprinkled with them. I certainly don't see them as a problem. I enjoy them, so do others. Climbing to the tallest points in a city is part of AC's core... it just feels like part of the recipe.. and that's totally my subjective opinion, but I have a hard time imagining an AC game without them.


Does anyone else miss randomly running into Templar knights in secluded areas like in AC1? You'd be strolling or parkouring along, minding your own business, then you turned a corner into a quaint little garden.... "ICH WERDE DICH TÖTEN, KETZER!!!"

Bloody heart attack, every time. But it made exploring the cities a lot more unpredictable and interesting. Even places that looked safe could be hiding a Templar in a corner.

Of course.

Assassin_M
03-31-2014, 04:13 PM
Wish I could try this myself but I don't have access to my PC where both games are installed at the moment. :/
That's unfortunate. I would'v wanted anyone seeing my videos to try playing and describe their experiences...

luckyto
03-31-2014, 04:32 PM
On this whole Venice vs New York free-running debate, there is really no difference. Once you know where the guard locations are, you can free-run just as easily in both places. And yes, there are wide streets --- but there is so much more map. New York is much much much larger. Period. Overall, I agree with M... I think New York is just as easy, if not easier.

Though, I do think SixKeys has a point about "alternate" paths. It is much easier to identify alternate paths in every AC prior to ACIII. Perhaps it has to do with architecture. Or layout. Not sure. But either way, the first time through New York or Boston's rooftops, it's hard to get a sense of the best paths to go.

And I think that's where the impression comes from. The first time you free-run in New York - you do seem to run into dead ends and you do find yourself not knowing where to go. AC2's architecture was simply easier to grasp quickly. After you've played AC3, becoming comfortable with the map, you learn to adapt and can move just as quickly and for just as long distances as before --- even longer. And you learn where and how to avoid guards. It's just that learning curve is slightly higher. And since most players never get past their first impression --- they go on believing that AC3 is more difficult to traverse.

Assassin_M
03-31-2014, 04:40 PM
On this whole Venice vs New York free-running debate, there is really no difference. Once you know where the guard locations are, you can free-run just as easily in both places. And yes, there are wide streets --- but there is so much more map. New York is much much much larger. Period. Overall, I agree with M... I think New York is just as easy, if not easier.
It's Boston, not NY...I havent shot NY yet 8D


Though, I do think SixKeys has a point about "alternate" paths. It is much easier to identify alternate paths in every AC prior to ACIII. Perhaps it has to do with architecture. Or layout. Not sure. But either way, the first time through New York or Boston's rooftops, it's hard to get a sense of the best paths to go.
I can agree about alternate paths. it was much more defined in Venice than in Boston but it was still easy for me to identify the best way to go and reach my destination in AC III.


And I think that's where the impression comes from. The first time you free-run in New York - you do seem to run into dead ends and you do find yourself not knowing where to go. AC2's architecture was simply easier to grasp quickly. After you've played AC3, becoming comfortable with the map, you learn to adapt and can move just as quickly and for just as long distances as before --- even longer. And you learn where and how to avoid guards. It's just that learning curve is slightly higher. And since most players never get past their first impression --- they go on believing that AC3 is more difficult to traverse.
Well, there's something else with AC II. the insta detect. you can try and avoid most guards but there will always be the odd guard out standing behind a corner or in a lower building and he just happens to be RIGHT where you land. This is not a problem for me in AC III since I don't even have to pay as much attention with guards. they have no insta detect (unless you bump into them), their meter fills slower and the large chimneys help break their line of sight.

The map also does not help, since i can't know which direction a guard is facing..

luckyto
03-31-2014, 04:44 PM
One thing about AC2 is that it was often one guard. You simply kill him and move on. When navigating AC3's rooftops, you have small groups (2-3) guards. That changes everything. But AC3 actually has more space between guards. They are easier to avoid once you know where to go. IMO

lothario-da-be
03-31-2014, 04:46 PM
Awesome vid M, this shows that the cities in ac3 are also good for free-running.

Assassin_M
03-31-2014, 04:48 PM
One thing about AC2 is that it was often one guard. You simply kill him and move on. When navigating AC3's rooftops, you have small groups (2-3) guards. That changes everything. But AC3 actually has more space between guards. They are easier to avoid once you know where to go. IMO
Groups of 4-5 condensed into one place with no insta detect and slower filling meter is better than 4-5 guards scattered around rooftops, with insta detect and faster filling meter for me, to be honest..

luckyto
03-31-2014, 04:58 PM
They insta-detect me. Just seems they are easier to avoid once you know where they are.

My personal experience... going from AC1 to AC2 rooftops was a piece of cake. I could free-run and take out or avoid guards easy-peezy. ACIII had a learning curve. It took me a while to adapt. But once I did adapt, I can't say that one is more difficult than the other. And AC3 is probably easier if I had to pick.

cmrggamer
03-31-2014, 05:29 PM
Man, watching that video made me miss AC3. Such beautiful animations. I thought it was interesting to see how it's really not all that difficult to use only the rooftops to get around as that seemed to be a major complaint from people for some time. Just from watching the video, I'm imagining that AC2's buildings are further apart or that there are at least areas where it feels very expanse but maybe even a little empty? I'm very curious to see the AC2 comparison. I'd like to try this myself when I have time. :)

Dev_Anj
03-31-2014, 05:51 PM
Free running in Boston. I chose 2 points based on the distance. the farthest distance in Venice is 826 steps, so that was my base for each city (since Venice is the smallest). I apologize if the quality is ugly. I'll upload the rest through the day.
Touched the ground only once, like I said.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KliH91grW4&feature=youtu.be

Thanks, Assassin_M! Interestingly, most let's plays of Assassin's Creed games that I've seen treat freerunning as if it were a really boring feature to watch, and they cut out huge portions of the traversal. Your video isn't as well produced as those, but it makes the freerunning look interesting. After watching that video, I honestly don't see how people can complain about Assassin's Creed 3's cities being bad for freerunning, or the cities not having interesting architecture(though I suppose they should have put some monuments or small sections to break up the normal houses throughout the city).

TO_M
03-31-2014, 06:10 PM
I'm also curious to see whether or not the free-running/parkour was better in AC:2 than in AC:3, I thought it was anyway.

I'll post my experience later this evening.

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 02:09 AM
Awesome vid M, this shows that the cities in ac3 are also good for free-running.
Thank you. I really just pop up AC III every once in a while to parkour.


They insta-detect me. Just seems they are easier to avoid once you know where they are.
Wasn't the case for me in AC II. you'll see in the video. EVEN if i know where they are and try to avoid them, something pops up like insta-detect.


My personal experience... going from AC1 to AC2 rooftops was a piece of cake. I could free-run and take out or avoid guards easy-peezy. ACIII had a learning curve. It took me a while to adapt. But once I did adapt, I can't say that one is more difficult than the other. And AC3 is probably easier if I had to pick.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think AC II's parkour is very smooth and fluid but I enjoy AC III's more because of certain aspects like the freedom of camera control. It took me time to adapt too but that's only because of the slight revamping of the controls. just a few minutes of practice for and that was that. it was like butter for me after that.


Man, watching that video made me miss AC3. Such beautiful animations. I thought it was interesting to see how it's really not all that difficult to use only the rooftops to get around as that seemed to be a major complaint from people for some time. Just from watching the video, I'm imagining that AC2's buildings are further apart or that there are at least areas where it feels very expanse but maybe even a little empty? I'm very curious to see the AC2 comparison. I'd like to try this myself when I have time. :)
The animations are so amazing indeed.

Venice does have areas where buildings are sparse like around landmarks. add that to the fact that the extreme detection system of the guards and their numbers makes me take routes that lead to dead ends and i'm forced to back-up. I would hope that you try it one day. I really wish everyone would try it and describe their experiences. I'd love to read everyone's.


Thanks, Assassin_M! Interestingly, most let's plays of Assassin's Creed games that I've seen treat freerunning as if it were a really boring feature to watch, and they cut out huge portions of the traversal. Your video isn't as well produced as those, but it makes the freerunning look interesting. After watching that video, I honestly don't see how people can complain about Assassin's Creed 3's cities being bad for freerunning, or the cities not having interesting architecture(though I suppose they should have put some monuments or small sections to break up the normal houses throughout the city).
you're welcome, it was fun. Yeah, i guess they sometimes comply with their fans' demands (the watchers of the playthroughs) and compared to them, yeah my video sucks 8D

It's just my experience and I would still understand if someone prefers Renaissance architecture to Colonial. Venice and Florence are beautiful.


I'm also curious to see whether or not the free-running/parkour was better in AC:2 than in AC:3, I thought it was anyway.

I'll post my experience later this evening.
Would love to read your experience.

Editing the Venice video now.

BATISTABUS
04-01-2014, 02:20 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KliH91grW4&feature=youtu.be
Subbed ;) Although, I'm not quite sure what's going on in that channel...

AC3 animations are gahlike. A large portion of my desire for another Connor game is just to see/hear him in action again.


One thing about AC2 is that it was often one guard. You simply kill him and move on. When navigating AC3's rooftops, you have small groups (2-3) guards. That changes everything.
I'll have to agree with this.

Also, I cannot stand the sound of the AC3 guards yelling at me. It's so loud, annoying, abrupt, and frequent. I cannot be up there for a second without getting screamed at. Even if guards yelling were that frequent in previous games, their voices didn't annoy me nearly as much.

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 02:32 AM
Subbed ;) Although, I'm not quite sure what's going on in that channel...
it's actually my brother's channel. He used to troll people with it :p


AC3 animations are gahlike. A large portion of my desire for another Connor game is just to see/hear him in action again.
Indeed. AC IV's animations, while amazing, had some issues and just didn't suit Edward imo

SpiritOfNevaeh
04-01-2014, 03:09 AM
Free running in Boston. I chose 2 points based on the distance. the farthest distance in Venice is 826 steps, so that was my base for each city (since Venice is the smallest). I apologize if the quality is ugly. I'll upload the rest through the day.
Touched the ground only once, like I said.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KliH91grW4&feature=youtu.be

Awesome upload, M! Ah, the good times~

>_>

<_<

Resistance is futile.....

*starts playing AC3*


A large portion of my desire for another Connor game is just to see/hear him in action again.

Also, I cannot stand the sound of the AC3 guards yelling at me. It's so loud, annoying, abrupt, and frequent. I cannot be up there for a second without getting screamed at. Even if guards yelling were that frequent in previous games, their voices didn't annoy me nearly as much.

Agreed.

TO_M
04-01-2014, 03:25 AM
I did a quick back and forth between both Venice and New York and here are my impressions:

- Parkour in New York isn't as bad as I remember it, I only had to touch the ground once to complete my route, which I also had to do in Venice.
- Guard detection in Venice definitely seemed to fill up faster than in NY, the guard detection in Venice varied from medium-slow to instant detection while his wasn't the case in NY where the detection meter always started out yellow and filled up accordingly
- However, in NY I definitely noted that guard detection meters popped up a lot more than in Venice, which I'm not sure meant that NY had more guards or that they are able to spot you from a further distance. It might have just been my route in NY but I saw a freakishly amount of yellow detection meters pop up.
- I only got hostile detection in NY once, where I think I had 3 or 4 in Venice. I did however just did a full on run through in both cities.
- In both AC 2 and 3 guards would notice the sounds made by running on the roofs, this isn't the case anymore in AC:4 where you can just run towards a guard on the roof and he will not notice. They need to change that back.
- While AC:2's parkour control scheme felt a bit clumsy when having to readjust to it again, I do however feel that this control scheme was the better/more challenging one and allows more parkour freedom/creativity than the parkour controls done in both AC:3 and 4.
- Something I liked about the parkour in AC:2 was that because of the "tall" buildings if there was a guard in my route that I couldn't avoid on the rooftops I could most of the time go down a level and parkour past them on the balcony's and such that were present on a lot of buildings, if I remember correct.
- I definitely liked Venice's atmosphere better than NY's.

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 03:42 AM
Very good, i hope you had fun.

I did a quick back and forth between both Venice and New York and here are my impressions:

- However, in NY I definitely noted that guard detection meters popped up a lot more than in Venice, which I'm not sure meant that NY had more guards or that they are able to spot you from a further distance. It might have just been my route in NY but I saw a freakishly amount of yellow detection meters pop up.
it is because of the farther spotting distance in AC III, yes..


- While AC:2's parkour control scheme felt a bit clumsy when having to readjust to it again, I do however feel that this control scheme was the better/more challenging one and allows more parkour freedom/creativity than the parkour controls done in both AC:3 and 4.
This was the opposite for me. I felt that while AC II provided more control, the liberation from the 2-button for sprinting system has become essential for me.


- Something I liked about the parkour in AC:2 was that because of the "tall" buildings if there was a guard in my route that I couldn't avoid on the rooftops I could most of the time go down a level and parkour past them on the balcony's and such that were present on a lot of buildings, if I remember correct.
I did that once in my video, makes the parkour sequence very smooth when you manage to get to it. however, the problem with it is going down to near street level AND going back up to roof level (since it leads back to the ground most of the time) the process of reaching those places is tedious for me.


- I definitely liked Venice's atmosphere better than NY's.
Agreed.

I didn't shoot NY yet but i'll be sure to post it when I upload it.

uploading Venice now..

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 04:08 AM
and done. Doing this made me want to do one with Florence too >_> Florence is a much better parkour ground...
also, apologies for some of the botches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U79Ge0pCHnA&amp;list=UUfJWliRzrW0xNRacjAFybFg

phoenix-force411
04-01-2014, 06:29 AM
I want Viewpoints to be much more integrated into the world and organic. I've always hated those awkward beams that sort ruin the architecture of the building it is protruding from. I would like to know if Assassins made those and put them there for their fellow assassins. ACIII had none of those beams on its viewpoints, and so, I appreciated that.

Legendz54
04-01-2014, 06:43 AM
and done. Doing this made me want to do one with Florence too >_> Florence is a much better parkour ground...
also, apologies for some of the botches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U79Ge0pCHnA&amp;list=UUfJWliRzrW0xNRacjAFybFg


Nice video :) I can say that from watching this and playing all AC's I felt AC3's parkour and was much immersive and smooth even though Boston may be inferior to the italian setting. Watching AC2 just then it seemed very boxy and just jumping from one point to another and it seemed a bit sluggish where as AC3's parkour flowed much better.

phoenix-force411
04-01-2014, 06:47 AM
Nice video :) I can say that from watching this and playing all AC's I felt AC3's parkour and was much immersive and smooth even though Boston may be inferior to the italian setting. Watching AC2 just then it seemed very boxy and just jumping from one point to another and it seemed a bit sluggish where as AC3's parkour flowed much better.
It may be boring, but it's the smoothest parkour in any of the series.

I-Like-Pie45
04-01-2014, 06:47 AM
everyone knows that neither ezio or connor can hold a candle to the true freerun master: Spider-Man

Dev_Anj
04-01-2014, 10:54 AM
Once again, you showed off the parkour well. I agree that the parkour in Assassin's Creed 2 is considerably slower and Ezio is less agile than Connor. Also, I don't see now how Venice was more interesting than Boston, although it did have some monuments, churches and some pleasant canals lying around.

Also those four videos you have, are you in three of those videos? Or is it someone else? I didn't watch any of those, just checked the thumbnails.

Although I understand that your brother used these videos for trolling.

Jexx21
04-01-2014, 01:44 PM
Nice video :) I can say that from watching this and playing all AC's I felt AC3's parkour and was much immersive and smooth even though Boston may be inferior to the italian setting. Watching AC2 just then it seemed very boxy and just jumping from one point to another and it seemed a bit sluggish where as AC3's parkour flowed much better.
thanks for your signature spoiling me jerk

cmrggamer
04-01-2014, 02:37 PM
Great video, M! It was really interesting to see the differences in the parkour. It's probably the animations and fluidity of AC3, but I just find that AC3's free-running looks a lot more enjoyable and even though it was weird at first not to hold down the sprint button, I have to admit it really does liberate the player. I really want to try this with Florence :)

Legendz54
04-01-2014, 02:50 PM
thanks for your signature spoiling me jerk

Really? Its been what... a month.. If you havent played it by now thats your own fault..

Jexx21
04-01-2014, 03:17 PM
Really? Its been what... a month.. If you havent played it by now thats your own fault..

**** you man, you're an *******.

jdowny
04-01-2014, 03:18 PM
I've just done a quick rooftop run of AC II and III and the main cities - I'll put the analysis at the end. Just a few points I'd like to query with you first M if you don't mind.



I wont say anything, i'll let you decide yourself. for myself, I felt much MUCH more liberated when free-running in Boston than in Venice. for one, i have free control of the camera ALL the the time in AC III.

What do you mean having free control of the camera all the time in AC III? As far as I can tell the two games are the same.


Wasn't the case for me in AC II. you'll see in the video. EVEN if i know where they are and try to avoid them, something pops up like insta-detect.

How do you mean insta-detect? The guards in AC II have a meter, just like they do in AC III. Both guards will insta-detect you if you get too close however.

EDIT: I think I know what you mean - 3:45 in your Venice video right? That never happened with me. I've got that close before and they've been fine. Weird. Was your wanted level up at all when you made this?

EDIT 2: I've just watched the Venice video all the way through - I'm playing on PC and the meter definitely doesn't fill up that quickly. Maybe they're different?


Groups of 4-5 condensed into one place with no insta detect and slower filling meter is better than 4-5 guards scattered around rooftops, with insta detect and faster filling meter for me, to be honest..

I disagree with this, if only because having guards shouting at you to get down is incredibly frustrating for me. As someone said earlier, it happens so frequently. The longer detection range of the guards in ACI III means that they can spot you from a block away, meaning that there's no way to move across the map without being spotted. Having four of them in one place makes this worse, as there's often no route around them which will avoid you getting noticed. Moving about unseen is one of the hallmarks of being an assassin - and there should be no better way to experience this than on rooftops. Too many guards is one thing, but I'd much rather have guards with a meter than fills quicker but with lower detection range than the other way around.

But on to the rooftop run. Note that in both games I basically just tried to do them quickly, but not recklessly. I didn't spend too long looking at the map and just tried to go by instinct with planning too much. Surprisingly it worked pretty well.

AC III

I tried both Boston and New York, and found New York significantly easier and more fun. This is partly because it's shorter, since half the map is just fields or burnt out buildings, but it's mainly because it's laid out in a grid, making moving from point A to point B easy.

Boston however was more challenging. The houses are further apart, there aren't as many 'bridges' (clothes lines, trees etc.) as in AC II and the layout is more haphazard. I was caught twice, but the first was more my fault than the game's - I jumped from one floor to one of the lookout posts below, not realising that there was a guard right below me - my bad. The second time however was just plain annoying. I wanted to lower myself down the edge of a house in order to get low enough to jump to the next building. I pressed the button to do this but instead the game thought I wanted to air tackle a guard three storeys below.

AC II

I agree with those saying that there are too many guards in Venice, but I think I know why this is. The AC games basically use the same props and NPCs for missions as during free-roam. So if there's a mission where the player has to infiltrate a place surrounded by guards (Palazzo della Seta in AC II for instance), those guards will be there in free-roam as well. This is the reason why the carnival is always there in that district for instance.

I found Venice surprisingly fine though. As someone said, there are a lot more of the railings and beams sticking out from the side of the buildings to traverse that way, so you can avoid actually going on the rooftops. In AC III there don't seem to be as many. I wasn't caught once and was only noticed a handful of times. A large part of this is probably down to one fact - if you can target the guards, they can detect you. Your detection range and theirs is exactly the same. This makes it extremely easy to avoid them and it makes sense (highlighted for emphasis).

Florence was just a walk in the park - there were hardly any guards. I think I was noticed twice in going from west to east. It probably had too few guards to be challenging, but this makes sense because it's the first city in the game. But somewhere between Florence and Venice in terms of the amount of guards would be fine for me.

Tally

I kept a tally of the number of times I was noticed in the games, or the number of times I was told to get down.

AC II

Venice: 12
Florence: 2

AC III

New York: 28
Boston: 36

I think this is why rooftop runs in AC III were practically ruined for me - I was being told to get down almost the entire time. Not being caught is easy, but not being noticed is impossible. And I know the object of this rooftop run involved not killing anyone, but that's not necessarily how I'd play normally - but again this is almost impossible to do if you're trying to do it stealthily. You can't even pick them off with the bow without alerting the guards close by.

I mentioned this earlier, but at least in AC II you can see the guards on the rooftops. In Boston especially, the steep slopes on the roofs and the fact that the guard platforms were tucked away meant that the guards were much harder to spot from a distance, especially if you're in a hurry.


After watching the video, I'm starting to think AC3's problem may not have been so much the wide streets between buildings, but the feeling of having no variety. Almost every time you come to a dead end, your only option is to take a long detour in the other direction, then jumping off a building and grabbing on to a window, then climbing up. You end up with parkour that doesn't feel fluid but rather like a chore: constantly jumping off a roof onto the side of another house, then climbing up. Jump off, grab window, climb up. It looks and feels tedious. I would have to see a similar video from AC2 to prove my theory, but I have the feeling that what AC2 and especially AC4 did right was offer more variation in the freerunning routes. If you came to a dead end, you didn't just constantly have to jump off and heave yourself up the side of the building. You could look for clotheslines, poles to swing on, corner lamps, etc.

Yep, I found that in my playthrough - AC II's freerunning felt a lot smoother and less effort. Buildings led onto one another without too many huge gaps. Where I did have to jump across blocks there was more often than not a bridge or a platform on the other side that made it feel smooth. This contrasted with Boston where, as you say, I'm forced to make a huge jump onto some obscure ledge half way up the building.

Tully__
04-01-2014, 03:20 PM
Really? Its been what... a month.. If you havent played it by now thats your own fault..


**** you man, you're an *******.
Perhaps you two could "ignore" each other before one of the moderation team has to put a stop to this. :nonchalance:

Jexx21
04-01-2014, 03:29 PM
nah he's a nice guy besides spoiling another game in his signature that he respectfully removed
i think that's cool

Kirokill
04-01-2014, 03:29 PM
What do you mean having free control of the camera all the time in AC III? As far as I can tell the two games are the same.
Holding two buttons (R1+X for PS3) [RT+A for X360] requires using your right thumb to sprint, and with AC3 requiring one button to sprint makes you able to use your right thumb to move the camera which is way better.

Tully__
04-01-2014, 03:32 PM
nah he's a nice guy besides spoiling another game in his signature that he respectfully removed
i think that's cool
I removed it as it was in breach of the forum rules on signature image size / file size.

I-Like-Pie45
04-01-2014, 03:34 PM
You should reinforce those rules more consistently.

Tully__
04-01-2014, 03:41 PM
You should reinforce those rules more consistently.
I act on that rule whenever it comes to my attention that there's a breach. There are tens of thousands of "active" members using the forums and we don't have time to check every sig and avatar.

If you have concerns about a particular sig or avatar, PM a moderator or report one of the posts that includes it.

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 03:48 PM
Thanks, everyone..


Once again, you showed off the parkour well. I agree that the parkour in Assassin's Creed 2 is considerably slower and Ezio is less agile than Connor. Also, I don't see now how Venice was more interesting than Boston, although it did have some monuments, churches and some pleasant canals lying around.
It's a preference i guess. The architecture looks beautiful.


Also those four videos you have, are you in three of those videos? Or is it someone else? I didn't watch any of those, just checked the thumbnails.
No, i'm a guy:p


Although I understand that your brother used these videos for trolling.
Yup 8D




Great video, M! It was really interesting to see the differences in the parkour. It's probably the animations and fluidity of AC3, but I just find that AC3's free-running looks a lot more enjoyable and even though it was weird at first not to hold down the sprint button, I have to admit it really does liberate the player. I really want to try this with Florence:)
Thank you:D it was actually interesting for me too to watch side by side. AC III just feels so much more fluid for me.

I would hope that you'd post your experience when you try:p




I've just done a quick rooftop run of AC II and III and the main cities - I'll put the analysis at the end. Just a few points I'd like to query with you first M if you don't mind.
Don't mind at all.


What do you mean having free control of the camera all the time in AC III? As far as I can tell the two games are the same.
Sprinting in AC II requires holding down 2 buttons. the high profile button and the legs button resulting in the infamous Assassin hook. it's not that way in AC III. You only need to hold the high profile button for sprinting and like I said, while that takes away some control, it liberates my thumb to control the camera freely any time.


How do you mean insta-detect? The guards in AC II have a meter, just like they do in AC III. Both guards will insta-detect you if you get too close however.
Wasn't the case with me. Both have a meter yes, but AC II's guards' fills faster and it's an insta-detect if you're just a few feet away. in AC III, the meter fill is slower and they only insta-detect you if you bump into them.

at least that was the case for me.


EDIT: I think I know what you mean - 3:45 in your Venice video right? That never happened with me. I've got that close before and they've been fine. Weird. Was your wanted level up at all when you made this?
Nope, not at all. you can see the notoriety in the video is incognito.


EDIT 2: I've just watched the Venice video all the way through - I'm playing on PC and the meter definitely doesn't fill up that quickly. Maybe they're different?
Perhaps but that's just what I mean. difference in experience.


I disagree with this, if only because having guards shouting at you to get down is incredibly frustrating for me. As someone said earlier, it happens so frequently. The longer detection range of the guards in ACI III means that they can spot you from a block away
it didn't really bother me since their meter fills slowly and since there're lots of large chimneys to hide behind. for me, it's better to have guards shouting constantly but with a more forgiving insta-detect than guards being so sensitive like you've seen in my video.


meaning that there's no way to move across the map without being spotted.
That's the case for me in AC II as well but rather than being spotted, it's being detected. I can't cross AC II without being detected.


Having four of them in one place makes this worse, as there's often no route around them which will avoid you getting noticed. Moving about unseen is one of the hallmarks of being an assassin - and there should be no better way to experience this than on rooftops. Too many guards is one thing, but I'd much rather have guards with a meter than fills quicker but with lower detection range than the other way around.
Well, you're going to get seen anyway...by Civilians or by guards, so the hallmark thing is really pointless. If you go by rooftops, guards will see you, if you use the trinkets on the side of buildings, civilians will see you and comment, so it's a loss-loss situation if you want to be COMPLETELY unseen.
Like I said, it's the complete opposite for me. I much preferred running Across Boston than I did running across Venice.

also, thank you for your quick analysis, I enjoy reading everyone's.

Kirokill
04-01-2014, 03:56 PM
Whats with that sig xD???

Tully__
04-01-2014, 03:59 PM
Whats with that sig xD???
Sig size limits: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/659582

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 04:00 PM
Whats with that sig xD???
I love Ezio and Cesare...they're the best characters ever:)

I-Like-Pie45
04-01-2014, 04:02 PM
For shame, M. Everyone knows the proper pairing is EzioxClaudia

I like to watch the two of them run up tall buildings together

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 04:04 PM
Sig size limits: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/659582
I resized it now..that works?


For shame, M. Everyone knows the proper pairing is EzioxClaudia

I like to watch the two of them run up tall buildings together
Maybe next April:p

jdowny
04-01-2014, 04:14 PM
Well, you're going to get seen anyway...by Civilians or by guards, so the hallmark thing is really pointless. If you go by rooftops, guards will see you, if you use the trinkets on the side of buildings, civilians will see you and comment, so it's a loss-loss situation if you want to be COMPLETELY unseen.

I managed to cross Florence and was only spotted twice - I could probably do a similar job in all the cities of AC 1. And this made me feel like an assassin. Personally I'd rather be spotted 12 times as I was in Venice than 36 times as I was in Boston, regardless of whether I'm detected or not. I could stand indefinitely on a typical rooftop in Venice and probably not be detected. But I've tried standing on a typical rooftop in Boston/New York and it seems the odds are that some guard (or four) will be shouting at me to get down. The hallmark isn't pointless for me - it exists - just not in every game.

But as you say, it's down to a difference in experience. I'm curious about how quickly the meter filled up in AC 2 for you. I'll look into that a bit more. I play on PC and without the HUD so I don't notice it so much, but perhaps there's a difference.

Civilians don't bother me so much because there isn't any punishment involved. Plus if the buildings are tall enough, they can't see you using the railings and beams. Neither can the guards for that matter, making them some of the best ways to navigate.


also, thank you for your quick analysis, I enjoy reading everyone's.

No problem, thanks for yours. I'm enjoying reading everyone's too.

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 04:22 PM
I managed to cross Florence and was only spotted twice
I can cross it without being spotted a single time.


I could probably do a similar job in all the cities of AC 1
Same


Personally I'd rather be spotted 12 times as I was in Venice than 36 times as I was in Boston
Well, you're spotted anyway, so it doesnt matter how many times for me..


regardless of whether I'm detected or not. I could stand indefinitely on a typical rooftop in Venice and probably not be detected. But I've tried standing on a typical rooftop in Boston/New York and it seems the odds are that some guard (or four) will be shouting at me to get down. The hallmark isn't pointless for me - it exists - just not in every game.
Really?? I could do the same in both Boston/NY and Venice without being spotted at all...I just have to either find a large chimney or a building with no guards around.


But as you say, it's down to a difference in experience. I'm curious about how quickly the meter filled up in AC 2 for you. I'll look into that a bit more. I play on PC and without the HUD so I don't notice it so much, but perhaps there's a difference.
I'd say half the time required for AC III's detection to fill is how quickly AC II's fills up.


Civilians don't bother me so much because there isn't any punishment involved.
I thought for you it was not being seen in general..


Plus if the buildings are tall enough, they can't see you using the railings and beams. Neither can the guards for that matter, making them some of the best ways to navigate.
For me, just getting to those beams from the rooftops can be a chore. The sluggish controls makes it such a bothersome process to go reach the beams/posts/balconies and you still have to find a way to get back up on the rooftops. So yeah, while they DO offer a smooth sequence of parkour, the cumbersome process of getting there makes it a chore.


No problem, thanks for yours. I'm enjoying reading everyone's too.
Hope there'll be more who'd offer their experiences.

jdowny
04-01-2014, 04:54 PM
I can cross it without being spotted a single time.

Good for you. But was this not so much more enjoyable than being told to get down every few seconds by AC III's guards?


Well, you're spotted anyway, so it doesnt matter how many times for me..

Really? Does it not get annoying?


Really?? I could do the same in both Boston/NY and Venice without being spotted at all...I just have to either find a large chimney or a building with no guards around.

I said a typical rooftop. Anyone can find a point where they can't be seen. :p


I thought for you it was not being seen in general..

Yes, not being seen by the guards. I never mentioned civilians in my original point, though come to think of it not being seen by civilians is a bonus for me. Either way a lot of the railings in AC II were beyond ground level so they didn't notice you anyway.

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 05:02 PM
Good for you. But was this not so much more enjoyable than being told to get down every few seconds by AC III's guards?
Not really because like I said, i don't really care about being spotted. if anything it makes me feel pretty awesome. "DOWN YOU BASTERD" "**** off, i'm doing my thing" and I have enough time to NOT be detected too. besides, Florence is the smallest between Venice, Boston and NY AND it has the least amount of guards..


Really? Does it not get annoying?
Not at all because like I said, just makes me feel like a boss ignoring everyone..


I said a typical rooftop. Anyone can find a point where they can't be seen. :p
Well, i can't do that in AC III too xP


Yes, not being seen by the guards. I never mentioned civilians in my original point, though come to think of it not being seen by civilians is a bonus for me. Either way a lot of the railings in AC II were beyond ground level so they didn't notice you anyway.
I know but you mentioned stealth and all being a hallmark so I assumed that you wouldn't want to be seen AT ALL and since you get annoyed by guards telling you things, i thought you'd be annoyed by civilians commenting too.

I think i explained my problem with railings, so no need for me to sound repetitive xP

jdowny
04-01-2014, 05:14 PM
Not really because like I said, i don't really care about being spotted. if anything it makes me feel pretty awesome. "DOWN YOU BASTERD" "**** off, i'm doing my thing" and I have enough time to NOT be detected too. besides, Florence is the smallest between Venice, Boston and NY AND it has the least amount of guards..

Fair enough.


I know but you mentioned stealth and all being a hallmark so I assumed that you wouldn't want to be seen AT ALL and since you get annoyed by guards telling you things, i thought you'd be annoyed by civilians commenting too.

And I've explained my answer about civilians.


I think i explained my problem with railings, so no need for me to sound repetitive xP

You did, but I'm not referring to your experience, just to mine.

Kaschra
04-01-2014, 05:18 PM
Whats with that sig xD???
WTF Cesare x Ezio is an AMAZING pairing! Respect the ship! :mad:

Kirokill
04-01-2014, 06:16 PM
WTF Cesare x Ezio is an AMAZING pairing! Respect the ship! :mad:

So much sparkling, so much hearts!
This reminded me of some pretty old things, like 2003...

Assassin_M
04-01-2014, 06:30 PM
And I've explained my answer about civilians.
of course, I was just explaining my thought process.


You did, but I'm not referring to your experience, just to mine.
Sure..


WTF Cesare x Ezio is an AMAZING pairing! Respect the ship! :mad:
zey so coote

Assassin_M
04-02-2014, 12:04 AM
Also, just a little note...

I got spotted in Boston by guards 17 times in my video..

Black_Widow9
04-02-2014, 01:56 AM
Topic please....

SixKeys
04-02-2014, 02:37 AM
God, I miss AC2's parkour. As smooth as AC3's animations are, oddly enough AC2's freerunning looks so much more fluid and interesting.

I-Like-Pie45
04-02-2014, 02:41 AM
Let's be honest with ourselves

neither of them look amazing

TO_M
04-02-2014, 02:52 AM
Let's be honest with ourselves

neither of them look amazing

I'm starting to wonder whether you really like pie.

jdowny
04-02-2014, 12:35 PM
God, I miss AC2's parkour. As smooth as AC3's animations are, oddly enough AC2's freerunning looks so much more fluid and interesting.

I actually agree with you on this. Though I suspect AC III's animations are better from a technical point of view, I still think AC II's looked better.

I think a lot of this is down to the speed of AC III's movements. Because there's no ability to jog, there's no middle ground. So Connor will sprint everywhere. But when the game can't leap from one object to another it has to essentially reposition the player. You get this horrible stop-start motion, particularly in the trees. You can see this in the first few seconds of M's Boston freerun, here https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-KliH91grW4#t=20

I'd really love to see the animations in HD slow motion, but I also suspect the transition between animations in AC III is a bit jarring too. It's hard to tell.

But I miss these animations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iitI7ZDaec

Rugterwyper32
04-02-2014, 03:08 PM
Actually, there is an ability to jog, and multiple speeds in AC3 as a matter of fact. It all depends, at least on the Xbox, on how much pressure you put on the Right Trigger. My main problem with it is the fact that even when you're moving slow you'll climb and jump around, but I still much prefer that over RT-A. As far as I remember, in AC2 it didn't really matter how much pressure you put on the triggers and you have 4 main speeds (walk, fast walk, jog, sprint). In AC3, I felt that having control over your speed based on the pressure on the trigger was actually pretty fantastic, the only time when I feel RT+A should be back is when you want to start climbing.
As for why it doesn't look better, the main thing I feel is that the transitions can be a bit abrupt sometimes, and I think they feel a bit... floaty sometimes, I could describe it? Altair and Ezio feel they have some more weight to them, I find.

jdowny
04-02-2014, 03:15 PM
Actually, there is an ability to jog, and multiple speeds in AC3 as a matter of fact. It all depends, at least on the Xbox, on how much pressure you put on the Right Trigger. My main problem with it is the fact that even when you're moving slow you'll climb and jump around, but I still much prefer that over RT-A. As far as I remember, in AC2 it didn't really matter how much pressure you put on the triggers and you have 4 main speeds (walk, fast walk, jog, sprint). In AC3, I felt that having control over your speed based on the pressure on the trigger was actually pretty fantastic, the only time when I feel RT+A should be back is when you want to start climbing.
As for why it doesn't look better, the main thing I feel is that the transitions can be a bit abrupt sometimes, and I think they feel a bit... floaty sometimes, I could describe it? Altair and Ezio feel they have some more weight to them, I find.

Speaking to a PC player here unfortunately. But I mean in terms of navigation - in previous games there was a three button approach - walk, run and sprint. The middle option allowed the player to drop down to an object below whereas the sprint option would have the player jump to the furthest object possible.

When this middle option was removed in AC III, it meant that control of the player's movements are more limited, or at least they are for me.

But having said that, I've never played AC on any other platform so I have no idea how it controls with the three-tier system of AC II as opposed to the two-tier system of AC III onwards - whether one's better than the other. So I might be critiquing something whose weaknesses are only relevant on PC.

I agree with you about the floaty animations. It's hard to describe - if anyone finds a slow-mo of AC III's rooftop animations, let me know! I'd love to see it.

DumbGamerTag94
04-02-2014, 04:01 PM
So I might be critiquing something whose weaknesses are only relevant on PC.


I would say this is pretty much the case. I play on an Xbox and the new system never really bothered me because I could controll the speed with the trigger pressure. You can just lightly press the trigger and the b button near the edge of a building and you can drop down to a catwalk, sign,balcony etc. and parkour on the mid level. Then use the same technique to reach street level. So the new system was alright in my opinion. It accomplished the same thing as the precious system(at least on Xbox) and made it more fluid with a one button pressure based system rather than having to clinch two buttons and it freed my a button up to jump when and to where I choose(rather than trusting the automated one when you hold only the trigger which often doesn't work properly or go where you want) So for that reason I prefer the new system. Maybe this can be fixed for PC if you can use a controller with pressure sensitive triggers. I don't know

D.I.D.
04-02-2014, 04:18 PM
Speaking to a PC player here unfortunately.

Fellow PC player. You should get an XBox controller. You're missing out on so much about the way these games feel and look. Obviously sometimes the mouse/kb choice is superior, but I play the majority of games on the controller now (plus I think it's had a subtle influence on the range of games I buy too!).

Assassin_M
04-02-2014, 04:21 PM
Here's one. It's just a bit at the beginning. I could probably try and replicate this glitch and video it again to post it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdk7SHFi7M

Regarding the 3-button format vs 2-button format. I would never want to go back to the 3 button format, much as it gives me more control over what I want to do. The 2 button format liberated my thumb for camera use. It was very awkward for me to abruptly slow down from my sprint to control the camera (not to mention that AC II's camera was horrible as it is for me) so while it took away control of what I wanted to do (climb/not to climb) it gave me freedom of camera control. I could also jog using analogue stick pressure so that wasn't a problem for me either.

Another thing that AC III did is the elimination of jumping somewhere where i didn't want to jump or accidental leap of faith. That was heaven for me. A good parkour sequence in AC II can be broken pre-maturely by Ezio jumping to the ground, falling through beams or just going off and doing a leap of faith. I had none of these problems in AC III. I had another one, which was easier to avoid. climbing things I did not want to climb...all i had to do was let go of the high profile just for a second so that i wouldn't climb anything. It didn't slow me down at all. so while AC III added another problem, it removed 3 and AC III's problem is much more manageable for me.

The final thing is the ability to easily jump from a higher place to a lower place with just the press of the unarmed hand button and the high profile button. this wasn't the case in AC II, unless the lower level was extremely close to where I was. I could get to ANY lower level plane with AC III's system, whereas in AC II, Ezio would go into the vaulting position along the side of the building.

AC III's animation did feel floaty sometimes but they felt smoother and more fluid. not to mention them looking very very good. a variety of jumping styles makes just watching these animations play out so awesome. the transition from one animation to the other feels seamless and natural.

So yeah, that's why I prefer AC III's system over AC II's any day...and I wont ever understand how someone can miss AC II's animations but that's okay, I don't expect anyone do understand any of my opinions.

Kirokill
04-02-2014, 04:23 PM
That glitch is produced by using eagle vision while air assassinating, done it few times. A joy I must say!

Assassin_M
04-02-2014, 04:25 PM
That glitch is produced by using eagle vision while air assassinating, done it few times. A joy I must say!
I think there's another method too. pressing start during an air assassination.

Kirokill
04-02-2014, 04:26 PM
I think there's another method too. pressing start during an air assassination.

Yeah and that too!

Locopells
04-02-2014, 05:38 PM
Yeah, I got that one a few times.

SixKeys
04-02-2014, 07:09 PM
Does anyone know if the slo-mo glitch works in AC4? Looks pretty badass.

Hans684
04-02-2014, 08:01 PM
Do even need buildings?

Jexx21
04-03-2014, 02:18 AM
Perfect way to fix parkour in AC3/AC4:

Don't have R2/RT automatically climb when you run into a wall. Require pressing X to start climbing, but don't require holding it down. Also require pressing X for long jumps. Seriously.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
04-03-2014, 04:21 AM
Can't remember if I already replied to this or not but...

Yes. AC definitely needs tall buildings. That said...the streets need to be tighter than they were in AC3, there needs to be roof guards but not to the extent that were present in AC3, guards need to turn and react if you sprint at them (I heard they don't anymore in AC4), etc.

There's a lot that needs to be considered.

Tall towers and buildings as landmarks as they help orient oneself in the city better and they're fun to climb if they're done as a semi-puzzle of sorts.

Cities need to be more dense with tighter streets. Bounding from roof to roof needs to be really fun. I found the streets in AC3 to be far to wide to be fun for parkour/roof running. The Ezio trilogy got this right: IMO all the cities were great; Venice, Florence, Rome, Constantinople, etc. All were great.

Parkour itself needs to be a mixture of AC2 and AC3. I love the fluidity of AC3's parkour but miss the more player-input heavy parkour of AC2. So instead of having the leap and grab be automatic like it was in AC3 or have the player press up, A, and then B like in AC2 -- I think the best thing is to have the player climbing, reach the point where they need to leap to the next ledge, and press A. The character would then leap up and grab the next ledge. No need to jump up AND have to press another button to grab back on. That made it clunky. AC2 was too clunky, AC3 was too automatic. I think bringing it in between is best.

Assassin_M
04-03-2014, 05:13 AM
Yes. AC definitely needs tall buildings. That said...the streets need to be tighter than they were in AC3, there needs to be roof guards but not to the extent that were present in AC3, guards need to turn and react if you sprint at them (I heard they don't anymore in AC4), etc.
cities need to be more dense with tighter streets. Bounding from roof to roof needs to be really fun. I found the streets in AC3 to be far to wide to be fun for parkour/roof running. The Ezio trilogy got this right: IMO all the cities were great; Venice, Florence, Rome, Constantinople, etc. All were great.

Did you watch my videos?

AidenPixxel
05-09-2014, 08:16 PM
I also made a video about free running in Havana


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLHiPTHmbmg

Great city!!!

Locopells
05-10-2014, 06:36 PM
Oopsy M! I'm trying to alert someone!

HercRembrandt
05-10-2014, 09:37 PM
Yes.