PDA

View Full Version : Why does AC give us way too many elements than we need?



RinoTheBouncer
04-01-2014, 10:25 PM
Okay, so this isnít a rant about one specific game, but Iím just wondering why AC kinda gives way too much elements than the actual size and needs of the game? for example, some AC games had way too many weapons than you can possibly have time to try or even need.

ACIII for example built a huge frontier, so many hunting methods and to be quite honest, I finished the game before I even needed half of those. I know itís meant for extended exploration but to me, it kinda feels pointless to give a huge location when the story barely takes place in 25% of it.

ACIV gave us diving locations and weíre swimming underwater for the very first time on a main console AC game. But lets be honest, how much did we really need that? the only mission where we had to go underwater, as far as I remember, was the one where we look for the medicines. I believe they couldíve easily made a whole level underwater where we find a Piece of Eden, or something of more importance. Something epic. But that did not happen and I finished the game 100% and it was all just for plunder.

AC:R had so many possibilities for making bombs and I think I only used 4 bombs throughout my whole play through, as far as I remember, if not less. AC:B had this pigeons thing which Iím well I also didnít bother with much.

Iím not saying that otherís AC experience should be tailored according to what I want. But Iím saying that AC games should either be longer in terms of the actually single player campaign or just give you as much as you need to use. I do enjoy extra missions, but I feel like most of the ďextraĒ stuff donít have much story value in them and itís just an excuse to go around killing or tailing someone and thatís it.

I feel like AC trains you to do things, gives you certain equipments and makes you feel like theyíre gonna be the base of the missions to come, while in fact, youíre just gonna use them once if at all so a lot of these ďfeaturesĒ feel like a waste of effort.

ze_topazio
04-02-2014, 12:53 AM
It's a open world game, it kind of need to have that kind of extras to be one.

xDEEZLx
04-02-2014, 12:58 AM
The more the merrier. This way everyone plays the way they see fit. Why he so restricted. More open equals more options of playability.

JustPlainQuirky
04-02-2014, 02:13 AM
It's because some people find hunting or swimming underwater boring and tedious. To accomodate, Ubisoft made those missions optional.

SixKeys
04-02-2014, 02:17 AM
I don't think everything needs to have a reason, as long as it's fun. AC2 tombs weren't necessary to the plot either. All you got from them was some loot and a key for an armor that you could choose to use or ignore. No different from the underwater locations in AC4, basically. AC3's wide selection of hunting tools or ACR's bombs weren't a bad idea per se, it's just that their use in the game wasn't implemented in a way that encouraged experimentation. There were no missions where a blood bomb ever seemed like a useful tool. The animals in AC3 were so easy to hunt (due to poor AI) that there was no real need for the clever use of tools. It's not the range of tools that's the problem, it's how fun or useful they are. AC4's diving locations were fun enough to justify their existence in the game. Sure, they could have been better, but I'd rather have them in the game than not.

The only time it bugs me when a game gives you too many useless features is if it feels like a chore (*cough*DenDefense*cough) or removes all challenge from the game.

deskp
04-02-2014, 02:41 AM
Sounds like you don't want to egange with the open world. Alot of people do. to wich all the optional stuff is fantastic.


And as other people said, why force people into doing stuff they might not want.


Besides if you want to upgrade your ship you need to do most of the diving.

dxsxhxcx
04-02-2014, 02:51 AM
I don't think everything needs to have a reason, as long as it's fun. AC2 tombs weren't necessary to the plot either. All you got from them was some loot and a key for an armor that you could choose to use or ignore. No different from the underwater locations in AC4, basically. AC3's wide selection of hunting tools or ACR's bombs weren't a bad idea per se, it's just that their use in the game wasn't implemented in a way that encouraged experimentation. There were no missions where a blood bomb ever seemed like a useful tool. The animals in AC3 were so easy to hunt (due to poor AI) that there was no real need for the clever use of tools. It's not the range of tools that's the problem, it's how fun or useful they are. AC4's diving locations were fun enough to justify their existence in the game. Sure, they could have been better, but I'd rather have them in the game than not.

The only time it bugs me when a game gives you too many useless features is if it feels like a chore (*cough*DenDefense*cough) or removes all challenge from the game.

this is true, it's a shame that many people only care about the aesthetic factor, they want tons of weapons for the fancy animations but don't care if a piece of paper, a dagger or a two-hand axe have almost the same efficiency during a battle, the same goes for different weapons of the same kind, what's the point in have 30 different swords if the most noticeable difference between sword #1 and #30 will be its skin?

RatonhnhakeFan
04-02-2014, 02:59 AM
Yep. Ubisoft was dead scared of repeating AC1 situation where everyone said the game didn't have enough variety. AC2 is great, but it DOES look like they pumped every idea they could think of into it. And those those that they didn't manage due to time constraints they pumped into ACB. Another big factor is annual release schedule of course, it forces them to add anything possible to 'justify' new installement and avoid getting called out in reviews. Add lack of balance to that, the devs are dead scared of removing some of the mechanics that already appeared in the series. Brothehood should've been removed from AC3 and the entire economy system reworked to focus on hunting. ACR should have majority of the arsenal removed to make room for bomb crafting.

TO_M
04-02-2014, 03:04 AM
The AC games following AC:1 tended to have a lot of extra/gimmicky features added which usually were at the expense of the "core" gameplay.

SixKeys
04-02-2014, 03:40 AM
Yep. Ubisoft was dead scared of repeating AC1 situation where everyone said the game didn't have enough variety. AC2 is great, but it DOES look like they pumped every idea they could think of into it. And those those that they didn't manage due to time constraints they pumped into ACB. Another big factor is annual release schedule of course, it forces them to add anything possible to 'justify' new installement and avoid getting called out in reviews. Add lack of balance to that, the devs are dead scared of removing some of the mechanics that already appeared in the series. Brothehood should've been removed from AC3 and the entire economy system reworked to focus on hunting. ACR should have majority of the arsenal removed to make room for bomb crafting.

^ So much this. It really is a problem that once a feature has been done once, the devs tend to carry it over into the next game, regardless of whether it makes sense or works in the gameplay's favor.

LoyalACFan
04-02-2014, 06:18 AM
Yep. Ubisoft was dead scared of repeating AC1 situation where everyone said the game didn't have enough variety. AC2 is great, but it DOES look like they pumped every idea they could think of into it. And those those that they didn't manage due to time constraints they pumped into ACB. Another big factor is annual release schedule of course, it forces them to add anything possible to 'justify' new installement and avoid getting called out in reviews. Add lack of balance to that, the devs are dead scared of removing some of the mechanics that already appeared in the series. Brothehood should've been removed from AC3 and the entire economy system reworked to focus on hunting. ACR should have majority of the arsenal removed to make room for bomb crafting.


The AC games following AC:1 tended to have a lot of extra/gimmicky features added which usually were at the expense of the "core" gameplay.

Both of these are very true. The gimmicky stuff has plagued the whole series (especially Revelations and kinda AC3) but I don't think gimmicks are necessarily a bad thing. If they're fun and they heighten the experience of playing in that time period, then they're more than welcome. Each game has had some good and some bad gimmicks though, so here's my breakdown of the good ideas, bad ideas, and the decent ideas that didn't quite land.

AC2

The Good
-Contracts. Extra assassinations are always fun.
-Races. Nothing Assassin-y about them, but it made sense that Ezio was a showoff and they gave us some beautiful tours of the cities.
-Glyphs. Puzzles connected directly to the modern lore that required legitimate critical thinking to solve.
-Tombs. Fun parkour sequences tied to a great final reward.

The Bad
-Beat-Up Events. They didn't even make sense, Ezio was just as big a philanderer as the guys he was thrashing.
-Courier Assignments. Lame. Lame lame lame lame lame. Lame.
-Feathers. Unmarked fetch quests that give you stupid rewards. Yay.

The Ugly
-Codex Pages. Theoretically it was cool that the collectibles actually did something tangible for you, but the final puzzle was really easy and having to constantly run back to Leonardo to decipher them sucked.

ACB

The Good
-Everything. I mean that. It's my least favorite AC game, but all the side content was fun and made sense being there.

ACR

The Good
-Recruit Training Missions. Sure, they were light on story, but I was happy that certain recruits were something other than the faceless minions they were in ACB, and it was really cool and natural to see the older Ezio taking on a more mature Mentor role.

The Bad
-Block Puzzles. These had no place in an AC game, provided no challenge, and added nothing to the modern story we didn't already know. Ugh.
-Den Defense. Just awful, RTS Assassin's Creed? Hell no.
-Renovations. Didn't make sense as the city wasn't in ruins like Rome, and the janky notoriety rules made them even worse.
-Animus Fragments. NO point in collecting these.

The Ugly
-Bombcrafting. This could have been cool if it was better developed and the different bomb types actually did something useful. As it was, I rarely used bombs, and even when I did I only used one of three combinations I made right at the start of the game.
-Hookblade. New parkour options would have been welcome, except the hookblade was really cartoony and didn't really change gameplay at all.

AC3

The Good
-Kidd Missions. For the same reason as the Tombs in AC2.
-Naval Missions/Contracts. Narratively, it was pushing the limits of believability, but the missions were fun and felt very 18th century.

The Bad
-Homestead. Connor taking a leadership role was cool and all, but the missions themselves were nothing short of eye-roll-inducing. Crappy, rushed cutscenes too. That subplot definitely should have been part of the main story.
-Delivery Requests. Even lamer than the AC2 ones.

The Ugly
-Hunting/Crafting. By all rights this was a good idea since Connor was a frontiersman, but by God, it was terrible in implementation. Crappy AI and aiming ruined hunting, confusing UI and broken economy system ruined crafting.
-Assassination Contracts. An Assassin game needs all the assassinations it can get, but these were pathetic.
-Liberations. A cool idea marred by confusing constraints and glitchiness.
-Clubs. Again, a cool idea, but the missions were weirdly constructed and felt more like chores than anything.

AC4

The Good
-Assassination Contracts. Finally, these got back on track.
-Harpooning. Very fun, very piratey.
-Hunting/Crafting. Took AC3's broken system, simplified and refined it, and ran with it.
-Templar Hunts. Pretty fun little missions with the coolest unlockable outfit since Altair's armor.
-Plantations. Smart, rewarding stealth sequences.
-Buried Chests. What's a pirate game without them?

The Bad
-Social Events/Community Challenges. Never again.

The Ugly
-Naval Contracts. For a half-Assassin, half-pirate game, you'd expect a pirate counterweight to assassination contracts, but these didn't quite work. Half of them just required me to hand over some cargo I already had.
-Mayan Stelae. Puzzles are good, but these were hardly puzzling.
-Collectibles. A lot of them were unrewarding, and having to constantly jump off of my ship to access the much-touted "over 75!" sandbanks for one stinking chest/fragment was annoying as hell near the end.

Farlander1991
04-02-2014, 07:26 AM
ACB

The Good
-Everything. I mean that. It's my least favorite AC game, but all the side content was fun and made sense being there.

While I do agree that in ACB all content made sense, I disagree that all side content was quality content.
Flags: there's too many of them and with the exception of a few that are located in cool little navigational puzzle locations, getting them was a chore (I think their number should've been limited).
Rome Renovation: again, too many of the shops, going around Rome buying all the stores becomes as chore-y as getting to the sandbanks in AC4, IMO.
Merchant Quests: had the potential to be nigh unbeatable due to rarity of getting certain items (and if you don't know that they're useful for later, since not all merchant quests are available at once, you could sell them and then kick yourself for it, so in the end you end up hoarding all the things)

LoyalACFan
04-02-2014, 08:54 AM
While I do agree that in ACB all content made sense, I disagree that all side content was quality content.
Flags: there's too many of them and with the exception of a few that are located in cool little navigational puzzle locations, getting them was a chore (I think their number should've been limited).
Rome Renovation: again, too many of the shops, going around Rome buying all the stores becomes as chore-y as getting to the sandbanks in AC4, IMO.
Merchant Quests: had the potential to be nigh unbeatable due to rarity of getting certain items (and if you don't know that they're useful for later, since not all merchant quests are available at once, you could sell them and then kick yourself for it, so in the end you end up hoarding all the things)

I forgot about shop quests, those did suck. My bad. But I thought removing the flags was OK because they were at least able to be marked on your map, they gave you a cool reward, and Rome really wasn't all that big. I only had to go out of my way to collect a couple of them. I mean, I don't even like collectibles in general, but they were certainly not as annoying as the nearly 100 sandbanks I had to swim to for the uber-pointless Animus fragments. And I actually really liked renovating Rome, so I guess that's just a matter of personal taste.

Sushiglutton
04-02-2014, 11:10 AM
I think some of it has to do with different playing styles. Reading other things you have posted I get the feeling you are very interested in the lore, the story, the campaign. I am a more of sandbox player. To you plantations may be a pointless side activity with no relevance to the story. To me they are the game (exaggerating a bit here). What I enjoy the most by far is to explore the worlds and "do stuff". I frequently find the campaigns with their excessive handholding, overly long tutorials and cutscenes to be kind of a drag (AC4 was much better though, with a lot more open missions). I don't expect the campaigns to ever be something I really enjoy as they must be designed for newcomers.

So if anything I want shorter campaigns and a greater emphasis on the sandbox :)!


@LoyalACFan: That's a very good breakdown which I pretty much completely agree with. I think the codex pages (+puzzle) were fine in AC2. For Ac4 I would add underwater sections to the ugly (they had great potential, but too many sharks ruined them) and smuggler's coves to the good (the idea of barehanded stealth was cool. Didn't really make much of a difference though. Still it was fine stealth sequences).