PDA

View Full Version : Should Optional Mission Objective Return in AC Unity?



Pages : [1] 2

Dead1y-Derri
05-10-2014, 12:51 PM
Should optional mission objectives return in AC Unity? These are objectives you get at the start of most missions in the AC campaigns.

I'm really undecided about this because I think on one hand they provide you with a challenge in some cases like don't engage directly in combat or assassinate your target from a bench. It does add a challenge.

However you also get objectives that don't really fit to the story like assassinating Roberts with a rope dart? It adds a challenge but at the same time doesn't make sense. Sometimes you'll get objective like kill four brutes or disable alarms and this take you away from the game.

One last point I'd like to make is that many have said 'they optional' but if you want a trophy you've got to do them which means you either do them there and then or do the missions again which can be a pain for some.

So what do you think? Yes or No or are you undecided about optional objectives like I am. I've included a poll to vote.

jayjay275
05-10-2014, 01:02 PM
No, because when I'm playing a game, I want to play it how I want to play it. I don't want a forced "optional" system that makes me feel bad if I don't do it.

ze_topazio
05-10-2014, 01:06 PM
They are harmless, some people like it, some people don't, sometimes they are interesting, sometimes they are stupid, they don't add or take anything to the game overall.

Sushiglutton
05-10-2014, 01:33 PM
First question is why Ubi has added optional objectives. I think they serve four purposes:

1) Give the player clues on how to complete the mission.
2) Give the player an incentive to try out the various mechanics/systems/tools in the game.
3) Add an extra level of challenge.
4) Add an incentive to replay missions.


Especially the first two reasons are fair and I can understand why they want to do that. AC is played by millions of gamers with various level of experience and skill. Therefor I don't think they should remove them. The important thing to me is that they become truly optional. I don't want to see them at all myself. I think there should be an option in the HUD customization menu to simply remove them. Problem for me is that they spoil the missions, tell me to do really immersion breaking things and give me clues I don't want.

(I hate writing laboration reports, which is why I make all these posts instead lol)

jayjay275
05-10-2014, 01:34 PM
I hate how they contribute to trophies too...

RinoTheBouncer
05-10-2014, 01:42 PM
NO. NO. NO.

Because when I play a game, I wanna play it however I see better. I don’t wanna have a “correct path” planned for me. I know it’s optional, but sooner or later, one will be forced to do it to get a 100% completion or a trophy or whatever. ACII and ACI had non of these and the ones that had them didn’t become better because they had them.

And don’t get me started about the optional objectives when some of them are totally unrelated to the mission. “Kill at least one guard with a pistol” or “Finish the mission under 4 minutes”. Now, especially with the latter, it totally doesn’t make sense because if the real Ezio for example finished the mission in 3:56 minutes and they wanna sync with such accuracy then it shouldn’t be before or after 3:56 because finishing at 3:54 isn’t what Ezio did and neither is finishing at 4:02.

LoyalACFan
05-10-2014, 01:43 PM
NO.

NOOOOOOOOOO.

They suck. I've hated them for three and a half years now. They limit player creativity, and there have been literally zero constraints that added anything novel or interesting to the experience. More often than not it's just a chore I have to complete before going about the actual objective (i.e. hang on, let me run around the fort searching for a few guards to use as meat shields before I take on El Tiburon)

Once again; NO.

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-10-2014, 01:50 PM
They are harmless, some people like it, some people don't, sometimes they are interesting, sometimes they are stupid, they don't add or take anything to the game overall.

Agreed. I'm kinda undecided because sometimes they're good and easy and sometimes they're tough and bothersome.

LoyalACFan
05-10-2014, 01:54 PM
Agreed. I'm kinda undecided because sometimes they're good and easy and sometimes they're tough and bothersome.

But see, that's exactly why they should go; either they're so easy there's no point to them even being there, or they're annoying, arbitrary, and limiting.

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-10-2014, 02:00 PM
But see, that's exactly why they should go; either they're so easy there's no point to them even being there, or they're annoying, arbitrary, and limiting.

Very true, but maybe they'll make up for it in Unity with ones that make sense? lol

Hans684
05-10-2014, 02:02 PM
Very true, but maybe they'll make up for it in Unity with ones that make sense? lol

We should unite agains Ubisoft if they don't.

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-10-2014, 02:08 PM
We should unite agains Ubisoft if they don't.

Lol. However, option objectives has been in just about every game so we should all be used to them by now. I'm sure theres a huge chance we'll see them again =/

Dead1y-Derri
05-10-2014, 02:10 PM
I'm very close to getting the trophy, 'By the book' so I started this thread to see what others think.

Ureh
05-10-2014, 02:45 PM
I agree with everyone, I'm ambivalent to the optional objects. They're all pretty feasible or totally ignorable but I guess it can kinda ruin someone's fun if they're a completionist and/or prefer following their own strategies or spontaneity. I think this is kinda crucial on the first playthrough because it's our first impression. But at the same time, every once in a while they can provide direction for those that need it. But on subsequent playthroughs I'm like, "Yeah, whatever, I already did it on the first play. So I can ignore it."

Sushiglutton
05-10-2014, 03:04 PM
AC3 had an implementation of OO that was almost comical in terms of how tone death it was. Like for example the mission in which Connor does an inner spiritual journey as an eagle. A unique mission with a very cool visual presentation. However some monkey decided to ruin the whole thing by adding an OO: "don't bump into objects more than three times" (or something similar), which completely ruins any emotional impact the scene might have had.

cawatrooper9
05-10-2014, 03:29 PM
Wow, I'm very surprised how opposed to this people seem to be.

LoyalACFan
05-10-2014, 03:42 PM
AC3 had an implementation of OO that was almost comical in terms of how tone death it was. Like for example the mission in which Connor does an inner spiritual journey as an eagle. A unique mission with a very cool visual presentation. However some monkey decided to ruin the whole thing by adding an OO: "don't bump into objects more than three times" (or something similar), which completely ruins any emotional impact the scene might have had.

Yep. Didn't help that my entire screen would glitch out every time I played that mission, and the screen would turn entirely white prematurely, meaning I was flying blind for the last 1/4 of the trip.

But now that you mention it, that was one of the most egregious failures of optional objectives, wasn't it?

Farlander1991
05-10-2014, 03:58 PM
I understand why optional objectives have appeared (at least I have a theory that I find logical, and why it appeared in ACB and not in any other game, and I remember reading somewhere that the objective system wasn't in Brotherhood from the very beginning, the feature was added mid-development). Brotherhood has introduced the most overpowered mechanic ever: the brotherhood itself.

That's the epitomy of a dominant strategy. Oh, your target's running away from you? Brotherhood. Bam, done. Oh, your target's in the middle of this hard to reach restricted area? Brotherhood. Badabish, done. I admit that the Brotherhood mechanic feels cool. One of my most memorable experiences was climbing the Castello near the end of the game, and as I would my Assassin brothers would take care of the guards on the walls so they wouldn't notice me. The feeling was awesome. But the mechanic is also incredibly overpowered. ACB also had some very powerful weapons, like the Crossbow or the Poison Darts. So how do you fix the problems brought by incredibly overpowered dominant strategies? Add optional restrictions so other tools wouldn't become totally irrelevant. I would have never used a hidden gun in ACB if there wouldn't be an optional objective for that. So in ACB the optional objectives served as a 'duct tape', so to speak.

They did go out of control though. Air assassinate a grenadier shows the whole ridiculous concept of most optional objectives. Arbitrary goal that has NOTHING to do with the main goal that has also has to be completed in an INCREDIBLY specific way. But optional objectives as a concept are not without merit, there's a lot of good optional objectives. Assassinating a general in AC3 during Haytham infiltration (a side assassination that you complete whichever you want), saving hostages during retreat from a battle, and a bunch of others that make sense from character perspective, and that you can complete whichever way you want. Basically, they have to be the WHAT, not the HOW. And also have to make sense in terms of the mission itself. Like, you wouldn't add in a tailing mission an objective to pick 10 flowers.

Sushiglutton
05-10-2014, 04:01 PM
Yep. Didn't help that my entire screen would glitch out every time I played that mission, and the screen would turn entirely white prematurely, meaning I was flying blind for the last 1/4 of the trip.

But now that you mention it, that was one of the most egregious failures of optional objectives, wasn't it?

I can see how that bug could be a little distracting ;)...

Another "favourite" is the mission where Connor rides to save his village. This could have been a very tense and exciting moment. Then someone decided to add a timer counting down and a second constraint: "don't touch the ground". It's soooooo unbelievably stupid lol. First off putting a timer on screen is a great way of killing all immersion. Secondly they have built a unique tree parkour system, while the horse gameplay is weak.

I can't wait until you guys are finished with game school and can start to make these games for me lol!

oliacr
05-10-2014, 04:21 PM
They are harmless, some people like it, some people don't, sometimes they are interesting, sometimes they are stupid, they don't add or take anything to the game overall.

Agreed.

cawatrooper9
05-10-2014, 04:38 PM
I think OOs add to the replay-ability of a game. Once you've played the game the various ways that you'd like, you can try to complete the game according to the dev's set parameters. This also adds a layer of difficulty, which is a common complaint against the AC franchise.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 04:44 PM
Eh, I hate them because of trophies , but i think its kind of cool to play out a vision..

Aphex_Tim
05-10-2014, 04:48 PM
No. All it does is over-complicate things and limit player creativity. If I start a mission I want to find out for myself how I will complete it. I don't want the game to immediately give me hints on how I could or should do it. There's just no fun in that. And if these objectives were implemented to give the player incentive to use certain tools, then these tools are just not implemented well and THAT should be changed.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 05:04 PM
I would also like to add that OO add meat to meatless missions IE the entirety of AC IV.
AC IVs campaign was by far the most boring.. not bc its story was uninteresting..but level/mission design was all too repetitive...
I actually enjoyed the missions more when i went back for the 100% trophy than when i played missions my way.
Which is actually a first for me...

HercRembrandt
05-10-2014, 05:13 PM
No. They serve no purpose except to dictate how you play the mission. I want to play the game, I don't want the game to play me.

Plus a lot of these "constraints", as they are fittingly called in Liberation at least, seem to be built on exploiting flaws in the gameplay/controls. Like "Run through obstacles without getting snagged". Terrible design practice.

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 05:15 PM
They should stay, unlike others, I realize that they're optional and unlike others, I don't get my feelings hurt over a red cross or something else telling me that I did not attain 100%..

They should also be tweaked, though...they shouldn't involve going out of your way and they should make sense with the ancestor's personality and overall story.

Shahkulu101
05-10-2014, 05:29 PM
They should stay, unlike others, I realize that they're optional and unlike others, I don't get my feelings hurt over a red cross or something else telling me that I did not attain 100%..

They should also be tweaked, though...they shouldn't involve going out of your way and they should make sense with the ancestor's personality and overall story.

They aren't optional if you want to 100% the game, you always say they are totally optional optional but fail to address this. That's what annoys me most - let me play the way I want without being punished. They should be killed or at the least be made OPTIONAL for everyone - as in, they don't contribute to game completion.

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 05:32 PM
They aren't optional if you want to 100% the game, you always say they are totally optional optional but fail to address this. That's what annoys me most - let me play the way I want without being punished. They should be killed or at the least be made OPTIONAL for everyone - as in, they don't contribute to game completion.
100% is optional

I-Like-Pie45
05-10-2014, 05:34 PM
100% is optional

WHAT A TWEEST
http://www.thebuckeyebattlecry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/shocked_cat.jpg

GunnerGalactico
05-10-2014, 05:34 PM
I have mixed feelings about mission objectives, sometimes they are easy... sometimes they can be down right ridiculous. If it was like the medal system in Uncharted, it would be much better IMO.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 05:37 PM
100% is optional
playing ac is optional too...
but if you want to play it you have to play it -_- there for playing it ends up NOT being optional
Same goes for 100%
If you want a plat - optional objectives ARENT optional.
People arent asking for them to go away...they are asking for them to not be tied to completing the game if they are indeed 'optional'

Shahkulu101
05-10-2014, 05:38 PM
100% is optional

Optional objectives are not optional for completionists and since they're crap and restrictive they should be removed.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 05:40 PM
Also AC2 was fine without them..why even keep them around....

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 05:42 PM
Optional objectives are not optional for completionists and since they're crap and restrictive they should be removed.
and why should we JUST listen to completionists?? it sounds like those completionists are noobs who can't pass an easy as bricks 100% constriction..


playing ac is optional too...
but if you want to play it you have to play it -_- there for playing it ends up NOT being optional
Same goes for 100%
If you want a plat - optional objectives ARENT optional.
all I read is "waaaa waaa, I want 100% to be easy as bricks"

[/quote]People arent asking for them to go away'[/QUOTE]
yes they are

Aphex_Tim
05-10-2014, 05:42 PM
WHAT A TWEEST


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

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 05:44 PM
and why should we JUST listen to completionists?? it sounds like those completionists are noobs who can't pass an easy as bricks 100% constriction..


all I read is "waaaa waaa, I want 100% to be easy as bricks"

'People arent asking for them to go away'
yes they are

Theres a difference between hard and time consuming...
Its a waste of time to replay a mission because you didnt do it a certain way.
100% optional objective trophies are the beat the game on every difficulty trophy of ac
It adds nothing to the game except wasted hours

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 05:46 PM
Theres a difference between hard and time consuming...
Its a waste of time to replay a mission because you didnt do it a certain way.
Excuses..

"oh it's not hard, just time consuming"
"oh it's not hard, just annoying"
"oh it's not hard, it's irritating"

Just admit that it's hard for you

Shahkulu101
05-10-2014, 05:48 PM
and why should we JUST listen to completionists?? it sounds like those completionists are noobs who can't pass an easy as bricks 100% constriction..


all I read is "waaaa waaa, I want 100% to be easy as bricks"



Like I said I want to play how I want. It's not the difficulty for me personally, I just hate restrictions - and they restrict ALL players not just completionists. Enough with the implied insults.

I mean seriously, what do they add to the game? How do they make it better? They are terrible.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 05:48 PM
Excuses..

"oh it's not hard, just time consuming"
"oh it's not hard, just annoying"
"oh it's not hard, it's irritating"

Just admit that it's hard for you

I have far cry 2, Mortal Kombat 9, Gran Turismo 5, Sonic Unleashed, and Lost Planet 2 platinumed.. get out of here lol You're pc... you dont know what youre talking about when it comes to completion -_-

Wolfmeister1010
05-10-2014, 05:51 PM
and why should we JUST listen to completionists?? it sounds like those completionists are noobs who can't pass an easy as bricks 100% constriction..



Some of them, like the not getting injured ones, or the don't get hit once while in tank in Brotherhood, and many many more were extremely difficult.

The point is that they take away all the freedom. It was a giant middle finger from Ubi that they made a whole damned trailer about how you can take on the Du Casse assassination ANY WAY YOU WANTED: Go up the rigging, up the side, up the back, guns blazing, swim around, be stealthy, ect, but then in the final game told us "NOPE! You have to air assassinate him without being detected during the whole mission or else you don't get full credit"

Even if we are able to go back later and do it how we want, the missions are A. Not fun enough to replay for most people, and B. It is impossible to shake the feeling that you did the mission the "wrong" way.

Honestly for the past few months you have just been....just plain mean. Posting about how you think there should be resect for others and being sorry for yourself cuz someone insulted you..and then proceeding to do the same exact thing to everyone else..

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 05:52 PM
Like I said I want to play how I want. It's not the difficulty for me personally, I just hate restrictions - and they restrict ALL players not just completionists. Enough with the implied insults.
They're optional, enough with the excuses and selfishness.


I mean seriously, what do they add to the game? How do they make it better? They are terrible.
for me, they added another layer, if mostly artificial, of challenege. the ones where I have to eliminate the general with Haytham and sabotage the cannons were cool. They made sense story wise and they added another layer to the mission.

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 05:53 PM
Some of them, like the not getting injured ones, or the don't get hit once while in tank in Brotherhood, and many many more were extremely difficult.

see?? everyone be like wolf, she admits that they're difficult for her..


Like I said I want to play how I want. It's not the difficulty for me personally, I just hate restrictions - and they restrict ALL players not just completionists. Enough with the implied insults.
They're optional, enough with the excuses and selfishness.


I mean seriously, what do they add to the game? How do they make it better? They are terrible.
for me, they added another layer, if mostly artificial, of challenege. the ones where I have to eliminate the general with Haytham and sabotage the cannons were cool. They made sense story wise and they added another layer to the mission.


I have far cry 2, Mortal Kombat 9, Gran Turismo 5, Sonic Unleashed, and Lost Planet 2 platinumed.. get out of here lol You're pc... you dont know what youre talking about when it comes to completion -_-
and?

I have been completing games since I was 6 years old

Kirokill
05-10-2014, 05:55 PM
Why be a completionist if you don't want to work for it?
They're fine and they've been made easier with each installment.

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 05:56 PM
Honestly for the past few months you have just been....just plain mean. Posting about how you think there should be resect for others and being sorry for yourself cuz someone insulted you..and then proceeding to do the same exact thing to everyone else..
Don't throw stones when your house is made of glass, wolf

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 05:58 PM
Why be a completionist if you don't want to work for it?
They're fine and they've been made easier with each installment.
Exactly..

and why ask for it to be removed for others who like it? it's just plain selfish

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 05:58 PM
see?? everyone be like wolf, she admits that they're difficult for her..


They're optional, enough with the excuses and selfishness.


for me, they added another layer, if mostly artificial, of challenege. the ones where I have to eliminate the general with Haytham and sabotage the cannons were cool. They made sense story wise and they added another layer to the mission.


and?

I have been completing games since I was 6 years old
And I've beat 2 world records (GT5 and LP2)
Maybe you complete their story..you didnt complete any games... you have to go back and do a super mario speedrun in 1 hr for a gold trophy and have to get max points from a flag 3 times in a row for silver..go do it and comeback and tell me you completed it -_-

Shahkulu101
05-10-2014, 05:59 PM
They're optional, enough with the excuses and selfishness.


for me, they added another layer, if mostly artificial, of challenege. the ones where I have to eliminate the general with Haytham and sabotage the cannons were cool. They made sense story wise and they added another layer to the mission.

Well those kind of objectives are fun to do, and make sense contextually - I think I'd prefer it if these were like dynamic events within the mission rather than a requirement. Sleep darting crocodiles whilst tailing a boat is just daft - especially since he skins them. Are we supposed to believe he actually managed to skin two of the beasts and casually returned to tailing? Daft - incredibly daft. Stupid objectives like these MUST be removed.

Wolfmeister1010
05-10-2014, 05:59 PM
Don't throw stones when your house is made of glass, wolf

Oh really? I try to be as respectful as I can. I made a mistake with Mr. Shade, and even though I still think he was a bit pretentious at least I was decent enough to admit the fault on MY part. You come in and blast your mouth with zero remorse, and then feel sorry for yourself.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 06:00 PM
Why be a completionist if you don't want to work for it?
They're fine and they've been made easier with each installment.
Why require rinse and repeat grinding for completing? No faith in your game having replay ability on its own? So you have to force it...
back in my day completing was finding collectibles, beating the story, and finding all of the games secrets.. these days its all of that plus stupid random stuff like do this without touching water kill 5 people this way but dont get seen doing it... how is that completion?
Thats what we used to do as kids when we were bored with a game and had nothing better to do..we would make up our own stuff..now they are trophies and 'optional objectives'

ACfan443
05-10-2014, 06:03 PM
That landslide. If I recall correctly, the results of similarly worded polls from around two years ago generally leaned towards the removal of OOs only slightly, with option to keep them also getting a significant backing, the disparity appears to have become vastly different now. Perhaps it's an indication that they're becoming progressively worse, which is ironic considering the creative directors for both AC3 and AC4 set out to make them less intrusive and vexatious.

Wolfmeister1010
05-10-2014, 06:03 PM
When you are unbanned, maybe you will have something decent, and perhaps even kind, to say.

Shahkulu101
05-10-2014, 06:03 PM
Why be a completionist if you don't want to work for it?
They're fine and they've been made easier with each installment.

Why make a game if all the content isn't fun to do?

And it's not the difficulty for me. I'm being totally honest here, believe what you want, but I'm telling the truth when I say they are easy but just pointlessly time consuming.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 06:08 PM
Why make a game if all the content isn't fun to do?

And it's not the difficulty for me. I'm being totally honest here, believe what you want, but I'm telling the truth when I say they are easy but just pointlessly time consuming.

No one is doubting you.. its a sad attempt at an insult because you dont share the same shallow perception of fun as they do
If youre not wasting your time playing a mission over and over again..the game sucks
And if you value your time its simply because you have no 'skill' as a gamer..because playing games takes skill..thats why 12 year olds love dark souls

jayjay275
05-10-2014, 06:14 PM
The point is something optional shouldn't be necessary to 100% sync a game, when it is indeed optional...

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 06:15 PM
The point is something optional shouldn't be necessary to 100% sync a game, when it is indeed optional...

Yes NOW
As a trophy hunter i wouldnt mind a complete all optional objectives trophy....
But it shouldnt effect sync % aka the games completion

Kirokill
05-10-2014, 06:16 PM
Why make a game if all the content isn't fun to do?

And it's not the difficulty for me. I'm being totally honest here, believe what you want, but I'm telling the truth when I say they are easy but just pointlessly time consuming.

There must be time consuming trophies/achievements/extras.
Just like hunting pigeons in GTA IV. And complete the game on crushing difficulty, and you have to play on hard to unlock that first(Uncharted 3).

You are indeed right, but AC is still the easiest games to complete.

Wolfmeister1010
05-10-2014, 06:18 PM
I hate collectables. Just filler. All of it. I would rather have very very small missions take the place of walking up to a flag. RDR didn't have any. Thank god. Yes I know I keep bring up RDR.. But it is the ideal epitome of an open world game. Everything it did was just perfect.

jayjay275
05-10-2014, 06:18 PM
There must be time consuming trophies/achievements/extras.
Just like hunting pigeons in GTA IV. And complete the game on crushing difficulty, and you have to play on hard to unlock that first(Uncharted 3).

You are indeed right, but AC is still the easiest games to complete.

On Uncharted 3, you don't need to complete hard to play Crushing, that's Uncharted 2 and 1.

Kirokill
05-10-2014, 06:21 PM
On Uncharted 3, you don't need to complete hard to play Crushing, that's Uncharted 2 and 1.

I guess then only the coop mode that has that in the third.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-10-2014, 06:21 PM
There must be time consuming trophies/achievements/extras.
Just like hunting pigeons in GTA IV. And complete the game on crushing difficulty, and you have to play on hard to unlock that first(Uncharted 3).

You are indeed right, but AC is still the easiest games to complete.
Why does there have to be a time consuming trophy?
Isnt a 40 hour game time consuming enough?
The walking dead season 1 didnt force choices on you..it let you tell YOUR story and gave you all trophies for completing YOUR story.

Locopells
05-10-2014, 06:42 PM
No harm in them, if done well (which is the key point here, obviously...).

Aphex_Tim
05-10-2014, 06:51 PM
Extra stuff to do for 100% completion is perfectly fine, as long as it doesn't interfere with main story missions. In my opinion, all extra stuff should be doable while free roaming after you've completed the story. To go back and replay story missions for 100% completion just feels stupid and out of place. That's another reason why I really don't want these optional objectives to return, or at least contribute to the completion percentage.

Edit: Lol, did M just get banned? :p Hell just froze over!

jayjay275
05-10-2014, 06:56 PM
I guess then only the coop mode that has that in the third.

If you were talking about the online multiplayer, then yes, to play crushing you must complete Hard mode first. However, if you're talking about single player, hard isn't needed to complete crushing.

Locopells
05-10-2014, 07:01 PM
Edit: Lol, did M just get banned? :p Hell just froze over!

Spambot detector...

Shahkulu101
05-10-2014, 07:10 PM
Oh for God's sake Locopells... :rolleyes:

jayjay275
05-10-2014, 07:17 PM
:P

HDinHB
05-10-2014, 08:33 PM
Locopells was banned earlier, but your posts came back...M is still banned right now.

Sometimes I find the optional objectives more annoying than fun. Often in AC4, particularly in the later stages of the game, I would forget to pay attention to them and accidentally complete them anyway, "oh, cool." Those are well designed objectives. :o Other times I'd forget what they were and have to keep checking the menu. At least they did away with the "must complete all optional objectives on the same playthrough" constraint AC3 had. That was very annoying.

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 08:57 PM
I'm back, peasants

No, Wolf, I shall not be kind

I would also like to thank Loco for being a true friend and alerting the mods...Loco, I am forever in your debt. you are a true friend.

Dead1y-Derri
05-10-2014, 09:29 PM
I'm back, peasants

No, Wolf, I shall not be kind

I would also like to thank Loco for being a true friend and alerting the mods...Loco, I am forever in your debt. you are a true friend.

No one likes unkind people :P

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 09:39 PM
No one likes unkind people :P
But everybody likes Sherlock

Wolfmeister1010
05-10-2014, 09:56 PM
No, Wolf, I shall not be kind


Suit yourself. God forbid there are nice people on the internet, right?

I-Like-Pie45
05-10-2014, 10:05 PM
There is no such thing as a nice person in reality

It's all a contrived act really. People have always been ****ish as this, its just that the internet gives a way for humanity to express itself in safe anonymity

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 10:06 PM
Suit yourself. God forbid there are nice people on the internet, right?
You treat a few weeks of me being a jerk equating to my entire time here, I'm joking, wolf and everyone knows it. if you are; however, referring to that one time where you thought i was attacking you in that thread you made, then there's nothing I can do because I wasnt trying to attack you

SixKeys
05-10-2014, 10:15 PM
I'm undecided. I'm leaning slightly towards "no" because I want Unity to feel as fresh as possible. Optional objectives were fun for a while, but they've lost their lustre. If they do return, they should be revamped to be more like trophies. You get extra XP for completing a mission completely stealthily or by performing a specific action (like using a rope dart on a particular enemy), but that action is not specified at the start of the mission.

SixKeys
05-10-2014, 10:20 PM
I hate collectables. Just filler. All of it. I would rather have very very small missions take the place of walking up to a flag. RDR didn't have any. Thank god. Yes I know I keep bring up RDR.. But it is the ideal epitome of an open world game. Everything it did was just perfect.

Technically RDR had collectibles in the form of challenges. Like "collect 10 feverfew" or "skin 3 snakes". Thing is they got more challenging the more you completed, until you got some REAL challenges like "kill a cougar with your bare fists" or "kill a bear that's chasing you with a well-timed dynamite explosion". That was fun. Enough challenge for the people who really want a hard game and enough simple time-wasting for people who just like collecting things.

Wolfmeister1010
05-10-2014, 10:23 PM
You treat a few weeks of me being a jerk equating to my entire time here, I'm joking, wolf and everyone knows it. if you are; however, referring to that one time where you thought i was attacking you in that thread you made, then there's nothing I can do because I wasnt trying to attack you

I don't know what you are talking about, I hold no personal grudge against you. I am sure you have disagreed with one of my threads before, as has everyone at some point. But It doesn't matter if you were acting like a jerk for a few weeks or a few years. You don't earn free "be a jerk" passes from time spent being a member. You disappoint me in the sense that you often have valid and smart arguments to share, and used to be a voice of genuine reason, but now you go around spreading them in the absolute rudest way possible. And, it appalls me that you seem to acknowledge how you are acting, yet refuse to fix it. According to you, anyone who disagrees with you is "whiny" or a "noob". Almost of your posts reek with a level of sarcasm, pretentiousness and snobbery that could down an elephant Yet, apparently everyone is out to get YOU. It is quite ironic. But again, I am not your guardian angel. Whether you are joking or not, suit yourself to whatever attitude you want. I can't stop it, and if it gets out of hand then it is the mods' responsibility. I mean this post in the absolute most respectful way possible.

Wolfmeister1010
05-10-2014, 10:25 PM
Technically RDR had collectibles in the form of challenges. Like "collect 10 feverfew" or "skin 3 snakes". Thing is they got more challenging the more you completed, until you got some REAL challenges like "kill a cougar with your bare fists" or "kill a bear that's chasing you with a well-timed dynamite explosion". That was fun. Enough challenge for the people who really want a hard game and enough simple time-wasting for people who just like collecting things.

You are right I suppose. And lol yeah I remember having to kill a bear with a knife. It was the most frightening and painstaking thing I have ever had to do lol. Eventually I just started luring them into a lake and stabbing them while they swim.

That game had GOOD optional objectives.

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 10:31 PM
I don't know what you are talking about, I hold no personal grudge against you. I am sure you have disagreed with one of my threads before, as has everyone at some point. But It doesn't matter if you were acting like a jerk for a few weeks or a few years. You don't earn free "be a jerk" passes from time spent being a member. You disappoint me in the sense that you often have valid and smart arguments to share, and used to be a voice of genuine reason, but now you go around spreading them in the absolute rudest way possible. And, it appalls me that you seem to acknowledge how you are acting, yet refuse to fix it. According to you, anyone who disagrees with you is "whiny" or a "noob". Almost of your posts reek with a level of sarcasm, pretentiousness and snobbery that could down an elephant Yet, apparently everyone is out to get YOU. It is quite ironic. But again, I am not your guardian angel. Whether you are joking or not, suit yourself to whatever attitude you want. I can't stop it, and if it gets out of hand then it is the mods' responsibility. I mean this post in the absolute most respectful way possible.
*facepalm* I said I was joking -_-

Wolfmeister1010
05-10-2014, 10:36 PM
*facepalm* I said I was joking -_-

Oh I heard you alright. It is just hard for me to believe that you were able to hold up this.."joke" for months. Even Pie's personas don't usually last that long, and he is freaking determined about his personas. If your attitude changes, then I will believe you.

I-Like-Pie45
05-10-2014, 10:38 PM
Meow?

for WM
http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AFP_Getty-517409703-683x540.jpg

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 10:48 PM
Oh I heard you alright. It is just hard for me to believe that you were able to hold up this.."joke" for months. Even Pie's personas don't usually last that long, and he is freaking determined about his personas. If your attitude changes, then I will believe you.
Quite frankly, I don't care if you believe me or not...just avoid me from now on, wolf. I'll tell you what, I'll kickstart it, you're on my Ignore list...

SixKeys
05-10-2014, 10:51 PM
You are right I suppose. And lol yeah I remember having to kill a bear with a knife. It was the most frightening and painstaking thing I have ever had to do lol. Eventually I just started luring them into a lake and stabbing them while they swim.

That game had GOOD optional objectives.

I remember chasing cougars with a lasso to drag them close enough to knife them. Doing that challenge took forever, lol. And they weren't no training wheel cougars like AC3's, no sir. If a cougar in RDR managed to ambush you, you were dead in two swift swipes. Not to mention the horror of watching a huge bear bounding straight towards you and having nothing but pistol bullets on you. :p

I wish I still had a PS3...

Dead1y-Derri
05-10-2014, 10:51 PM
But everybody likes Sherlock

Well played :D

Assassin_M
05-10-2014, 10:53 PM
I remember chasing cougars with a lasso to drag them close enough to knife them. Doing that challenge took forever, lol. And they weren't no training wheel cougars like AC3's, no sir. If a cougar in RDR managed to ambush you, you were dead in two swift swipes. Not to mention the horror of watching a huge bear bounding straight towards you and having nothing but pistol bullets on you. :p

I wish I still had a PS3...
not to mention their mute steps and horrifying growls

Shahkulu101
05-10-2014, 10:59 PM
Cougars in GTAV are pretty scary without the auto-aim on. The hunting is really bad, though. Just a boring mini game type thing.

I honestly think that GTAV has some of the worst side content ever.

Billiam301
05-10-2014, 11:45 PM
OOs should really just be guidelines that serve no purpose but to create some variety and not interfere with completionists. They should give ideas about how a player can complete a mission but not restrict them. For those who enjoy them you should be able to still try them and those who don't shouldn't be forced to.

I dislike them personally, the 'don't take damage in the tank' objective in Brotherhood was the only thing between me and 100% and after at least 20 attempts I still never completed it, it is almost impossibly hard. And some a just stupid, for example 'use 2 sleep darts on alligators' and 'skin an alligator... Did Edward really do this? It just seemed pointless

I admit, some did make sense, for example 'assassinate the general' on Infiltrating Southgate but these sorts of objectives are in the minority and most don't make sense or are just too frustrating

If they are going to be in Unity, they should be tweaked

Locopells
05-10-2014, 11:55 PM
Oh for God's sake Locopells... :rolleyes:

Oh dammit...



Edit: Lol, did M just get banned? http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/tongue.png Hell just froze over!

Spambot detector...

The irony was, was that this was the post that pushed me over the limit...


Locopells was banned earlier, but your posts came back...M is still banned right now.

Weird that...


I'm back, peasants

No, Wolf, I shall not be kind

I would also like to thank Loco for being a true friend and alerting the mods...Loco, I am forever in your debt. you are a true friend.

Welcome. Been on the wrong end too many times now...


But everybody likes Sherlock

Self-aware jerk, seems to work these days!


Quite frankly, I don't care if you believe me or not...just avoid me from now on, wolf. I'll tell you what, I'll kickstart it, you're on my Ignore list...

Prob best - that or take it to PM.

Wolfmeister1010
05-11-2014, 12:29 AM
Quite frankly, I don't care if you believe me or not...just avoid me from now on, wolf. I'll tell you what, I'll kickstart it, you're on my Ignore list...

Well you sure taught me.

Locopells
05-11-2014, 12:31 AM
Guys...

Wolfmeister1010
05-11-2014, 12:33 AM
Guys...

Lol, he can do whatever he wants. He wants to antagonize me, fine. It's a shame he put me on the ignore list, I would like to continue to share opinions and stuff regarding AC, but it does not affect me in the slightest.

Locopells
05-11-2014, 12:35 AM
In which case, let's get back on topic...

Wolfmeister1010
05-11-2014, 12:40 AM
In which case, let's get back on topic...

Very well.

I think the optional objectives were just unnecessary pieces of content to add replay ability to the game to compensate for lack of very varied side content in Brotherhood. Then, it just kinda stuck, and now it has become as common in AC as hidden blades. In place of mission constraints, There should be a new challenge every other day or so, saying "Complete X mission without getting detected" for some small reward or something. Maybe, if you complete a certain number of challenges, you will get a big reward at the end.

Assassin_M
05-11-2014, 12:54 AM
In which case, let's get back on topic...
I think optional objectives should stay but me more like the sabotaging cannons and killing general ones and less like the air assassinating grenadiers and skinning alligator ones.

Dead1y-Derri
05-11-2014, 01:11 AM
I think optional objectives should stay but me more like the sabotaging cannons and killing general ones and less like the air assassinating grenadiers and skinning alligator ones.

Yes that would be cool. I just thought of an idea. I think completing Optional Objectives like the one you described would be cool if used along with the cutscenes. For example say you didn't disable cannons, in the cutscene that follows one of the NPCs could comment about the cannons, just to pinch the player I guess. The player wouldn't be seen as bad and it wouldn't change the outcome of the game in any way (as AC can't have multiple endings) but just by these comments it would add to depth of the game and possibly even re playability.

Locopells
05-11-2014, 02:13 AM
In place of mission constraints, There should be a new challenge every other day or so, saying "Complete X mission without getting detected" for some small reward or something. Maybe, if you complete a certain number of challenges, you will get a big reward at the end.


Yes that would be cool. I just thought of an idea. I think completing Optional Objectives like the one you described would be cool if used along with the cutscenes. For example say you didn't disable cannons, in the cutscene that follows one of the NPCs could comment about the cannons, just to pinch the player I guess. The player wouldn't be seen as bad and it wouldn't change the outcome of the game in any way (as AC can't have multiple endings) but just by these comments it would add to depth of the game and possibly even re playability.

Both of those work, IMO.

HDinHB
05-11-2014, 02:33 AM
There is no such thing as a nice person in reality

It's all a contrived act really. People have always been ****ish as this, its just that the internet gives a way for humanity to express itself in safe anonymity

If there were no nice people, there would be no domesticated cats.



What if, instead of being tied to 100% sync or trophies (which drives the completionists bonkers), the optional objectives were more like the Abstergo challenges in AC4. They could unlock cheats, or Easter eggs, or some DLC Avatars or adventures. That way you're rewarded for completing them instead of penalized for not completing them And I agree the optional objectives should be mission related and not too convoluted.

HercRembrandt
05-11-2014, 08:48 AM
I dislike them personally, the 'don't take damage in the tank' objective in Brotherhood was the only thing between me and 100% and after at least 20 attempts I still never completed it, it is almost impossibly hard. And some a just stupid, for example 'use 2 sleep darts on alligators' and 'skin an alligator... Did Edward really do this? It just seemed pointless

I admit, some did make sense, for example 'assassinate the general' on Infiltrating Southgate but these sorts of objectives are in the minority and most don't make sense or are just too frustrating

If they are going to be in Unity, they should be tweaked

Yeah, that tank one was pretty frustrating. Ultimately I just used the exploit of blowing up the first tank at the end from the outside, when it was still a sitting duck. Even worse was the "protect Copernicus without taking damage" part in Copernicus Conspiracy. No matter what, there was always some damn brute who got me with a thrown rock. Eventually I just had to hide on a balcony and watch Ol' Cop getting beat up by the enemies, lobbing down smoke bombs to slow the damage until the timer ran out. Is that really how Ezio did it? It must be, 100% synch.

RinoTheBouncer
05-11-2014, 09:17 AM
I finished ACIV 100% and though I did love how replaying a non-100% mission doesn’t require you to do all optional objectives to be recorded as 100% but only the ones you did not perform in the past play through. But I think some were ridiculous like “skin an alligator” because when you’re on an important tailing mission, and you’re on foot following a boat/canoe from tree to wreckage to bridge to guarded camps, I doubt that hunting an alligator is a priority to Edward at that point.

Maybe one can be ok with optional objectives when the game is strict with everything related to synching but giving me less than 100% for not using a dart on an alligator while the game is ok with me jumping off a 5 story building, now that’s hypocrisy.

Aphex_Tim
05-11-2014, 09:23 AM
Not to mention the actual time it would take to skin an alligator. By the time Edward would be done, his targets would be long gone! But hey, this is how Edward did it!

RinoTheBouncer
05-11-2014, 09:32 AM
Not to mention the actual time it would take to skin an alligator. By the time Edward would be done, his targets would be long gone! But hey, this is how Edward did it!

Yeah exactly! whether it’s a matter of importance or time consumption, I don’t think it makes sense that Edward would do such a thing especially in a mission where time really matters.

LoyalACFan
05-12-2014, 10:06 AM
Some opinions in this thread that I strongly disagree with... My rebuttals.

-They are the antithesis of open-ended gameplay. No, they don't FORCE you to play any certain way like some people say, but they do design the missions now in such a way that there is an obvious "right" way to go about it. John Pitcairn's assassination is the best example I can think of. Yeah, technically you could engage in some poorly designed combat with him, but there's an absurdly convenient pathway to a flagpole right over his head that the mission was clearly steering you toward. It's not a truly open-ended mission if you can technically squeeze by with a different approach, but the only way to finish in a badass and elegant way is the way that the game was *winking and nudging* you toward.

-The only sync constraint that has EVER been an actual challenge (i.e. dependent on skill, tactics, and strategy) was the tank mission in Brotherhood. That's it. Other than that they've mostly been so brain-dead easy they had no business being there in the first place. A few of the others have been hard, but not challenging; that is to say, a few have depended on blind luck, like the one in AC3 where you had to down 3 frigates with powder stores. You had no real control over which ones' powder stores got exposed, so if one of the ships took too much damage from rogue waves before the powder kegs got exposed, you were screwed. That's not a challenge, that's just forced repetition until the situation aligns in your favor. So, it seems our two options are stupidly easy, or arbitrary and outside our control. I'll have a healthy dose of neither, please.

-Removing optional objectives is not about making completion easy. Completing Red Dead to 100% is MUCH harder than completing any of the AC games, but I was fine with that because the content that was required for 100% was actually fun (survivalist challenges notwithstanding). Sure, you can say, "well, they should stay, but they need to be tweaked." They have been tweaked. They told us they'd been tweaked for Revelations... And AC3... And AC4. Bull. Three games and three tweaks later, they still suck. They've had plenty of opportunities to get them right, but they haven't. Skinning alligators during a chase? Please. Not fun, not challenging, and stupid as hell for the canon.

-It's not really even about completion at all. Sure, you get a little trophy ding at the end, but is that really enough to devote a whole gameplay loop to? Shouldn't there be some greater payoff than just "hey, nice job, here's a statistic?" I think so. It's not a question of the constraints being difficult; if we're going to go out of our way to do something, shouldn't there be an in-game justification for it? You could say we're just doing it that way because that's canonically how the ancestor did it; I'll remind you again of skinned crocodiles. I've given up entirely on 100%ing games, because most of the time nowadays it's a mechanic designed explicitly for trophies, nothing more. That's not enough for me, and I think unless they make completion relevant to the gameplay again, it should go.

-The "good" constraints should be more relevant to the gameplay, and completely removed from the concept of synchronization. The sabotaging cannons/assassinating captains types of things that M pointed out are actually cool to have, but not as sync points. This kind of goes along with my previous point, but if you're going to go out of your way to do some strategic sabotage or murder, shouldn't that factor into gameplay? It would have been really cool if your sabotage had been rewarded with some strategic benefit, not just a pat on the back and a "nice job kid, here's a +1% completion stat." Remember in AC1, where, if you did side missions, the people would help you with vigilante groups and monks? I feel like constraints could be replaced with something like this again, only since they'd take place in actual story missions, they could be more specific to the assassination mission, i.e. if one of the "constraints" is to kill a captain while you're scouting a Templar's lair, that captain's men would be absent from their patrols when you returned to kill the target, making infiltration easier (although for this to work they'd need to make the default assassination mission way harder).

Edit- wow, talk about TL;DR. That got a little out of hand.

RinoTheBouncer
05-12-2014, 10:12 AM
Removing optional objectives is not about making completion easy. Completing Red Dead to 100% is MUCH harder than completing any of the AC games, but I was fine with that because the content that was required for 100% was actually fun (survivalist challenges notwithstanding). Sure, you can say, "well, they should stay, but they need to be tweaked." They have been tweaked. They told us they'd been tweaked for Revelations... And AC3... And AC4. Bull. Three games and three tweaks later, they still suck. They've had plenty of opportunities to get them right, but they haven't. Skinning alligators during a chase? Please. Not fun, not challenging, and stupid as hell for the canon.

-It's not really even about completion at all. Sure, you get a little trophy ding at the end, but is that really enough to devote a whole gameplay loop to? Shouldn't there be some greater payoff than just "hey, nice job, here's a statistic?" I think so. It's not a question of the constraints being difficult; if we're going to go out of our way to do something, shouldn't there be an in-game justification for it? You could say we're just doing it that way because that's canonically how the ancestor did it; I'll remind you again of skinned crocodiles. I've given up entirely on 100%ing games, because most of the time nowadays it's a mechanic designed explicitly for trophies, nothing more. That's not enough for me, and I think unless they make completion relevant to the gameplay again, it should go.

-The "good" constraints should be more relevant to the gameplay, and completely removed from the concept of synchronization. The sabotaging cannons/assassinating captains types of things that M pointed out are actually cool to have, but not as sync points. This kind of goes along with my previous point, but if you're going to go out of your way to do some strategic sabotage or murder, shouldn't that factor into gameplay? It would have been really cool if your sabotage had been rewarded with some strategic benefit, not just a pat on the back and a "nice job kid, here's a +1% completion stat." Remember in AC1, where, if you did side missions, the people would help you with vigilante groups and monks? I feel like constraints could be replaced with something like this again, only since they'd take place in actual story missions, they could be more specific to the assassination mission, i.e. if one of the "constraints" is to kill a captain while you're scouting a Templar's lair, that captain's men would be absent from their patrols when you returned to kill the target, making infiltration easier (although for this to work they'd need to make the default assassination mission way harder).

Edit- wow, talk about TL;DR. That got a little out of hand.

http://www.indianfunpic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Give-That-man-a-Medal.jpg

LoyalACFan
05-12-2014, 10:31 AM
http://www.indianfunpic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Give-That-man-a-Medal.jpg

Thanks, Obama XP

zhengyingli
05-12-2014, 11:09 AM
No. They serve no purpose except to dictate how you play the mission. I want to play the game, I don't want the game to play me.

Plus a lot of these "constraints", as they are fittingly called in Liberation at least, seem to be built on exploiting flaws in the gameplay/controls. Like "Run through obstacles without getting snagged". Terrible design practice.
"Dictate?" The games never required you to complete any amount of synchronization to proceed with the story. They're optional; I never do full sync on my first playthrough because they can be PITA at times. Totally understand why people want full sync to disappear, but don't for a moment believe that somehow the developers are locking off the story for failing those "optional" objectives.

As for me, I'm indifferent. If they're to continue existing, as several mentioned in the thread already, have the objectives actually effect something within the mission or in future missions like the reduced number of soldiers for assassinating them earlier, head start in a race for dumping caltrops, enemies with crappier weapons due to earlier sabotage, all those instead of pure stats. I understand that story can't be changed because it's the animus, but animus simulation can be glitched up, and optional objectives can be used as a narrative tool to reveal actual combat/stealth situations that the character faced, no dialogue changes needed.

RinoTheBouncer
05-12-2014, 11:11 AM
Thanks, Obama XP

You’re welcome, Altair.

Sushiglutton
05-12-2014, 11:19 AM
Some opinions in this thread that I strongly disagree with... My rebuttals.

-They are the antithesis of open-ended gameplay. No, they don't FORCE you to play any certain way like some people say, but they do design the missions now in such a way that there is an obvious "right" way to go about it. John Pitcairn's assassination is the best example I can think of. Yeah, technically you could engage in some poorly designed combat with him, but there's an absurdly convenient pathway to a flagpole right over his head that the mission was clearly steering you toward. It's not a truly open-ended mission if you can technically squeeze by with a different approach, but the only way to finish in a badass and elegant way is the way that the game was *winking and nudging* you toward.

This is a terrific point! The optional objectives do (sometimes) have a negative impact on the mission design, which makes them really not optional at all. I def think they design the missions, having the optional objectives they want to implement in the back of their heads, which is sub-optimal.




-The only sync constraint that has EVER been an actual challenge (i.e. dependent on skill, tactics, and strategy) was the tank mission in Brotherhood. That's it. Other than that they've mostly been so brain-dead easy they had no business being there in the first place. A few of the others have been hard, but not challenging; that is to say, a few have depended on blind luck, like the one in AC3 where you had to down 3 frigates with powder stores. You had no real control over which ones' powder stores got exposed, so if one of the ships took too much damage from rogue waves before the powder kegs got exposed, you were screwed. That's not a challenge, that's just forced repetition until the situation aligns in your favor. So, it seems our two options are stupidly easy, or arbitrary and outside our control. I'll have a healthy dose of neither, please..

I agree with this, but I think it is because the purpose of optional objectives is not just to challenge the player (see post #4 in this thread)




-Removing optional objectives is not about making completion easy. Completing Red Dead to 100% is MUCH harder than completing any of the AC games, but I was fine with that because the content that was required for 100% was actually fun (survivalist challenges notwithstanding). Sure, you can say, "well, they should stay, but they need to be tweaked." They have been tweaked. They told us they'd been tweaked for Revelations... And AC3... And AC4. Bull. Three games and three tweaks later, they still suck. They've had plenty of opportunities to get them right, but they haven't. Skinning alligators during a chase? Please. Not fun, not challenging, and stupid as hell for the canon.

They haven't been tweaked the way we want, because the reason they are there is not for the core. The example you mentioned is there to teach people that they can sedate animals (at least that's my guess).



-It's not really even about completion at all. Sure, you get a little trophy ding at the end, but is that really enough to devote a whole gameplay loop to? Shouldn't there be some greater payoff than just "hey, nice job, here's a statistic?" I think so. It's not a question of the constraints being difficult; if we're going to go out of our way to do something, shouldn't there be an in-game justification for it? You could say we're just doing it that way because that's canonically how the ancestor did it; I'll remind you again of skinned crocodiles. I've given up entirely on 100%ing games, because most of the time nowadays it's a mechanic designed explicitly for trophies, nothing more. That's not enough for me, and I think unless they make completion relevant to the gameplay again, it should go.

I actually kind of disagree on this. Arcade games don't really need much more than a fanfare at the end. Overcoming the challenge is enough reward in itself. I gladly completed all the challenges in the Arkham games because they were fun in their own right. Problem is that the activities you need for completion in AC are tedious, not the lack of rewards imo.



-The "good" constraints should be more relevant to the gameplay, and completely removed from the concept of synchronization. The sabotaging cannons/assassinating captains types of things that M pointed out are actually cool to have, but not as sync points. This kind of goes along with my previous point, but if you're going to go out of your way to do some strategic sabotage or murder, shouldn't that factor into gameplay? It would have been really cool if your sabotage had been rewarded with some strategic benefit, not just a pat on the back and a "nice job kid, here's a +1% completion stat." Remember in AC1, where, if you did side missions, the people would help you with vigilante groups and monks? I feel like constraints could be replaced with something like this again, only since they'd take place in actual story missions, they could be more specific to the assassination mission, i.e. if one of the "constraints" is to kill a captain while you're scouting a Templar's lair, that captain's men would be absent from their patrols when you returned to kill the target, making infiltration easier (although for this to work they'd need to make the default assassination mission way harder).

This is a very good idea and would make missions more dynamic.

Overall I don't think OO are that bad as long as I don't have to see them. RDR had a medal system for all its missions and that didn't bother me one bit. It didn't shove the requirements down my throat and I just hardly noticed the system was there. In AC4 it was actually kind of similar. I just saw the OO after the mission was done, which was a tiny bit annoying, but not much.

A simple HUD option "Turn Optional Objectives off" would suffice for me.

LoyalACFan
05-12-2014, 11:38 AM
They haven't been tweaked the way we want, because the reason they are there is not for the core. The example you mentioned is there to teach people that they can sedate animals (at least that's my guess).

That mission was over halfway through the game; by that time, they should be long done with tutorials. Even if they're not, they could do a better job at hiding them than the skinned alligators. Ideally, I wish they'd remove most of the tutorial-y stuff from the story anyway, it's been crippling the opening sequences of every game since AC2. I would love to see an option in the main menu for a tutorial mode (a bit like the challenge modes from ACB) that new players could access for training so they could learn the controls, without forcing us longtime fans to slog through an insufferable amount of tutorials for stuff we already know. They could even have modes for new features, that every player, new and old, could access to brush up on their skills and learn new features without having to slow the story to a crawl.


I actually kind of disagree on this. Arcade games don't really need much more than a fanfare at the end. Overcoming the challenge is enough reward in itself. I gladly completed all the challenges in the Arkham games because they were fun in their own right. Problem is that the activities you need for completion in AC are tedious, not the lack of rewards imo.

But those games actually are challenging; if we're required to overcome a legitimate challenge, then yes, the accomplishment in and of itself is enough (though I do yearn for the bygone golden years of unlockable levels). If we're merely required to complete some extra easy tasks, then there really IS no sense of accomplishment, so there needs to be something else; either a strategic advantage or some unlockable stuff. You've said that they could add an element of challenge to the OO's, but then, in the last quote, you imply that they're often there to essentially serve as tutorials. I don't think they can simultaneously serve as a challenge to the core player base, AND serve as a tutorial for newcomers.


RDR had a medal system for all its missions and that didn't bother me one bit. It didn't shove the requirements down my throat and I just hardly noticed the system was there. In AC4 it was actually kind of similar. I just saw the OO after the mission was done, which was a tiny bit annoying, but not much.

AC4 literally freezes the screen and ticks off the boxes of the optional objectives, lol. GTA5 does the same thing and I hate it in that game too. RDR's system (I hate to seem like I'm fawning over that game, but it was a freaking masterpiece of the open-world genre lol) was so non-invasive I actually didn't even know it existed until I went to mop up some trophies and noticed it in the trophy list. It was still a dumb system IMO, but at least it wasn't in-your-face dumb.


A simple HUD option "Turn Optional Objectives off" would suffice for me.

Worst case scenario, I'd like that too, but it doesn't address the problem of mission design being built around OO's though.

Farlander1991
05-12-2014, 12:21 PM
but it doesn't address the problem of mission design being built around OO's though.

But that's not the problem. The problem is precisely the opposite - that mission design is not being built around OOs in any way. If they were, we wouldn't have so many half-arsed objectives like skinning the crocodiles (which exists there solely because 'holy **** we need optional objectives, what can we do in this level? Uh... uh... uh... this is all so not optional... oh, crocodiles! There are crocodiles! Skin them!').

Even what I consider to be good optional objectives are still built with that principle (at least seemingly). 'Oh, what can we do here? Oh, we can save people from being executed while running away!' - it's just good that they happen to fit and don't happen to point out at a concrete way to beat the mission.

If mission design would've been built around OOs/having OOs in mind, they would've been at the least non-intrusive and better designed (and most likely have some relevance to the main mission like you described in one of your posts)

LoyalACFan
05-12-2014, 12:38 PM
But that's not the problem. The problem is precisely the opposite - that mission design is not being built around OOs in any way. If they were, we wouldn't have so many half-arsed objectives like skinning the crocodiles (which exists there solely because 'holy **** we need optional objectives, what can we do in this level? Uh... uh... uh... this is all so not optional... oh, crocodiles! There are crocodiles! Skin them!').

Even what I consider to be good optional objectives are still built with that principle (at least seemingly). 'Oh, what can we do here? Oh, we can save people from being executed while running away!' - it's just good that they happen to fit and don't happen to point out at a concrete way to beat the mission.

If mission design would've been built around OOs/having OOs in mind, they would've been at the least non-intrusive and better designed (and most likely have some relevance to the main mission like you described in one of your posts)

AC4 wasn't as bad about it as AC3 was, but certain missions were obviously set up precisely for the task outlined in the OO. Vane's "assassination" suffered from the exact same complaint I had for Pitcairn's. The mission is specifically designed for you to sneak up around the back and air assassinate him. The crocodile thing... that was just so bad I have no idea what was going on with it.

Edit- Hornigold's assassination was the exact same way.

Farlander1991
05-12-2014, 12:58 PM
AC4 wasn't as bad about it as AC3 was, but certain missions were obviously set up precisely for the task outlined in the OO. Vane's "assassination" suffered from the exact same complaint I had for Pitcairn's. The mission is specifically designed for you to sneak up around the back and air assassinate him.

And Laurens Prins mission (while not having an optional objective regarding assassination) is specifically designed for an air assassination from a tree branch (among other ways), I remember you saying it was one of your favourite assassination missions :p (or something along those lines at least). Ever since AC1 all assassination missions had specifically designed approach and assassination possibilities (heck, AC1 even revealed those designed possibilities via the documents), that when put there in combination created very free-forming scenarios. That's just how designing such mission works, you don't just put a target in a random environment without any thought at all. You design with one or two approaches in mind, then add another one, then iterate and branch out a bit there and there. Not all assassinations missions have that kind of thing, even in AC1, but most of them do (including the Vane mission with whom I didn't sneak up on the back). Those things, combined with a more open-ended open world environment, and player freedom, create a wide range of possibilities. The problem with optional objectives, though, is that they straight up highlight one of the possible designed approach with a big exclamation mark, and it ruins the whole illusion. So it's not 'missions were obviously set up precisely for the task outlined in the OO', it's 'OO blatantly breaks the illusion and reveals one of the set up approaches'.

Markaccus
05-12-2014, 01:13 PM
My 2 pence/cents worth.....

Optional objectives should be in story missions ONLY if they are relevant. A suggested kill method, or not being detected. Basically something that the protagonist might possibly have done during the mission. None of this "skin 7 elephants, polish 12 ornaments or buy 6 packets of cheese and onion crisps" nonsense. And just keep it down to one per memory. Difficulty is not usually an issue, but currently some are a matter of luck.

Secondary memories could have a bit more freedom to add optional objectives, but as long as they are not too silly (see above about elephants :p)

NO HUNTING OR CRAFTING OPTIONALS DURING ANY MEMORIES!!! They should have their own separate set of memories imho.

I am the worlds deadliest Assassin, and just before i kill you, i am going to design and make for you a rather fetching ocelot toga. Strike a pose. Oh yeah baby, work that cat-skin.

SixKeys
05-12-2014, 02:55 PM
And Laurens Prins mission (while not having an optional objective regarding assassination) is specifically designed for an air assassination from a tree branch (among other ways), I remember you saying it was one of your favourite assassination missions :p

I disagree. That mission was one of the more open-ended ones IMO. In all my playthroughs of that mission, I never assassinated Prins from a tree branch. I didn't even know you could. That means it's not as obvious a path as some of the worst offenders, like Pitcairn. The Prins assassination only has an obvious path when it comes to the exit route after the assassination.


So it's not 'missions were obviously set up precisely for the task outlined in the OO', it's 'OO blatantly breaks the illusion and reveals one of the set up approaches'.

This is a fair point. The game gives you obvious hints that make it easy to anticipate what kind of map layout to expect. Like in the Vane mission, the OO told you there was going to be a ledge above from which you could air-assassinate him, thereby taking all the fun out of planning your own approach.

I don't even want the optional objectives gone because I hate them or anything. I just think it's high time to replace them with something new. Full sync doesn't even make sense canonically anymore, since we're not unlocking repressed memories nor accumulating actual sync with our ancestors (thereby granting us access to their powers outside the Animus).

Farlander1991
05-12-2014, 03:32 PM
I disagree. That mission was one of the more open-ended ones IMO. In all my playthroughs of that mission, I never assassinated Prins from a tree branch.

Well, that's only because there's no 'air assassinate' optional objective ;) The thing is if you air assassinate from a tree you can see a clear route that the designer has placed, and the point I'm trying to make is that even what is considered to be open-ended missions have designed routes because that's how mission design works (well, I already posted my argument in that same post you've quoted). And does Pitcairn assassination REALLY have an obvious path? There are bushes all around the place, and the camp itself has got a bunch of haystacks and tents. There's like 4 possible ways to get to Pitcairn without a fight including the air assassination one (I've played that mission extensively when was writing about it for my blog post, though can't remember them off the top of my head now). The only reason it's obvious is because a message 'air assassinate Pitcairn' appears and that flagpole is essentially the only visible high object close to the target, so you instantly know - oh, right, I should get to it then. Had there been no optional objective, it would really be the equivalent of 'assassinate Prins from a tree branch' (though, the mansion is better designed than the camp, and when it comes to the camp I think the mission design also relied on the possibility to assassinate on a horse from a rock like shown in one of the demos/trailers but that ability was cut out, which, alongside with a detection system that got broken, removes one of the potential possible assassination ways... though, to be honest, broken detection system doesn't exactly help the other paths either, but they're there), in a sense that it would be just one of the paths to cleverly discover, rather than 'oh it's so obvious how to kill him'.

jeffies04
05-12-2014, 06:45 PM
Get rid of it. Find some other way to communicate things to the player. I can't tell you how many times I am either disappointed or frustrated by optional objectives.

It SAYS optional, but FEELS required. I am penalized by not receiving 100% for not running around and killing 4 brutes, which I never had to do to succeed in my mission.

Totally immersion breaking. Figure out another way to communicate points-of-interest to the player (like seeing Rackham and Vane in the Port Royal prison mission.)

EDIT: who remembers the slow-mo scene in AC3 where you had to chase down Hickey??

LoyalACFan
05-13-2014, 05:10 AM
And Laurens Prins mission (while not having an optional objective regarding assassination) is specifically designed for an air assassination from a tree branch (among other ways), I remember you saying it was one of your favourite assassination missions :p (or something along those lines at least).

I don't mind having a convenient assassination setup, just as long as there are other, equally viable ways of completing the mission. In Laurens Prins' case, there were; personally, I just sneaked up from behind and stabbed him the old-fashioned way. In the case of Hornigold, Vane, or Pitcairn, there weren't, and all of those missions had constraints based on assassination technique; your options are limited to either doing it exactly as the constraint demands, or getting engaged in a long, clunky fight with them. I don't think it's a coincidence that the linear assassination missions have constraints placed on them, but the open-ended ones don't. All of the assassination missions in the entire franchise have had preplanned routes to the target; I'm not debating that. But I am arguing that since the introduction of constraints, the mission design has leaned more toward scripting the entire mission based on one approach.

Hell, even Marco Barbarigo, AC2's most on-rails assassination besides Uberto, was more open-ended than many of AC3 and AC4's targets. You're supposed to blend with the courtesans and shoot him, but on my first playthrough, I swam around behind his boat, silently ledge-assassinated two of his men, and stabbed him in the back with my sword. If that mission had been designed with the sync constraint system in mind, I can't help but feel like "Kill Marco With the Gun" would be the "optional" constraint, and we'd be hit with an auto-desync or some crap if we tried my approach.

BloodHerritage
05-13-2014, 08:25 AM
and why should we JUST listen to completionists?? it sounds like those completionists are noobs who can't pass an easy as bricks 100% constriction..


all I read is "waaaa waaa, I want 100% to be easy as bricks"

People arent asking for them to go away'[/QUOTE]
yes they are[/QUOTE]

I have all optional objectives on all games since AcB, i still hate them. No matter how optional they are, i'm too completionist and i can't really play ignoring them unless i remove them from the HUD, and removing them from the HUD i also remove other stuff that i want to have on screen.

Like when in Ac3 i didn't want so many animus notifications but if i removed that i no longer knew how much money and what objects i'd get from looting.

They are bad implemented most of the times and add nothing to the game at all. If they want to add challenge then they should add a dificulty level or balance the game itself.

6 games and it's still balanced like s**t, It seems like ubisoft have morello balancing the game for them (morello is the guy behind League of Legends balance patches).

Sushiglutton
05-13-2014, 11:24 AM
That mission was over halfway through the game; by that time, they should be long done with tutorials. Even if they're not, they could do a better job at hiding them than the skinned alligators. Ideally, I wish they'd remove most of the tutorial-y stuff from the story anyway, it's been crippling the opening sequences of every game since AC2. I would love to see an option in the main menu for a tutorial mode (a bit like the challenge modes from ACB) that new players could access for training so they could learn the controls, without forcing us longtime fans to slog through an insufferable amount of tutorials for stuff we already know. They could even have modes for new features, that every player, new and old, could access to brush up on their skills and learn new features without having to slow the story to a crawl.


Almost the entire campaign is a tutorial though :p. I mean the ropedart were introduced even later. That said I think Farlander's explanation of the aligator thing being a desperate attempt of finding a OO is probably closer to the truth.

As for tutorials in general I agree, they are a massive problem for the game. Like I said the campaign is more or less a tutorial for the open world activities which makes it slow-paced, hand-holdy and contrived.



But those games actually are challenging; if we're required to overcome a legitimate challenge, then yes, the accomplishment in and of itself is enough (though I do yearn for the bygone golden years of unlockable levels). If we're merely required to complete some extra easy tasks, then there really IS no sense of accomplishment, so there needs to be something else; either a strategic advantage or some unlockable stuff. You've said that they could add an element of challenge to the OO's, but then, in the last quote, you imply that they're often there to essentially serve as tutorials. I don't think they can simultaneously serve as a challenge to the core player base, AND serve as a tutorial for newcomers.

The point I was trying to make is that rewards are not enough. You can't save tedious activities with ever so flashy rewards. The only way OO will be interesting to me is if they are fun to do in their own right.

You say: "(...)there needs to be something else (...) some unlockable stuff.". I say that is not enough.

I agree that they can't serve as both tutorial and challenge. I think the tutorial part (like I said it's also about giving player an incentive to try new stuff, as many gamers just pick a basic tactic and stick with it throughout the game) is more important. That's why my solution is to keep them in their current form and then let more experienced player's disable them in the HUD menu. Experienced gamers can make their own challenges.




AC4 literally freezes the screen and ticks off the boxes of the optional objectives, lol. GTA5 does the same thing and I hate it in that game too. RDR's system (I hate to seem like I'm fawning over that game, but it was a freaking masterpiece of the open-world genre lol) was so non-invasive I actually didn't even know it existed until I went to mop up some trophies and noticed it in the trophy list. It was still a dumb system IMO, but at least it wasn't in-your-face dumb.

Haha true, but there is a massive difference between seeing them after the mission is over and before. The way AC4 does it there at least are no spoilers.


One massive problem for AC when it comes to having interesting challenging OO is that the gameplay systems are too weak to be fun in an arcade sense. So it's really hard to create challenges that are fun. If parkour was interesting setting time goals could be a fun type of challenge, but it's not. Same goes for combat.

Ureh
05-13-2014, 04:08 PM
Good thing about AC1 assassinations was that we can scope out the area before the memory starts. Know where the guards are and plan multiple escape routes. When things change, I'll adapt.

Zafar1981
05-13-2014, 10:55 PM
Totally agree with you mate. I hate those optional objective specially when the mission is ideal for you to do by your own way.

Even the meaning of open world game play is sacked if you put optional objective, I mean we are playing a sandbox game not a linear game

xaventh
05-14-2014, 05:10 AM
I voted yes for 3 reasons.

1. We are experiencing memories of things that already happened. It has a great reason to exist because of the fact that we are in the animus.

2. Every AC game is extremely easy already. While most objectives are as well, there are times that they can actually present some resemblance of a challenge.

3. This relates to #1. If they remove them then Ubi needs to just create the illusion that they are gone and make every sequence more challenging by never presenting the option to do additional things. While I dont mind this, the majority here probably will.

Fact is, at the core of every AC, is a game that is extremely easy. I let my 9 year old play black flag and he beat it on his own. That says alot to me. Keep it as is or make the game more challenging. If you enjoy the games for just the lore, I can understand that. Just take peace in knowing that this is exactly what ezio, edward ect did and to do it differently would defeat the purpose of experiencing their memories :)

RinoTheBouncer
05-14-2014, 08:56 AM
to do it differently would defeat the purpose of experiencing their memories :)
I don’t think the purpose of us viewing their memories was to know whether Edward skinned an alligator while tracking a boat or whether Ezio’s tank was scratched.

Dev_Anj
05-14-2014, 09:13 AM
You know what?

Looking at how much of a negative response optional objectives have got, I think Ubisoft should make a global survey asking about them in detail.

As far as I'm concerned, no I don't want them to return. Oftentimes, they feel like artificial challenges added to missions. Many members have already discussed the flaws of these objectives here. Also, the argument of "It's optional!" doesn't hold when they affect your collection percentage, as well as psychologically tell you that you played poorly( seriously, how can someone take messages such as "50% synch", red marks on a meter and such to not be a discouragement?) I say I don't want them anymore, and let Ubisoft make a survey and then hopefully ditch them if most other players wish the same.

SixKeys
05-14-2014, 09:16 AM
1. We are experiencing memories of things that already happened. It has a great reason to exist because of the fact that we are in the animus.


The Animus excuse only makes sense on a surface level. As many people have mentioned, sometimes you can complete the optional objective in a completely ridiculous way which is in no way realistic, but because you compelted the objective, it must be how the ancestor did it. For example, if the optional objective is "don't take damage because Ezio didn't take damage during this mission" and you complete the mission by hiding behind a tree until the timer runs out, that's just stupid. It means Ezio, the great master assassin, completed the mission by hiding behind a tree until 3 minutes had passed.

RinoTheBouncer
05-14-2014, 09:22 AM
The Animus excuse only makes sense on a surface level. As many people have mentioned, sometimes you can complete the optional objective in a completely ridiculous way which is in no way realistic, but because you compelted the objective, it must be how the ancestor did it. For example, if the optional objective is "don't take damage because Ezio didn't take damage during this mission" and you complete the mission by hiding behind a tree until the timer runs out, that's just stupid. It means Ezio, the great master assassin, completed the mission by hiding behind a tree until 3 minutes had passed.

Exactly! I agree with you 100000000%

Same goes for optional objectives related to time limitations. They say ďConnor finished this mission in less than 4 minutesĒ well he didnít just finish in less than 4 minutes, he finished it for example at 3:56 so finishing at 3:47 isnít exactly how he did it because itís less than what he did and finishing at 4:01 is the same. And same thing goes for finishing side missions in a ridiculous way like hiding behind a tree or standing on a balcony, throwing smoke bombs. It makes you finish the mission in a way that is neither realistic nor it fits what happened in the past. So in other words, itís not synching, itís just demanding objectives.


You know what?

Looking at how much of a negative response optional objectives have got, I think Ubisoft should make a global survey asking about them in detail.

As far as I'm concerned, no I don't want them to return. Oftentimes, they feel like artificial challenges added to missions. Many members have already discussed the flaws of these objectives here. Also, the argument of "It's optional!" doesn't hold when they affect your collection percentage, as well as psychologically tell you that you played poorly( seriously, how can someone take messages such as "50% synch", red marks on a meter and such to not be a discouragement?) I say I don't want them anymore, and let Ubisoft make a survey and then hopefully ditch them if most other players wish the same.

I totally agree with you. The excuse of ďtheyíre optionalĒ doesnít hold because the game clearly tells you that you didnít do it right and most of these do not make sense such as skinning an alligator while tailing a boat, I mean how much time in real life would it take to do so? why is it a priority to skin an alligator?

SixKeys
05-14-2014, 09:33 AM
Same goes for optional objectives related to time limitations. They say “Connor finished this mission in less than 4 minutes” well he didn’t just finish in less than 4 minutes, he finished it for example at 3:56 so finishing at 3:47 isn’t exactly how he did it because it’s less than what he did and finishing at 4:01 is the same. And same thing goes for finishing side missions in a ridiculous way like hiding behind a tree or standing on a balcony, throwing smoke bombs. It makes you finish the mission in a way that is neither realistic nor it fits what happened in the past. So in other words, it’s not synching, it’s just demanding objectives.

Not to mention sometimes the sync demands directly contradict each other. In ACB, some of the Romulus lairs demand that you complete them in less than 8 minutes. To do this, you must run through the location, with only a few precious moments to waste. But in these same locations, you have treasure chests in hard-to-reach locations. If you decide to get all the chests, you fail the sync objective. Problem is, treasure chests ALSO count towards full sync (you can see them in the DNA strand). Meaning that in order to reach full sync with Ezio, you must both collect the chests and finish the tomb in less tha 8 minutes. Since this is impossible, it means Ezio didn't do one or the other.

RinoTheBouncer
05-14-2014, 09:42 AM
Not to mention sometimes the sync demands directly contradict each other. In ACB, some of the Romulus lairs demand that you complete them in less than 8 minutes. To do this, you must run through the location, with only a few precious moments to waste. But in these same locations, you have treasure chests in hard-to-reach locations. If you decide to get all the chests, you fail the sync objective. Problem is, treasure chests ALSO count towards full sync (you can see them in the DNA strand). Meaning that in order to reach full sync with Ezio, you must both collect the chests and finish the tomb in less tha 8 minutes. Since this is impossible, it means Ezio didn't do one or the other.

Perfectly said.

As a game, you can do it by multiple replays but Ezio did not replay nor should we assume that he visited these locations multiple times so they are pretty contradicting.

Locopells
05-14-2014, 10:29 AM
Who to say he doesn't go back later, to collect the stuff he spots, while running though in a hurry (for whatever story reason takes him there in the first place)?!

RinoTheBouncer
05-14-2014, 03:34 PM
Who to say he doesn't go back later, to collect the stuff he spots, while running though in a hurry (for whatever story reason takes him there in the first place)?!

The guy is busy doing missions for the creed and finishing these side-quests, I doubt that he has the time or the dedication to go back and collect flags. I mean what’s he gonna do with them anyway? their existence is not justifiable because people put flags on political spots or in city squares or near monuments and buildings of great significance not in some God-forsaken sewer.

Markaccus
05-14-2014, 04:21 PM
The guy is busy doing missions for the creed and finishing these side-quests, I doubt that he has the time or the dedication to go back and collect flags. I mean what’s he gonna do with them anyway? their existence is not justifiable because people put flags on political spots or in city squares or near monuments and buildings of great significance not in some God-forsaken sewer.

....and there it is. The whole problem about optional objectives and collectables in a nutshell. Well said. In AC 2 the rebuilding and art collections (not to mention the armor) all had good reason. Ezio was making life better for people and himself. Even the feathers had significance because who wouldn't do that for their mam? all the side quests made money, to help his cause. In ACB, while the re-building of rome was great, and the side quests again made money, things turned a bit silly with the borgia flags. What reason did he have for this? His mam didn't want them. Would he really have wasted his time flapping all over (and under) Rome just to get a cloak? No. Correct. I don't mind (and i imagine others may agree) that if a collectable/side mission/OpObj. has a valid reason for being there then fine, but stop putting things in just for the sake of it!

AssassinHMS
05-15-2014, 02:51 PM
Obviously not. However there could be optional investigations (where the player would observe the location prior to the assassination and look for points of entry, guard placement, people who are close to the target, tail and eavesdrop on them or interrogate said people). Completing these investigations would reward the player with information:
- what the interior of the specific location is like (the assassin would automatically draw a map with the information given plus shortcuts, loot, safe or dangerous areas, etc.)
- the target's daily routine (best time to strike, possible ambush locations, etc.)
- other details (knowing that a buffet will be served at x hour and the location of the kitchen would be useful in case the player wants to poison the target/ location of several objects that can be used to kill or incapacitate guards/ secret locations like dungeons, etc.)

Then it would be up to the player to plan the assassination without any messages telling how he should do his job.

The player could also choose to start the assassination mission without completing a single investigation but he wouldn't know what to expect inside and would not have any magical map to guide him.

SixKeys
05-15-2014, 07:19 PM
The player could also choose to start the assassination mission without completing a single investigation but he wouldn't know what to expect inside and would not have any magical map to guide him.

We already do this all the time. The thing is that AC games really aren't that difficult, so you don't actually need to prepare. Meaning devs would only be wasting their time making investigation missions that most people would probably skip as unnecessary.

AssassinHMS
05-15-2014, 09:46 PM
We already do this all the time. The thing is that AC games really aren't that difficult, so you don't actually need to prepare. Meaning devs would only be wasting their time making investigation missions that most people would probably skip as unnecessary.

True and that's just one of the thousand reasons why AC would benefit from a more challenging experience (with properly developed core mechanics to back it up, obviously).

But it's not just about the difficulty. Instead of having to see the message "Assassinate the target in this particular way for full synch" you could investigate, learn all the information, figure out all the ways you can assassinate the target and choose the one that suits your style or your mood.

I personaly think it's a lot more enjoyable to plan your assassination, figure out how this particular piece of information can be useful and choose your method instead of being forced into some fast-paced level and improvise all the way through until the game tells you that the ancestor did this and that in a particular way. I mean, who is the Assassin here? I am not allowed to plan the mission, I am forced to improvise and the game still tells me to kill an alligator or to assassinate the target this way.

And it's not just about different ways to kill the target. Infiltration (safe routes, guards' locations and routines, etc.) and escape would also be a lot easier and varied.
These games (and especially the optional objecties) are so anti-assassin. Preparation is key.

I would like to play an AC game where I get to plan every mission, where information is essencial and there are no magical highly detailed maps to tell me the way as the only map is hand drawn and only caries the information I managed to collect.

Of course the investigation missions would have to be fun, more or less complex and with a premisse that actually makes sense (unlike AC 1's) and the game would have to be harder in order to properly convey the importance of completing these investigations.

Hans684
05-16-2014, 08:54 PM
But it's not just about the difficulty. Instead of having to see the message "Assassinate the target in this particular way for full synch" you could investigate, learn all the information, figure out all the ways you can assassinate the target and choose the one that suits your style or your mood.

Sounds a lot better than optional objective.

Assassin_M
05-17-2014, 01:46 AM
The excuses to counter the arguments of it being optional are hilarious to read

roostersrule2
05-17-2014, 03:18 AM
Yes it should.

Anyone who doesn't like optional objectives is a pleb, there's no downside to it.

AssassinHMS
05-17-2014, 04:43 AM
Sounds a lot better than optional objective.

Yeah, optional or not, they are still objectives that you can complete or fail. Optional investigations, on the other hand, are closer to concealed suggestions that aren't abruptly presented to you but that you can discover by performing side activities and piecing information together. Plus, they actually encourage the player to think like an Assassin.

Assassin_M
05-17-2014, 06:37 AM
Yes it should.

Anyone who doesn't like optional objectives is a pleb, there's no downside to it.
But i no likey the red color that tells me i haz failed, ubishoft should be more courteous

Hans684
05-17-2014, 09:21 AM
Yeah, optional or not, they are still objectives that you can complete or fail. Optional investigations, on the other hand, are closer to concealed suggestions that aren't abruptly presented to you but that you can discover by performing side activities and piecing information together.

Like Hitman, the optional investigations can be around the place the assassination takes place. If is before it would be investigation missions with optional investigation, then it wouldn't be optional since you have to go trough it to continue the story.


Plus, they actually encourage the player to play stealthy.

Fixed.

Sushiglutton
05-17-2014, 09:28 AM
But i no likey the red color that tells me i haz failed, ubishoft should be more courteous

And Ubi thought so as well which is why they changed it.

Hans684
05-17-2014, 09:33 AM
Consider how long it had been in development I can say there will be OO.

Locopells
05-17-2014, 05:53 PM
We already do this all the time. The thing is that AC games really aren't that difficult, so you don't actually need to prepare. Meaning devs would only be wasting their time making investigation missions that most people would probably skip as unnecessary.

Then make it harder - with easy escape routes or something, that are blocked unless you complete the relevant investigation.

AssassinHMS
05-17-2014, 06:35 PM
Like Hitman, the optional investigations can be around the place the assassination takes place. If is before it would be investigation missions with optional investigation, then it wouldn't be optional since you have to go trough it to continue the story.
My idea is that, while main missions unlock the name and the location of the target, investigation missions unlock the information which you don't need to start the main assassination mission but that will give you a lot more information about said location and about the target.
As for the location where the investigations take place and since I don't want mission markers, the place to start would be at the actual location (like you said). There you would scope the area for possible infiltration routes (a broken window, underground tunnels, etc.) and your finds would be registered on the mission diary. You could also monitor those that enter or leave the location and tail them. Then you could eavesdrop on their conversations (in order to find information about your mission or that you can use to blackmail them), intimidate them with violence or complete missions for them. As for the best method to use, it would depend on the person. You would have to analyse them (if they are rich or poor, if they have bodyguards, if they are willing to betray the target) and choose the best way to deal with them. They would provide information according to their connection to the target. While a maid could tell you basic information such as the overall layout of the building or what the target will be eating at dinner (so that you know what food to poison), a friend or a close associate could reveal more personal and secret information. They could also lead you to another person, a specific location or a trap (which can happen sometimes if you choose the wrong way to obtain information). Basicaly, it would be a detective job resembling L.A. Noire a bit.



Fixed. I was reffering to being a detective, to the art of investigation. You can still choose not to be stealthy at your own risk.

Hans684
05-17-2014, 07:39 PM
My idea is that, while main missions unlock the name and the location of the target, investigation missions unlock the information which you don't need to start the main assassination mission but that will give you a lot more information about said location and about the target.

So main missions is going to be more or less the same(to continue the story leading to the assassination, as usual), but they unlock side missions(Investigation missions) for the assassination mission at the end of each sequence.


As for the location where the investigations take place and since I don't want mission markers, the place to start would be at the actual location (like you said). There you would scope the area for possible infiltration routes (a broken window, underground tunnels, etc.) and your finds would be registered on the mission diary.

Since it is an open world game there should be more than one possible infiltration routes, if not it would be scripted stealth. And that us just as bad as scripted action. So the mission diary is going to be like a logg showing everything thing we have investigated? Then we can at least keep properly track of the info and make a better plan, a good idea.


You could also monitor those that enter or leave the location and tail them. Then you could eavesdrop on their conversations (in order to find information about your mission or that you can use to blackmail them), intimidate them with violence or complete missions for them.

Or there can be marked places on the map(becouse Animus) that show some people you can eavesdrop on on your way to the place of the assassination and you can either ignore them and lose some valuable information or eavesdrop. Instead of going trough half the city becouse someone left the party that might have useable info, not every person need to be special for the assassination. A few normal conversations should be there to balance it. It would be weird if every no name person where involved in the conspiracies of the Templars. Might as well blow the city out of existence.


As for the best method to use, it would depend on the person. You would have to analyse them (if they are rich or poor, if they have bodyguards, if they are willing to betray the target) and choose the best way to deal with them. They would provide information according to their connection to the target.

We should have to option to eavesdrop(old school or take their bodyguards outfit), manipulate(by having an conversation with them where you choose what to say or trough environment) etc...


While a maid could tell you basic information such as the overall layout of the building or what the target will be eating at dinner (so that you know what food to poison), a friend or a close associate could reveal more personal and secret information.

For the people working for the target we should be able to manipulate, I'm sure a maid back then have at least seen their boss's friends. So the ability to manipulate would be useful, if not the maid should be someone to avoid, unless you want to get detected and have a fight instead. Friends can easly be a hit or miss, some might hate the target or respect, one lead to a perfect kill and another to a trap. The associate can be both a trap or friend, depending if the person can benefit of having the target alive or dead. And or course the options to eavesdrop, manipulate etc...


They could also lead you to another person, a specific location or a trap (which can happen sometimes if you choose the wrong way to obtain information).

And all that should depend on the persons.


Basicaly, it would be a detective job resembling L.A. Noire a bit.

Heard of it but have not played it.


I was reffering to being a detective, to the art of investigation. You can still choose not to be stealthy at your own risk.

You where referring to detective work by talking about thinking like an assassin while favoring stealth. But our discussion seems to be going good so far, so why not drop this part of the discussion like gentlemen before things get out of hand...again.

AssassinHMS
05-17-2014, 09:53 PM
So main missions is going to be more or less the same(to continue the story leading to the assassination, as usual), but they unlock side missions(Investigation missions) for the assassination mission at the end of each sequence.

Since it is an open world game there should be more than one possible infiltration routes, if not it would be scripted stealth. And that us just as bad as scripted action. So the mission diary is going to be like a logg showing everything thing we have investigated? Then we can at least keep properly track of the info and make a better plan, a good idea.

Or there can be marked places on the map(becouse Animus) that show some people you can eavesdrop on on your way to the place of the assassination and you can either ignore them and lose some valuable information or eavesdrop. Instead of going trough half the city becouse someone left the party that might have useable info, not every person need to be special for the assassination. A few normal conversations should be there to balance it. It would be weird if every no name person where involved in the conspiracies of the Templars. Might as well blow the city out of existence.

We should have to option to eavesdrop(old school or take their bodyguards outfit), manipulate(by having an conversation with them where you choose what to say or trough environment) etc...

For the people working for the target we should be able to manipulate, I'm sure a maid back then have at least seen their boss's friends. So the ability to manipulate would be useful, if not the maid should be someone to avoid, unless you want to get detected and have a fight instead. Friends can easly be a hit or miss, done might hate the target or respect, one lead to a perfect kill and another to a trap. The associate can be both a trap or friend, depending if the person can benefit of having the target alive or dead. And or course the options to eavesdrop, manipulate etc...

And all that should depend on the persons.

Heard of it but have not played it.

Exactly. Some nifty ideas here.
I hate hit or miss stealth where the player relies mostly on luck. Investigatons would ensure that a well-informed player has, theoretically, the control necessary to be successful. He can find out where most traps and enemies are, all secret areas, shortcuts and obtain hand draw blueprints, plus the knowledge of the target's routine, habits, personality and even some weaknesses. It's all there and every important detail stays registered on the Assassin's diary. The challenge is in obaining the information, making a virtually flawless plan and carrying it out. No plan is better than the other as long as they are all well-thought-out. The difference is that they fit different player styles. Some plans may require combat while others lay on the player's ability to be a "ghost" and never get caught. Some involve a more personal kill, better free-running skills or a harsh and cold attitude towards guards (who are just doing their job) or other innocent people (like the target's relatives that can be used to manipulate the target).

L.A. Noire is an action-adventure game where you play as a detective during 1947 in Los Angeles. In my opinion it is a great game and it's by far the best at what it does because it really makes the player think and feel like at detective. If you like the noir genre you should really chek it out. Just watch angry joe review.

Hans684
05-18-2014, 09:41 AM
Exactly. Some nifty ideas here.

Thank you.


I hate hit or miss stealth where the player relies mostly on luck.

They(friends) are a hit or miss if you don't have enough information, like knowing if one of them hates the target and want him dead for X reason or if one if they respect the target and would make a trap for you. That's why friends are some of the last people to talk to, before that you need to talk/eavesdrop on information about them.


Investigatons would ensure that a well-informed player has, theoretically, the control necessary to be successful.

Over powered stealth then with no chance of failure, sounds like the current AC combat.


He can find out where most traps and enemies are, all secret areas, shortcuts and obtain hand draw blueprints, plus the knowledge of the target's routine, habits, personality and even some weaknesses.It's all there and every important detail stays registered on the Assassin's diary.

There should be fake info to, just to balance things. And if you have investigated enough you would know what's wrong and correct.


The challenge is in obaining the information, making a virtually flawless plan and carrying it out. No plan is better than the other as long as they are all well-thought-out. The difference is that they fit different player styles. Some plans may require combat while others lay on the player's ability to be a "ghost" and never get caught. Some involve a more personal kill, better free-running skills or a harsh and cold attitude towards guards (who are just doing their job) or other innocent people (like the target's relatives that can be used to manipulate the target).

And if the plan is flawless depends on how much you have investigated and know. The less you know the higher chance of failure, of course the is always different kind of player. Like one that improvise, if the that player plays stealthy and spots his flaw in the plan before getting in trouble, that player would change a pice of the play on the fly and continue the assassination. Then we have the well-thought-out flawless player that goes trough the assassination like butter. And then the no plan combat player that paints the entire floor red.


L.A. Noire is an action-adventure game where you play as a detective during 1947 in Los Angeles. In my opinion it is a great game and it's by far the best at what it does because it really makes the player think and feel like at detective. If you like the noir genre you should really chek it out. Just watch angry joe review.

Going the check out the AJ review first, it will decide if I'm going to get it or not.

phoenix-force411
05-19-2014, 05:36 AM
Ever since ACIII's Optional Objectives, I have been declined to do anymore playthroughs of AC games. ACIII being the worse one since I had to do it twice, 'cause of the bugs!

Markaccus
05-19-2014, 04:15 PM
I like peoples idea of having a certain number of optional investigation missions when taking out a main-story target. So you could have say 3-4 memories per sequence, but in the last memory of each sequence, put in maybe 3-5 small optional investigation quests based around the ideas people have suggested, and drop elephant-skinning and window shopping for hats and other irrelevant optional objectives, and no need for "assassinate target while performing a triple salko and shouting "wheee" for 5 seconds"!

inferno33222
05-19-2014, 08:00 PM
I know it's the less popular opinion, but I think Optional Objectives should make a return. They help to flesh out levels and can be rewarding. However, they should be changed, so that they are less restrictive and more like extra things to do.

SixKeys
05-19-2014, 08:21 PM
Then make it harder - with easy escape routes or something, that are blocked unless you complete the relevant investigation.

Ooh, that is a good idea actually. It would change the game every time you play it, since you could choose to do some investigations but not all of them. So one time a gate could be blocked because you didn't do that investigation, but another path would be open instead.

lothario-da-be
05-19-2014, 08:23 PM
They should make optional objectives optional.

Locopells
05-20-2014, 12:55 AM
Ooh, that is a good idea actually. It would change the game every time you play it, since you could choose to do some investigations but not all of them. So one time a gate could be blocked because you didn't do that investigation, but another path would be open instead.

Plus it gives you an incentive. Say if each unlock emphasised a play style - free running, combat, stealth, etc, then you'd have to do all of them until you found the one you wanted.

Markaccus
05-20-2014, 08:22 AM
Plus it gives you an incentive. Say if each unlock emphasised a play style - free running, combat, stealth, etc, then you'd have to do all of them until you found the one you wanted.

If they make them interesting enough, people might even do them all anyway. Then you achieve your 100% synch by doing relevant things instead of padding.

UBI, YOUR PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN. TAKE NOTE :p

YazX_
05-20-2014, 09:06 AM
those objectives are part of the game and have been integrated since ACB to make things more challenging to reach 100% sync which is a great idea IMO, anyway, i would agree with some folks here about the context of those objectives, i personally dont like "Avoid being Detected", "Dont Kill Anyone",.... ones who are forcing you to approach the mission in different manner than you would like to do it, however, most of them are pretty good to have to make the game more challenging as i said earlier. and as the name implies, those are OPTIONAL, not required to do it unless if you are after 100%.

so sorry guys, i would vote for them to stay. either ways, the game is in the last stages of development now, so most probably the design behavior wont change if they are already there.

Locopells
05-20-2014, 10:25 AM
Hey don't apologise - everyone has their own opinion (and I agree, except about the stealth once, since that's how I play anyway, so...).

Sushiglutton
05-20-2014, 12:05 PM
those objectives are part of the game and have been integrated since ACB to make things more challenging to reach 100% sync which is a great idea IMO, anyway, i would agree with some folks here about the context of those objectives, i personally dont like "Avoid being Detected", "Dont Kill Anyone",.... ones who are forcing you to approach the mission in different manner than you would like to do it, however, most of them are pretty good to have to make the game more challenging as i said earlier. and as the name implies, those are OPTIONAL, not required to do it unless if you are after 100%.

so sorry guys, i would vote for them to stay. either ways, the game is in the last stages of development now, so most probably the design behavior wont change if they are already there.

I think the "they are OPTIONAL" argument is not as definitve as people seem to think. It's perfectly reasonable for completionists to have opinions on what should constitute 100% requirement. After all they are the ones doing these activities.

Also truly OPTIONAL means you should never even have to see them. Part of their problem is that they spoil what will happen in the mission and give hints for how to play. Therefor just seeing them is a problem. There needs to be an option in the HUD customization menu to turn them off completely.

Locopells
05-20-2014, 12:44 PM
Trouble is, if you don't see them, it can be irritating for people like me, who completed them on the first playthrough - I nearly missed a few, because they didn't show until almost too late.

SixKeys
05-20-2014, 01:19 PM
Trouble is, if you don't see them, it can be irritating for people like me, who completed them on the first playthrough - I nearly missed a few, because they didn't show until almost too late.

Yeah, this bug still happens to me occasionally. And not just when it's almost too late. The simplest solution would be to give players the option to turn them on or off in the options.

Locopells
05-20-2014, 01:27 PM
...the option to turn them on or off in the options.

Heh, I see what you did there...

But yes, that would be the simplest thing to do - past games it's always been stuck with stuff that needs to be seen, even by those who don't want the OOs.

Ureh
05-20-2014, 04:22 PM
In AC4 they gave the option to turn off the optional objectives that pop up on the lower-right corner. Turn off "updates" in the hud menu.

Locopells
05-20-2014, 04:50 PM
But if I remember right, that would also take out all side objectives.

Assassin_M
05-20-2014, 04:57 PM
I think the "they are OPTIONAL" argument is not as definitve as people seem to think. It's perfectly reasonable for completionists to have opinions on what should constitute 100% requirement. After all they are the ones doing these activities.

Also truly OPTIONAL means you should never even have to see them. Part of their problem is that they spoil what will happen in the mission and give hints for how to play. Therefor just seeing them is a problem. There needs to be an option in the HUD customization menu to turn them off completely.
it's still optional...non-optional is something trivial to finishing the game...completing the game is optional. side missions, collectibles..etc those are all optional. the story is mandatory to finishing the game. This is like saying "I don't like this collectible, remove it" but it's optional "no no, i want to get 100%" then collect it "but I don't want to" so don't "but I want 100%"

Game completion ALWAYS has a mundane task. it's a challenge. Kill 100 cougars in a set amount of time, collect 50 flowers, shoot the mushroom before it disappears, get a clean win in liar's dice 3 times, it's the same case with AC...it's supposed to be hard (because i believe that the only reason people are complaining is because they're hard) don't want to optional objectives? turn it off from the menu...simple as that...you just can't go around the optional argument because they ARE optional, just like everything not mandatory to finishing the story.

I have conceded that some optional objectives don't make sense and FORCE to go out of your way and I stated what they should be more akin to to better appeal to people..

Ureh
05-20-2014, 08:51 PM
But if I remember right, that would also take out all side objectives.

I guess it depends on how you define side objectives. :p

I remember that disabling the "updates" will also turn off the leaderboards ranking note, kenway's fleet notification, wanted level notifications.... and, that's all I can think of for now. xD

edit: Oh oh I remember the last one now.... social event updates! :)

Sushiglutton
05-20-2014, 09:19 PM
it's still optional...non-optional is something trivial to finishing the game...completing the game is optional. side missions, collectibles..etc those are all optional. the story is mandatory to finishing the game. This is like saying "I don't like this collectible, remove it" but it's optional "no no, i want to get 100%" then collect it "but I don't want to" so don't "but I want 100%"

Game completion ALWAYS has a mundane task. it's a challenge. Kill 100 cougars in a set amount of time, collect 50 flowers, shoot the mushroom before it disappears, get a clean win in liar's dice 3 times, it's the same case with AC...it's supposed to be hard (because i believe that the only reason people are complaining is because they're hard) don't want to optional objectives? turn it off from the menu...simple as that...you just can't go around the optional argument because they ARE optional, just like everything not mandatory to finishing the story.

I have conceded that some optional objectives don't make sense and FORCE to go out of your way and I stated what they should be more akin to to better appeal to people..

They are optional (well if you can turn them invisisble, which you pretty much can in AC4), but what I'm saying is that I don't see any problem with gamers having opinons on optional content. If someone likes to go for platinums (or whatever they're called) I think it's fine to criticize requirements they think are dull. Then it's up to the devs to do with that information what they want.

SixKeys
05-20-2014, 09:21 PM
it's supposed to be hard (because i believe that the only reason people are complaining is because they're hard) don't want to optional objectives?

Seriously? The only reason? Some of the optional objectives are as easy as "collect 3 flowers for Sofia" or "pickpocket all the Templars at the meeting". They're practically impossible to fail. We are not complaining about them because they are hard, but because they do not make the game more fun or challenging.

Assassin_M
05-20-2014, 09:25 PM
Seriously? The only reason? Some of the optional objectives are as easy as "collect 3 flowers for Sofia" or "pickpocket all the Templars at the meeting". They're practically impossible to fail. We are not complaining about them because they are hard, but because they do not make the game more fun or challenging.
I havent see anyone complain about pickpocketing templars in meetings, which is why i reached my view that most are complaining because it's hard..


They are optional (well if you can turn them invisisble, which you pretty much can in AC4), but what I'm saying is that I don't see any problem with gamers having opinons on optional content. If someone likes to go for platinums (or whatever they're called) I think it's fine to criticize requirements they think are dull. Then it's up to the devs to do with that information what they want.
You don't see the problem because you want it to be removed too but it's a problem for me because the idea of optional objectives is EVERYWHERE and it IS optional, so there IS a solution, if you don't like it, don't do it...it's a pretty fair solution and everyone wins.

SixKeys
05-20-2014, 09:26 PM
I havent see anyone complain about pickpocketing templars in meetings, which is why i reached my view that most are complaining because it's hard..

We are complaining about optional objectives. Not just particular ones in particular missions, but all of them as a concept. It's not that hard.

Assassin_M
05-20-2014, 09:28 PM
We are complaining about optional objectives. Not just particular ones in particular missions, but all of them as a concept. It's not that hard.
most of the posts complain about constraints that force you on a strict pass...how did the templar meeting constraint force you on a pass?? from that, I have deduced that no one is referring to the easy ones like the pickpocketing..

Sushiglutton
05-20-2014, 10:11 PM
You don't see the problem because you want it to be removed too but it's a problem for me because the idea of optional objectives is EVERYWHERE and it IS optional, so there IS a solution, if you don't like it, don't do it...it's a pretty fair solution and everyone wins.

I'm not a completionist, so yeah they don't bother me that much (in AC4 I hardly noted them at all tbh). All I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with completionists having opinions on the optional content.

AssassinHMS
05-21-2014, 02:47 AM
Well, I was mostly complaining about optional objectives in assassination missions. I mean, the fun of assassinating is doing it in your own unique way. Investigating, analysing the information obtained and planning the assassination from the infiltration to the escape should be a central aspect of Assassin's Creed (I say "should" because I think AC should put the player in the shoes of a real Assassin. But, should AC be just a faceless historical tour, then no, assassinations/investigations shouldn't be a central aspect). In that sense, the game should never ask anything from the player during an Assassination other than skill and competence.

Jexx21
05-21-2014, 02:49 AM
I could actually get behind not putting optional objectives in the Assassination missions.

RatonhnhakeFan
05-21-2014, 03:08 AM
They're nothing but an artificl game lenghtener and spoil the gameplay a lot, especially on the first playthrough. There's zero need for them, they should be gone long ago

HercRembrandt
05-21-2014, 10:45 AM
It's pretty pointless to defend "optional objectives" on the grounds of their optionality. Completing the game is optional. Playing it at all is optional.

The issue is with what they add to the experience. And it seems that they add unnecessary irritation, incentives to limit gameplay options and ticking timers that urge you to rush through missions without stopping to enjoy the scenery. How do they balance this out with positives? Moar challengings?

"It's better cuz it's harder!" is a severely limited view of what playing games is about. Otherwise games could all be improved by wearing a blindfold.

Kirokill
05-21-2014, 01:35 PM
I'm not a completionist, so yeah they don't bother me that much (in AC4 I hardly noted them at all tbh). All I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with completionists having opinions on the optional content.

I'm a completionist, almost. And I like them more than you think. AC games are easy, we all can agree with that. But the old optional objectives like don't take any damage. Really gives you extra ways of playing instead of the usual go in stab and kill when detected into use the OP stuff like bombs(ACR) or poison or even smoke bombs. Try new ways if failed.

Reach the place in less than 2 minutes for example in AC3. That made me go faster and not open conflict at the same time aware too much and could speed things up so fast.

I find it to avoid the missions being too repetitive, I mean all you do now since AC3 is run, stab, run, kill, run, assassinate, blow up, new sequence. OO give some of taste for a bit of variety.

Markaccus
05-21-2014, 02:00 PM
it's supposed to be hard (because i believe that the only reason people are complaining is because they're hard)

I have conceded that some optional objectives don't make sense and FORCE to go out of your way and I stated what they should be more akin to to better appeal to people..

I think you are wide of the mark on why people are complaining....

The second point i have quoted from you here is what i believe MOST people are complaining about. It's not the difficulty, it's the relevance. Yes some of them are hard, but people would still try and do them if they bore any relevance to the current mission. I like a challenge. The legendary ships for example are no walk in the park. It took me 6 attempts to nail La Damma Negra, and about the same to flatten El Impoluto last night, but i enjoyed it, as it was relevant to Edwards Character and to the supposed life he lead......Now, the example people use the most is the whole 'gator skinning nonsense. Thats not hard, just a bit awkward and totally unrealistic in context to the mission you are on.

dxsxhxcx
05-21-2014, 02:48 PM
I'm a completionist, almost. And I like them more than you think. AC games are easy, we all can agree with that. But the old optional objectives like don't take any damage. Really gives you extra ways of playing instead of the usual go in stab and kill when detected into use the OP stuff like bombs(ACR) or poison or even smoke bombs. Try new ways if failed.

Reach the place in less than 2 minutes for example in AC3. That made me go faster and not open conflict at the same time aware too much and could speed things up so fast.

I find it to avoid the missions being too repetitive, I mean all you do now since AC3 is run, stab, run, kill, run, assassinate, blow up, new sequence. OO give some of taste for a bit of variety.

but a system for that isn't necessary, you can create your own rules to how complete a mission and follow them without a system to tell you that.

Ureh
05-21-2014, 03:28 PM
I think some players prefer directions and instructions... something that's Official. :)

Locopells
05-21-2014, 03:47 PM
What about something like Hitman:Absolution's Contracts mode?

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 06:47 PM
It's pretty pointless to defend "optional objectives" on the grounds of their optionality. Completing the game is optional. Playing it at all is optional.

The issue is with what they add to the experience. And it seems that they add unnecessary irritation, incentives to limit gameplay options and ticking timers that urge you to rush through missions without stopping to enjoy the scenery. How do they balance this out with positives? Moar challengings?

"It's better cuz it's harder!" is a severely limited view of what playing games is about. Otherwise games could all be improved by wearing a blindfold.
Posting here is optional too. using that "argument" is picking at straws, if you're trying to counter, come up with something of more substance. the fact remains that 100% constraints are optional and that's that...

The blind fold argument is also severely flawed.


I think you are wide of the mark on why people are complaining....

The second point i have quoted from you here is what i believe MOST people are complaining about. It's not the difficulty, it's the relevance. Yes some of them are hard, but people would still try and do them if they bore any relevance to the current mission. I like a challenge. The legendary ships for example are no walk in the park. It took me 6 attempts to nail La Damma Negra, and about the same to flatten El Impoluto last night, but i enjoyed it, as it was relevant to Edwards Character and to the supposed life he lead......Now, the example people use the most is the whole 'gator skinning nonsense. Thats not hard, just a bit awkward and totally unrealistic in context to the mission you are on.
Sure, only single person brought up ones that are not relevant (sixkeys did that) everyone else complains about the "irritating" constraints and how they're "annoying" (another word for hard)

I also agree that many constraints are stupid and nonsensical.

Shahkulu101
05-21-2014, 07:06 PM
I like how you ignore the fact people are saying they just want to play how they want.

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 07:07 PM
I like how you ignore the fact people are saying they just want to play how they want.
It's optional, i like how everyone ignores that

Shahkulu101
05-21-2014, 07:30 PM
It's optional, i like how everyone ignores that

Let's all just ignore the content that serves no purpose other than going out of your way to do something that adds nothing to the game experience because it's optional then shall we

jayjay275
05-21-2014, 07:56 PM
Let's all just ignore the content that serves no purpose other than going out of your way to do something that adds nothing to the game experience because it's optional then shall we

Yup, well said. +1.

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 08:07 PM
Let's all just ignore the content that serves no purpose other than going out of your way to do something that adds nothing to the game experience because it's optional then shall we
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say that i AM against content that makes you go out of your way to accomplish and is non-sensical like the alligators thing? -_-

HercRembrandt
05-21-2014, 08:11 PM
Posting here is optional too. using that "argument" is picking at straws, if you're trying to counter, come up with something of more substance. the fact remains that 100% constraints are optional and that's that...

The blind fold argument is also severely flawed.




Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Of course posting here is optional, and it's an option I choose to exercise in case any Assassin's Creed developers are reading these forums to gather feedback about their design decisions. "Optional objectives" make the game less enjoyable. That seems to be the majority view.

If you want to get more technical about it, it could be argued that a major part of the appeal of Assassin's Creed is in acting out the fantasy of being a parkouring badass with history for a playground. This works because the rules of the world are consistent and allow for a degree of improvisation. The "optional objectives", on the other hand, add arbitrary extra rules that take you right out of the story into a meta game of ticking boxes, doing a considerable disservice to the worldbuilding and narrative efforts that go into the making of these games. It's not just that finishing tasks is a basic psychological need that is one of the major compensatory pleasures of game playing as opposed to many of our real life situations (and one that Ubisoft definitely skillfully exploits). It's that the very awareness of these checkboxes being there interferes with our ability to enter the fiction imaginatively. It's not unlike someone nagging at you for reading a book "all wrong".

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 08:18 PM
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Of course posting here is optional, and it's an option I choose to exercise in case any Assassin's Creed developers are reading these forums to gather feedback about their design decisions. "Optional objectives" make the game less enjoyable. That seems to be the majority view.
Oh I wasn't the one who started the whole "playing the game is optional too"

don't see how it being a majority view make it a fact or how it has any place in this argument.


If you want to get more technical about it, it could be argued that a major part of the appeal of Assassin's Creed is in acting out the fantasy of being a parkouring badass with history for a playground. This works because the rules of the world are consistent and allow for a degree of improvisation. The "optional objectives", on the other hand, add arbitrary extra rules that take you right out of the story into a meta game of ticking boxes, doing a considerable disservice to the worldbuilding and narrative efforts that go into the making of these games. It's not just that finishing tasks is a basic psychological need that is one of the major compensatory pleasures of game playing as opposed to many of our real life situations (and one that Ubisoft definitely skillfully exploits). It's that the very awareness of these checkboxes being there interferes with our ability to enter the fiction imaginatively. It's not unlike someone nagging at you for reading a book "all wrong".
The thing is, not everyone has a weird tingly feeling inside of "must....finish....this...NOW" and then have the audacity to say "oh my god, Ubisoft you suck, stop telling me how to play the game" the fact of the matter is, you didn't get technical...you just kept repeating what everyone else is using as an argument against it being optional, albeit with more complex wording.
it's optional, face it...any tingly feelings you get are caused by YOU, no one else...you can play the game however you like then replay the certain missions you need to get 100% on...simple as that.

Shahkulu101
05-21-2014, 08:25 PM
That's the problem, we don't want to replay the missions because the optional objectives are ****e.

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 08:28 PM
That's the problem, we don't want to replay the missions because the optional objectives are ****e.
Don't replay it then or ask for better optional objectives, not removing entirely...

Shahkulu101
05-21-2014, 08:32 PM
Don't replay it then or ask for better optional objectives, not removing entirely...

Maybe I would ask for them to be improved, but since 2010 they haven't been improved significantly and I don't trust that they're going to take a successful stab at it.

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 08:36 PM
Maybe I would ask for them to be improved, but since 2010 they haven't been improved significantly and I don't trust that they're going to take a successful stab at it.
Because no one has asked for them to be improved, it was just everyone asking for them to be removed, which Ubisoft will not do anytime soon apparently...

When we gave our criticisms of AC III, they listened and we got improvements.

Shahkulu101
05-21-2014, 08:41 PM
Because no one has asked for them to be improved, it was just everyone asking for them to be removed, which Ubisoft will not do anytime soon apparently...

When we gave our criticisms of AC III, they listened and we got improvements.

Well if they were aware people were annoyed with them and wanted them removed they might have been aware that improvement was needed.

Alright, Ubisoft, improve them by removing the ridiculous objectives i.e skinning an alligator and replace them with relevant tasks that look like something the ancestor might have done i.e kill the generals. Also, less restrictive objectives in assassination missions.

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 08:42 PM
Alright, Ubisoft, improve them by removing the ridiculous objectives i.e skinning an alligator and replace them with relevant tasks that look like something the ancestor might have done i.e kill the generals. Also, less restrictive objectives in assassination missions.
Thank you.

HercRembrandt
05-21-2014, 08:46 PM
The thing is, not everyone has a weird tingly feeling inside of "must....finish....this...NOW" and then have the audacity to say "oh my god, Ubisoft you suck, stop telling me how to play the game" the fact of the matter is, you didn't get technical...you just kept repeating what everyone else is using as an argument against it being optional, albeit with more complex wording.
it's optional, face it...any tingly feelings you get are caused by YOU, no one else...you can play the game however you like then replay the certain missions you need to get 100% on...simple as that.

Huh? Feelings are caused by the person having them, with no reference to outside stimuli, is that it? That's a pretty radical position.

Markaccus
05-21-2014, 08:48 PM
Sure, only single person brought up ones that are not relevant (sixkeys did that) everyone else complains about the "irritating" constraints and how they're "annoying" (another word for hard)

I also agree that many constraints are stupid and nonsensical.

Me and Rhino brought it up too....... however it seems that we agree on this in a way.... i voted unsure simply because i think the options idea needs serious overhaul. More in the way of how they are implemented within the missions. I love a challenge, and the basic story is basically easy so it does need that tasty side salad of difficulty. Personally so far, i like the idea of optional investigation missions. Relevant and they could be made to be tricky.

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 08:52 PM
Huh? Feelings are caused by the person having them, with no reference to outside stimuli, is that it? That's a pretty radical position.
I never said that, I said if you're too tingly as to let something OPTIONAL decide FOR YOU how you'll play a game, then it's your fault.."Look, i'm not doing anything, it's the game that's stimulating me to do it but i don't want to do it and now i can't enjoy the game"


Me and Rhino brought it up too....... however it seems that we agree on this in a way.... i voted unsure simply because i think the options idea needs serious overhaul. More in the way of how they are implemented within the missions. I love a challenge, and the basic story is basically easy so it does need that tasty side salad of difficulty. Personally so far, i like the idea of optional investigation missions. Relevant and they could be made to be tricky.
Then I apologize, I did not see yours and Rhino's posts.

I would like an overhaul too and I like HMS' ideas of optional investigations.

HercRembrandt
05-21-2014, 09:04 PM
I never said that, I said if you're too tingly as to let something OPTIONAL decide FOR YOU how you'll play a game, then it's your fault.."Look, i'm not doing anything, it's the game that's stimulating me to do it but i don't want to do it and now i can't enjoy the game"

Derisive parody is a multiplayer game, you know. But I'd just rather not play.

SixKeys
05-21-2014, 09:08 PM
"Annoying" is not another word for hard. Annoying is when a challenge stops being interesting and just becomes grinding. Fir example, the tank mission in ACB? Is hard, but I actually love it. It's exciting and fun no matter how many times I replay it. Even if I fail, it feels like a fun challenge instead of an annoying one. The only problem is that the checkpoint takes you too far back (the start of the entire mission). There was one in AC3 that a lot of people complained about, "The Giant and the Storm". The problem with that one is that it's possible to upgrade the Aquila to be so powerful that the optional objective (destroy the enemy ship by hitting its weak point) becomes almost impossible. It becomes a matter of luck rather than skill, because the upgraded Aquila is so powerful that you can sink the enemy ship before you can expose its weak point. That is annoying. The optional objective becomes not about skill but luck, and in order to complete it you basically have to maneuver your ship in counterintuitive ways - ways that Connor probably wouldn't have done - so you can hit it just lightly enough to expose its weak point without destroying it in one hit. Meaning you're only allowed to hit one side of the ship one cannonball at a time. That's just as ridiculous as the skin-a-crocodile objective.

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 09:09 PM
Derisive parody is a multiplayer game, you know. But I'd just rather not play.
I'm not making fun of you...i'm using the same attitude that you used to indirectly reply to my posts..

Markaccus
05-21-2014, 09:09 PM
Then I apologize, I did not see yours and Rhino's posts.

I would like an overhaul too and I like HMS' ideas of optional investigations.

No worries. I also apologise as my post to you would have seemed like a rebuke.

Now, for your next post, there will be optional objectives... 1) you must paint a still life picture of apples with your feet, and 2) Skin justin bieber and miley cyrus. with a rusty spoon. In 30 seconds. While tap dancing :D

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 09:10 PM
The optional objective becomes not about skill but luck, and in order to complete it you basically have to maneuver your ship in counterintuitive ways - ways that Connor probably wouldn't have done - so you can hit it just lightly enough to expose its weak point without destroying it in one hit. Meaning you're only allowed to hit one side of the ship one cannonball at a time. That's just as ridiculous as the skin-a-crocodile objective.
which i have explained time and time and time again that i'm completely against...

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-21-2014, 09:19 PM
which i have explained time and time and time again that i'm completely against...

... Why did I read this in Haytham's voice? lol

Anyways, I'm sure the optional objectives are never going away; they just have to get better with them and listen to what the fans are demanding and they're all set :D

Assassin_M
05-21-2014, 09:20 PM
... Why did I read this in Haytham's voice? lol

Anyways, I'm sure the optional objectives are never going away; they just have to get better with them and listen to what the fans are demanding and they're all set :D
I am Hayth_M


Optional objective 1 X

Optional objective 2 X
oh my god, don't you know that the red color hurts my feelings?

Jexx21
05-21-2014, 09:22 PM
optional objective 1 x

optional objective 2 x

ac4 style:

GunnerGalactico
05-21-2014, 09:26 PM
Optional objective 1 X

Optional objective 2 X

That doesn't hurt my feelings, if I don't succeed the first time... I just reload to the last checkpoint and try again.

Markaccus
05-21-2014, 09:26 PM
I am Hayth_M


oh my god, don't you know that the red color hurts my feelings?

Sorry, i shall use puce in future :D

I have to agree i think it is silly when people get upset by a red cross. It is the recognised colour in most things for a negative mark, and not completing something is negative after all.

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-21-2014, 09:28 PM
That doesn't hurt my feelings, if I don't succeed the first time... I just reload to the last checkpoint and try again.

True.

And the one thing I hated about initial objectives in AC3 was the fact that you HAD TO COMPLETE THEM ALL IN ONE RUN THROUGH TO COUNT X_______X

HercRembrandt
05-21-2014, 09:37 PM
I have to agree i think it is silly when people get upset by a red cross. It is the recognised colour in most things for a negative mark, and not completing something is negative after all.

Yeah, but why should there be a negative mark for not completing something if you didn't skip a light fandango while you assassinated a dude? You should want to try to pull off that stuff smoothly because it's the cool thing to do, not because "the panel will now judge you". Gameplay as its own reward, whatever happened to that?

GunnerGalactico
05-21-2014, 09:41 PM
True.

And the one thing I hated about initial objectives in AC3 was the fact that you HAD TO COMPLETE THEM ALL IN ONE RUN THROUGH TO COUNT X_______X

Have to admit, that is a pain. I don't really have a problem with optional objects in general, but when you have to complete them in one playthrough... that's just plain irritating.

Markaccus
05-21-2014, 10:02 PM
Yeah, but why should there be a negative mark for not completing something if you didn't skip a light fandango while you assassinated a dude? You should want to try to pull off that stuff smoothly because it's the cool thing to do, not because "the panel will now judge you". Gameplay as its own reward, whatever happened to that?

yeah. I think the main point is that options are good, bit they need to be implemented better, and be more relevant. The while red cross thing is from earlier in this thread, people being offended by them.

rylasasin
07-01-2014, 10:19 AM
I don't know how they were implemented in AC4 since I haven't played that (yet, I have it on my steam games list but haven't downloaded it. I'm still trying to work through AC3 before that.) But in AC3 it was just... Ugh.

They were annoying in Brotherhood and Revelations (less so in the latter than in the former. In revelations they were relatively sane and doable) but in 3, it just went way too far. Especially on the naval missions.

Not only were some of them outright ridiculous and/or made the mission needlessly tedious and difficult, but they also would creep up on you and you wouldn't even know they were there untill you failed them.

For example: Fort Wolcott. Starts out with "do 3 ledge assassinations". Okay, I can do that. Then suddenly when the Aquila starts shelling the fort, A new one pops up after the cutscene: "Take less than 33% Damage". Oh, Okay. I can do that. As long as I don't do anything stupid I should manage. It would have been nice to know that before but oh well. So I get to the room where there's about 5 guys trying to get out, I beat them up, watch the cutscene, when suddenly:

X: Kill combo 3 enemies

... Are you F$@#ing KIDDING ME?! Where the heck did THAT Come from?! And worse, now I can't restart at last checkpoint either because beatting those guys was the checkpoint so now i have to do the WHOLE mission over again or else I won't accomplish it (which I have to do anyway to get 100% sync).

THAT IS A LOAD OF BUUUUUULLLLL ****E!! It's bad enough when 1. you have to go out of your way to accomplish it, 2. It's counter to how you normally play, 3. it's asking you to do something which is not all that easy to do on its own, and 4. You only get one chance at doing so before it fails.... but 5. To have it sneak up on you like that?! That is just plain 100% pure ******baggery.

It seems to me that Optional Objectives are part of the fad/disease that's been afflicting games recently, known only as "CODification": A thing that turns sandbox games into linear, "play the game we want you to play it and not your own way" type ordeals designed to give the game a (very shallow) means of replayability.

Luckily from the AC:U trailers it does seem as if these are shifting away from this "linearist" sort of deal into something a lot more dynamic, so it does seem as if they will do away with the optional objectives as well. Which is good. They don't add to the game play anyway, they just add linearity where it's not wanted and unnecessary difficulty where it's not needed to add a negative replay factor.

IMO Optional Objectives should be left in the dust. However, If "optional objectives" do make a return, they should take a completely different form than what they do now. Instead of being objectives that punish you for not doing it "the dev's chosen way", they should be dynamically applied tropes and bonuses based on how a player chose to complete the mission, ALA Super Smash Brother's bonuses (http://www.ssbwiki.com/List_of_bonuses). Like if you go in kill every guard in sight with your fists you get one set of bonuses, and if you complete it by sneaking around not killing any guards you get a whole nother set of bonuses.

If you notice, a lot of those bonuses in SSB are very contradictory and mutually exclusive to one another (example: Minimalist and Materialist), so it's literally impossible to get all the bonuses in one single match no matter how you try. If you go for a certain set of bonuses, you exclude yourself from another. Same would apply here.

If synchronization is still a factor, these bonuses could add up in the form of points which could be spent on synchronization at the players leisure. This way, the optional objective system stays (albeit in a form hardly recognizable) while keeping with the more dynamic mission play environment Ubi seemed to be promoting at E3.

Shiggyz49
07-01-2014, 11:25 AM
I'd be happy if Ubisoft did away with them. I think they're incredibly stupid, I see a lot of people complaining about the ridiculous objectives like "skin alligators", but I think that 90% of the optional objectives don't make any sense. For example, something like "kill 5 brutes" or "assassinate 3 people from ledges". It doesn't make sense that you need to complete this specific task to achieve "full sync". Why does it matter how I assassinated somebody, or what types of guards I killed? I've been in situations where it would have been less risky to assassinate a guard from a bush, or from a tree, but since the optional objective is "assassinate guards from haystacks", you have to risk being detected by running to a haystack and waiting for the guard to walk past. Is that really what my ancestor would have done? No. The optional objective might as well be "follow this exact path across the rooftops to reach your target, don't deviate by more than a foot!" Equally as dumb as many current optional objectives, but it would actually make more sense in terms of "full sync".

The ONLY optional objectives I don't mind are the less specific ones. The only one I can think of is the "stay out of combat" objective, which I don't mind but I'd rather that the combat be made actually difficult, and stealth made actually viable. A ridiculous objective box shouldn't be the only incentive to be stealthy in a game called "Assassin's Creed".

Markaccus
07-01-2014, 11:31 AM
I'd be happy if Ubisoft did away with them. I think they're incredibly stupid, I see a lot of people complaining about the ridiculous objectives like "skin alligators", but I think that 90% of the optional objectives don't make any sense. For example, something like "kill 5 brutes" or "assassinate 3 people from ledges". It doesn't make sense that you need to complete this specific task to achieve "full sync". Why does it matter how I assassinated somebody, or what types of guards I killed? I've been in situations where it would have been less risky to assassinate a guard from a bush, or from a tree, but since the optional objective is "assassinate guards from haystacks", you have to risk being detected by running to a haystack and waiting for the guard to walk past. Is that really what my ancestor would have done? No. The optional objective might as well be "follow this exact path across the rooftops to reach your target, don't deviate by more than a foot!" Equally as dumb as many current optional objectives, but it would actually make more sense in terms of "full sync".

The ONLY optional objectives I don't mind are the less specific ones. The only one I can think of is the "stay out of combat" objective, which I don't mind but I'd rather that the combat be made actually difficult, and stealth made actually viable. A ridiculous objective box shouldn't be the only incentive to be stealthy in a game called "Assassin's Creed".

I think they have moved towards this, with unity. there is a thread somewhere about the mission structure, and having objectives within missions that you have to do, but can chose your own way of doing it (almost like ac1). The way you achieve each mini-mission has knock on effects for the main mission, and even the rest of the game as regards to how people act around you, and tightness of security in certain areas et.c.

LoyalACFan
07-01-2014, 11:48 AM
I'd be happy if Ubisoft did away with them. I think they're incredibly stupid, I see a lot of people complaining about the ridiculous objectives like "skin alligators", but I think that 90% of the optional objectives don't make any sense. For example, something like "kill 5 brutes" or "assassinate 3 people from ledges". It doesn't make sense that you need to complete this specific task to achieve "full sync". Why does it matter how I assassinated somebody, or what types of guards I killed? I've been in situations where it would have been less risky to assassinate a guard from a bush, or from a tree, but since the optional objective is "assassinate guards from haystacks", you have to risk being detected by running to a haystack and waiting for the guard to walk past. Is that really what my ancestor would have done? No. The optional objective might as well be "follow this exact path across the rooftops to reach your target, don't deviate by more than a foot!" Equally as dumb as many current optional objectives, but it would actually make more sense in terms of "full sync".

The ONLY optional objectives I don't mind are the less specific ones. The only one I can think of is the "stay out of combat" objective, which I don't mind but I'd rather that the combat be made actually difficult, and stealth made actually viable. A ridiculous objective box shouldn't be the only incentive to be stealthy in a game called "Assassin's Creed".

I disagree, I think the specific ones are actually less annoying than the big sweeping ones like "stay out of combat." Killing three guards from a haystack or whatever is stupid, but it's just a little added thing you can throw into your playthrough. Just a minor distraction. Conversely, remaining undetected fundamentally changes the way you play the mission. Sure, I tend to play stealthily as I find it more rewarding, but maybe I want to fight somebody every now and then. It just limits the way you can approach the mission. I just hate optional objectives in general; the best solution IMO would just be to can them.

I'm disappointed that Unity seems to have optional objectives again, but the one we've seen ("don't take damage") is actually pretty OK. It means you can play the mission any way you want to, as long as you don't **** it up. Seems more skill-based instead of chore-based.

Markaccus
07-01-2014, 12:36 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/890097-The-Ubiblog-article-and-the-AC-site-info-I-m-sold

this is the one.

GreySkellig
07-01-2014, 02:57 PM
For a very long time I've been for OpObs...largely because they don't really bother me, and they occasionally encourage me to try an approach I otherwise might not have. However, ACIV really pushed it too far for me. Example: when the OpOb was to "Air Assassinate Burgess and Cockram". I decided to do them separately instead of together because what the heck, I enjoy the hunt. Something about their joint AI, however, caused Cockram to bolt when I killed Burgess, even without LOS. Ultimately, his AI stayed glitched, and I spent 30 minutes trying to lose him so could air assassinate him--all to no avail.

As long as OpObs aren't tied to full sync--and I thought I heard somewhere that they won't be in ACU--then I don't mind. Oftentimes OpObs like "remain undetected" add to my experience, because they give me a level of skill to shoot for without desyncing me if I fail. But when I'm trying to 100% and I have to go to insane lengths to achieve them Optional Objectives...no thanks.

Final Answer: I'm for them as long as they're essentially just suggestions not tied to Full Sync.

JustPlainQuirky
07-01-2014, 03:01 PM
Pfffft im on the bottom %. I like Optional Objectives.

GreySkellig
07-01-2014, 03:38 PM
I like them conceptually, but I feel like they either need to be looser or not tied to full sync.

Kakuzu745
07-01-2014, 04:35 PM
I do not hate them...at least they add some sort of difficulty to the game. If they want to remove them go ahead but make the game a little more challenging at least then ;)

rylasasin
07-02-2014, 03:05 AM
IMO Optional Objectives should be left in the dust. However, If "optional objectives" do make a return, they should take a completely different form than what they do now. Instead of being objectives that punish you for not doing it "the dev's chosen way", they should be dynamically applied tropes and bonuses based on how a player chose to complete the mission, ALA Super Smash Brother's bonuses (http://www.ssbwiki.com/List_of_bonuses). Like if you go in kill every guard in sight with your fists you get one set of bonuses, and if you complete it by sneaking around not killing any guards you get a whole nother set of bonuses.

If you notice, a lot of those bonuses in SSB are very contradictory and mutually exclusive to one another (example: Minimalist and Materialist), so it's literally impossible to get all the bonuses in one single match no matter how you try. If you go for a certain set of bonuses, you exclude yourself from another. Same would apply here.

If synchronization is still a factor, these bonuses could add up in the form of points which could be spent on synchronization at the players leisure. This way, the optional objective system stays (albeit in a form hardly recognizable) while keeping with the more dynamic mission play environment Ubi seemed to be promoting at E3.

Expanding on that idea, here's a few ideas for bonuses that could be applied at the end of a mission:


Mortal Kombat: Ended all open combat encounters by killing all your opponents
FIrst Blood: Killed an enemy which then started open combat
Hangman: Killed your target by Rope Dart
Axe you a question: Killed your target by throwing an axe at him/her.
Gunman: Majority of kills made using a firearm
Wraith: Majority of kills made using the Phantom Blade
Bloodless Coup: Did not kill anyone other than the target.
Easily dis-Oh shiny!: Completed X sidequests/dynamic events before killing the main target
Adoring Public: Caused a riot
Never saw it coming: Killed your target without being detected
Ghost: You were never detected.
Necessary Violence: Killed large amounts of enemies
One-Two Punch: Perfered fists
Fencer: Prefered light weapons
Behemoth: Prefered weapon of choice was battleaxes/pikes
Riflemen: Majority of kills made using muskets
Disarming Personality: Disarmed an opponent and killed them with their own weapon
Ledge Hog: Performed X number of ledge assassinations
Give the dog a bath: Killed target by throwing them into the water
Smile for the crowd: Allowed rioters to kill your target for you.
Hideaway: Ended all open combat encounters by hiding.
Hay, You!: Killed target from a haystack or similar hiding spot.
Crowd Cloak: Killed target while hidden in a crowd of people.
Dark Alley: Killed target from a corner
To the death: Killed target in open combat
Death from Above: killed target by air assassination
Should have ordered the Salad: Poisoned your target.
Brink of death: took 99% damage
Flawless Victory: Took no damage
Sniper: Killed your target from long range via a firearm or Phantom Blade
Poisoner: Used poison a lot
Barrels of Fun: Used explosive barrels to kill X guards.
Backstabber: During open combat, insta-killed an opponent by stabbing them in the back (does not count animations where you get behind the person and stab them in the back... you have to kill them via attacking while they're facing away from you)
Streak-Slayer: get an X combo kill streak.
Counterstrike: Counter opponents X times.
Crouching Assassin, Hidden Blade: Majority of kills by hidden blade.
Bloodfast Sampler: Made a kill with each type of weapon
By the Book: Achieve all objectives as they appear on the screen.
We do this my way: Failed X number of objectives before killing the target.



Just a few... but you get the general idea. Rather than being static objectives they become addon bonuses that encourage you to either hone in your current style of play for better scores or try something different and experiment.

Assassin_M
07-02-2014, 03:12 AM
Haha, still in suckas

Shiggyz49
07-02-2014, 03:18 AM
Haha, still in suckas
As long as they aren't as poorly done as the previous games, I won't have too much of an issue with it. I don't want any ridiculously specific garbage like "air assassinate an officer" or "skin 12 squrrels." Like I said before, something like "stay out of combat" or "sabotage the cannons" or "assassinate the fort commander" are fine by me. I'd still rather they completely do away with them considering they've had 4 games to get it right and they're still as ****ty as they were in Brotherhood.

Even if they are technically "optional", they still detract from the experience. Nearly every assassination mission since Brotherhood has an optional objective with a specific way of assassinating them. It's stupid because as soon as you see something like "air assassinate the templar" pop up. you know there's going to be a convenient path past all the guards to get above them. I don't have a problem with the fact that there is a convenient path, but I do have a problem with the game basically telegraphing it to you through a ****ty objective popup.

JustPlainQuirky
07-02-2014, 03:21 AM
Haha, still in suckas

http://media2.giphy.com/media/7tKEfRjktJ2MM/200_s.gif

Markaccus
07-02-2014, 08:17 AM
It seems a bit odd that, if they have changed the mission structure to provide more freedom, that they would still include OpObjs in the same form. It negates this wonderful new freedom they have created, as there is STILL going to be an optimum way to do a mission, and if you don't do it that exact way, then you don't get 100% synch. Why waste all that time and resource just to have people try to do things in almost identical ways?

Jexx21
07-02-2014, 09:08 AM
because in reality most people ignore the optional objectives

Markaccus
07-02-2014, 12:05 PM
because in reality most people ignore the optional objectives

I agree. I dont bother with them. However, many people like to get 100% synch, and these people so far have had to follow a set path in each misson to acheive it. It will drain a lot of the fun out of it for them i think

LoyalACFan
07-02-2014, 12:07 PM
I agree. I dont bother with them. However, many people like to get 100% synch, and these people so far have had to follow a set path in each misson to acheive it. It will drain a lot of the fun out of it for them i think

It's not just that, I think the devs tend to create the mission with the optional objectives in mind, meaning the mission will heavily encourage you to play it one way rather than encouraging you to find your own way to play it. Case in point; John Pitcairn's assassination.

Farlander1991
07-02-2014, 12:29 PM
It's not just that, I think the devs tend to create the mission with the optional objectives in mind, meaning the mission will heavily encourage you to play it one way rather than encouraging you to find your own way to play it. Case in point; John Pitcairn's assassination.

We might have already discussed with (I remember having conversation on the topic, but not sure with whom) but that's kinda backwards thinking. The problem is the opposite - that missions are designed without optional objectives in mind, and optional objectives are added with a 'whatever fits' philosophy after the mission is designed. The fact that when some initial mission design docs were shown on GDC13 there was no mention of optional objectives anywhere, and that a lot of them are arbitrary and don't make sense (and also some interviews, for example one with Darby said how the 'steal from Templars' objective appeared in the level after the mission was already done, though to be honest that particular objective is kinda awesome), kinda proves that line of thought.

Each mission design entails in itself a bunch of pre-designed routes, which in combination give a very open playground (this is how every AC1 assassination is designed, for example, you can see each and every route they planned for if you analyze the environment, but when you just put the player in the environment they discover and play around with it and it all feels natural, same with more open assassinations like Prins in AC4). What optional objectives do, is that they highlight one of such routes, removing from the player's mind other possibilities.

The problem with Pitcairn assassination is not entirely in the design, though. There are three ways to go around the camp to get close to Pitcairn unnoticed (one is the air assassination route), and there is a path through the camp itself that would allow for us to close in for a more direct approach, like the one seen in the alpha footage trailer.

The problem is as follows. When you see that 'air assassinate', your mind is locked on the only possible thing to air assassinate from - the high flag pole near Pitcairn (standing besides high trees), so naturally you go towards it and ignore everything else (I'd even argue that the fact that you can air assassinate from there is not even obvious without the message). There's also the problem with AC3 AI and detection system which renders the direct approach useless, there's no way to perform a running assassination through the field without getting into open combat (even partial one, that was supposed to be a possibility in AC3 too judging by some designs and things shown in trailers).

steveeire
07-02-2014, 12:37 PM
I hate getting writing on screen saying I failed the optional objectives, when I don't want to do them, it makes me feel like I have failed the mission.

SHADOWGARVIN
07-02-2014, 12:52 PM
I hate the optionall objectives! Some of them are just plain ridiculous!

What happened to me a lot was that some of the optional objective didn't appear at all. Sometimes you get more optional objectives during the mission. It sucks when you think you completed a mission 100% and it turns out there was another optional objective.

Markaccus
07-02-2014, 01:00 PM
It's not just that, I think the devs tend to create the mission with the optional objectives in mind, meaning the mission will heavily encourage you to play it one way rather than encouraging you to find your own way to play it. Case in point; John Pitcairn's assassination.

Thats basically what i wanted to say. You have worded it better than i did :D

They could have made opobjs doable ove the whole game and drop mission specific ones. I.E. Complete the assassination of ANY main story target without being detected (or more tha one). Air assassinate x amount of guards. Ledge assassinate x amount of chickens. Et.c. This way you can decide when where and how to employ the relevant skills, to suit your game methods.

D4rkAssass1n123
07-02-2014, 02:22 PM
maybe this time there will be random optional objectives and you don't need to do them for 100% synch, but if you complete them you just get more money or so .. I'd prefer it this way :D

aL_____eX
07-02-2014, 02:34 PM
maybe this time there will be random optional objectives and you don't need to do them for 100% synch, but if you complete them you just get more money or so .. I'd prefer it this way :D
I really like your idea.

Another thought: As you can choose a 'path' for your Assassin in Unity (stealth level, open combat, agility, lockpicking skills, eagle vision and all those things that make your character individual) it would be cool that if you complete one of the optional objectives in a mission (and yes, optional means they are not required for 100% overall synch!) and this objective is for example connected to acting stealthy in a way, you get some skill points/upgrades for this special skill path (stealth).

rylasasin
07-02-2014, 02:44 PM
The other thing I hate about it:

Basically, the optional objective systems separate players into two distinct classes:

"Pros", who go out of their way to complete the optional objectives, and "Noobs", who ignore them.

Yes, this is a rather unfair and false dichotomy, but that's the way it is most of the time. I dare anyone to make a let's play or a livestream of assassin's creed 2 BC or Revelations (though to be fair revelation's optionals weren't that bad), 3 or 4 and not give a rats arse about the optional objectives, and not have a whole flurry of watchers call you a noob and mocking you for your "poor playing skills" just because you didn't bust your arse to complete these optional objectives.

There's no two ways about this, and there's no in-between either. There's no "well I like to play the game this way and that's what works out for me" like there is in games like Fallout or Skyrim. No, you either play the game the way it wants you to (like in Call of Duty, which is so linear it may as well be an on-rails shooter) and you're a "pro" for your persistance in following the beaten path, or you're a "noob" for trying to hoof it your own way and getting those oh so terrible red Xs.

Markaccus
07-02-2014, 03:02 PM
maybe this time there will be random optional objectives and you don't need to do them for 100% synch, but if you complete them you just get more money or so .. I'd prefer it this way :D

It's all about the green!! Although in the uk it's about the Blue, brown, purple and red. £5, £10, £20 and £50 respectively for those who don't know :p

I do like that idea. If you find yourself short of a few quid, you could pay special attention to the OpObjs for your next mission, especially if there is no convenient side quest knocking around close by at the time.

Matknapers18
07-02-2014, 04:25 PM
Come on Ubisoft. LISTEN TO YOUR FANS. Look at the results from this poll and just accept the feedback your'e given.

m4r-k7
07-02-2014, 04:28 PM
The way to settle this:

Allow us to turn them off and on in the "options" menu. Do not let them contribute to any trophies or level of sync. If you do complete them, you get extra money. If they are turned off, they will not show up in the game whatsoever.

Done.

Calvarok
07-02-2014, 11:41 PM
No. It was an interesting idea, but I don't think it's really fitting for a game that's so often about experimentation and taking your own path through each mission. time to let it go.

Sesheenku
07-04-2014, 09:26 AM
The other thing I hate about it:

Basically, the optional objective systems separate players into two distinct classes:

"Pros", who go out of their way to complete the optional objectives, and "Noobs", who ignore them.

Yes, this is a rather unfair and false dichotomy, but that's the way it is most of the time. I dare anyone to make a let's play or a livestream of assassin's creed 2 BC or Revelations (though to be fair revelation's optionals weren't that bad), 3 or 4 and not give a rats arse about the optional objectives, and not have a whole flurry of watchers call you a noob and mocking you for your "poor playing skills" just because you didn't bust your arse to complete these optional objectives.

There's no two ways about this, and there's no in-between either. There's no "well I like to play the game this way and that's what works out for me" like there is in games like Fallout or Skyrim. No, you either play the game the way it wants you to (like in Call of Duty, which is so linear it may as well be an on-rails shooter) and you're a "pro" for your persistance in following the beaten path, or you're a "noob" for trying to hoof it your own way and getting those oh so terrible red Xs.

Didn't even know this was a thing lol.

Do the same MMO players have been doing for years, don't listen to *** hats who tell you how to play.

johnsmith145
07-06-2014, 10:13 PM
AC1 and AC2 were the best games. AC4 was getting closer, because of the more open mission structure, which is what I think to be the most critical part of the AC experience. Ubi claims to be fixing this in ACU, which seems incompatible with constraints. I hope it will be so.

rickprog
07-06-2014, 10:41 PM
It's hard to tell whether I want the optional objectives to come back or not. My take on it would normally be based on how I suppose the game is going to work this time around, and I'm talking about the skill tree. If the optional objectives were done on a different way, they could work quite well with the skill tree, but they would've to be made truly optional this time around, and not be objectives per se but a set of parameters to work with in order to develop your assassin the way you want. For example, if you wanted your Arno to be a stealth master, staying undetected would be an optional objective you'd always have to accomplish (so that you get more points to use on your skill tree for stealth). Or opening more than 3 locks if you wanted to be a lockpick expert.

I say they must be parameters and not objectives, though, because it is obvious you won't be using some of them on some missions, like lockpicking wouldn't be used on a mission in which there are no locks. Every set of parameters would be tied with certain skills, and that would be the way in which you develop your skill tree.

At the same time, that wouldn't hinder your freedom when playing; you would be rewarded for doing things on a certain, consistent way.

Calvarok
07-07-2014, 03:14 AM
from what they've talked about with Preparation missions, they sound a lot more interesting as compared to optional objectives. choosing to do an optional thing BEFORE the mission that actually has a tangible impact on potential opportunities in the assassination. Like a more proactive version of investigations. hope it pans out.

rickprog
07-07-2014, 04:06 AM
It really does sound like something an Assassin would do, you know, having some knowledge of the area and therefore entry/exit routes, spots from/in which the assassination could take place and so on. The only similar thing one could do before was knowing the area beforehand and planning almost right on the spot what you would do, but this preparation missions make Arno seem more calculating than other Assassins.

Jexx21
07-07-2014, 04:10 AM
when I found out that Dishonored had a unique front kill animation for every target, I made it my mission to stealthily take out every single target from the front.

I did it, and the targets were the only people I killed in the whole game.

LoyalACFan
07-07-2014, 05:12 AM
from what they've talked about with Preparation missions, they sound a lot more interesting as compared to optional objectives. choosing to do an optional thing BEFORE the mission that actually has a tangible impact on potential opportunities in the assassination. Like a more proactive version of investigations. hope it pans out.

They sound incredible on paper, but I wonder if the game will actually be challenging enough to make us want to complete the modifications. I mean, modifying the environment to suit your goals is awesome, but if it's already really easy to just slink in unnoticed and stab your target in the face, it sort of loses its appeal.

Calvarok
07-07-2014, 06:28 AM
I do hope they have a better difficulty curve for assassinations in Unity. after a certain point in all AC games it feels like they stop upping the challenge, or sometimes there are weird spikes in difficulty. Like that mission where Edward has to steal sugar? that must have been way too frustrating to do stealthy for most players. I don't think we should have been infiltrating a place that big and complex so soon in the game.

I hope that the combat skill tree doesn't eventually making getting spotted trivial.

travilanche
07-07-2014, 08:14 AM
Voted against optional objectives. I am fine with things like the guild challenges, but these optional objectives in the main missions are ridiculous. They have absolutely no place in open world gameplay. Especially if they either don't make sense, or tell you how to assassinate a target. These games are supposed to be open world, not on rails.

And no...the objectives are NOT optional! Yeah, if you don't complete them then you can still continue with the story. But when that "50% synch" pops up it is letting you know that you didn't actually complete the mission and it is rubbing your nose in it. And I am not a completionist. I have zero platinum trophies. My closest one is inFAMOUS, where all I have left is to collect 3 blast shards. Know what that means? It means I am never getting that trophy, because I don't care about it. But I cannot get over that 50% synch blemish on the screen because I didn't wanna skin 3 gators while testing to hurriedly chase after a fleeing brig.

roostersrule2
07-07-2014, 12:45 PM
No optional objectives are optional, it's in the name.

It's up to you to decide if some red pixels are gonna piss you off or not.

m4r-k7
07-07-2014, 01:02 PM
Voted against optional objectives. I am fine with things like the guild challenges, but these optional objectives in the main missions are ridiculous. They have absolutely no place in open world gameplay. Especially if they either don't make sense, or tell you how to assassinate a target. These games are supposed to be open world, not on rails.

And no...the objectives are NOT optional! Yeah, if you don't complete them then you can still continue with the story. But when that "50% synch" pops up it is letting you know that you didn't actually complete the mission and it is rubbing your nose in it. And I am not a completionist. I have zero platinum trophies. My closest one is inFAMOUS, where all I have left is to collect 3 blast shards. Know what that means? It means I am never getting that trophy, because I don't care about it. But I cannot get over that 50% synch blemish on the screen because I didn't wanna skin 3 gators while testing to hurriedly chase after a fleeing brig.

^ this

Farlander1991
07-07-2014, 02:45 PM
from what they've talked about with Preparation missions, they sound a lot more interesting as compared to optional objectives. choosing to do an optional thing BEFORE the mission that actually has a tangible impact on potential opportunities in the assassination. Like a more proactive version of investigations. hope it pans out.

Hm, what preparation missions? I don't remember seeing anything about those anywhere, could you give a link to their description please?

Shahkulu101
07-07-2014, 02:47 PM
Ubisoft, if you could kill Optional Objectives with fire and put Modern Day out of its misery that would be just swell.

Calvarok
07-07-2014, 04:07 PM
Ubisoft, if you could kill Optional Objectives with fire and put Modern Day out of its misery that would be just swell.
acinitiates is getting really good and silent protagonists are alright if they're not really the main character.