PDA

View Full Version : A first look at AC: Unity's HUD - and Optional Objectives.



Pages : [1] 2

pacmanate
06-13-2014, 02:15 PM
Looks clean IMO. Obviously the top left stuff will be gone when Co-Op is off. Map is just a square... I kinda like it? Not sure why. I like the weapon select things bottom right too. This will probably change as usual

https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10433145_675868299135153_1864566535248070651_n.jpg

Farlander1991
06-13-2014, 02:19 PM
"Don't get any damage".

Well.

****.

Aphex_Tim
06-13-2014, 02:24 PM
Well d*mn... I was convinced the HUD would be mostly gone. It seemed to work just fine in the demos and certainly added to the immersion. It looked like you could just conjure up objective markers on your screen whenever you wanted to find your goal.

And the optional objectives are back....... crap.

DinoSteve1
06-13-2014, 02:25 PM
pfft I prefer the map in the bottom right corner.

Farlander1991
06-13-2014, 02:29 PM
Things were so wonderful with the AMM and Black Box thing, with the whole 'missions adapt to how you play' and 'discover your own paths' that they decided 'you know what, let's not fix EVERYTHING, let's still keep the optional objectives in'. :/ ****, ****, ****. Just remove optional objective. Right now. Please. It will nudge players in a certain direction ruin all your work on making the game as free as possible. Unless they're additional goals that add to the experience. Like, if there's an optional objective to kill a captain so guards will be less organized, or something. Then I'm fine with thatI think. But...

Well.

AAAAAAAAARRRRRGH.

marvelfannumber
06-13-2014, 02:35 PM
Well I like that one can see the amount of health that the other players have (what happens when another player dies anyway?) and I like the way the weapon wheel looks, bute the map looks kind of bland and should be on the right, to make the left less cluttered.


Oh and optional objectives are back.......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s

Megas_Doux
06-13-2014, 02:51 PM
I have never cared for these OPTIONAL things, however having them GONE according to some interviews and now back, at least in Co-op, REALLY bothers me.

sem1rek
06-13-2014, 03:14 PM
Almost everyone thinks that some stuff will be gone in final version of game. Now I can imagine that some people HOPE that something will be missing :D I still don't think these optional objectives are here to force you complete mission with one specific approach, but it is possible that if you are able to finish mission without any damage, you can earn more skillpoints or get one skillpoint faster (it would be logical IMO).

ze_topazio
06-13-2014, 03:17 PM
The mini map is too rectangular and occupies too much space.

Legendz54
06-13-2014, 03:20 PM
http://en.bloggif.com/tmp/5096ee50cf3b8ae20dec0bec31e70865/text.gif?1402669224

pirate1802
06-13-2014, 03:21 PM
Doesn't matter, I'll turn it off as usual.

The optional objective thing is saddening me though, and also angering at the same time.

Aphex_Tim
06-13-2014, 03:22 PM
It's hardly a "mini"map indeed... But hey, this is probably just an early screenshot and you can probably turn a large part of the HUD off again.

Legendz54
06-13-2014, 03:23 PM
I love optional objectives :rolleyes: Hallelujah

http://i.minus.com/iNFenVMFBNnGs.gif

RinoTheBouncer
06-13-2014, 03:26 PM
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
And whatís with the ďdonít take any damage?Ē, so much for the AAM crap that they said that it would replace the Craptional Crapjectives?

ze_topazio
06-13-2014, 03:27 PM
http://en.bloggif.com/tmp/5096ee50cf3b8ae20dec0bec31e70865/text.gif?1402669224

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/10/103530/3816983-6290346110-26293.gif

http://f2.thejournal.ie/media/2014/05/emrknjp.gif

Sesheenku
06-13-2014, 03:30 PM
Oh god not more of that optional objective ****.

FFS please Ubisoft... make that **** into trophies or something so that those insane completionists can get their crack fix while us sane normal people can enjoy the freedom of not getting a nasty 50% sync screen.

m4r-k7
06-13-2014, 03:31 PM
They never said they were getting rid of optional objectives. They said that AMM will replace the main objective e.g. main objective = tail
If you fail, the main objective will change to lets say kill the guy and loot his body to show where he is going.
I never really listen to the optional objectives although I will admit they are hugely annoying as they are always in the back of your mind and make you think that you are not playing the game properly if you dont complete them. That HUD looks like a really early build. I suspect the map will be smaller than that in the real game.

Sesheenku
06-13-2014, 03:37 PM
They never said they were getting rid of optional objectives. They said that AMM will replace the main objective e.g. main objective = tail
If you fail, the main objective will change to lets say kill the guy and loot his body to show where he is going.
I never really listen to the optional objectives although I will admit they are hugely annoying as they are always in the back of your mind and make you think that you are not playing the game properly if you dont complete them. That HUD looks like a really early build. I suspect the map will be smaller than that in the real game.

Exactly, they really nag me to do them to feel like I'm doing things right even though I can often think of several quicker and more efficient ways of finishing a mission.

I personally like the map, I HATED having to go into the map screen constantly in the other AC's a bigger map is a good thing imo. This coming from someone who played BH and after on PC btw where the map loaded quickly.

I would loathe to have it load as long as the ps3 did just to load the simple map.

m4r-k7
06-13-2014, 03:39 PM
Exactly, they really nag me to do them to feel like I'm doing things right even though I can often think of several quicker and more efficient ways of finishing a mission.

I personally like the map, I HATED having to go into the map screen constantly in the other AC's a bigger map is a good thing imo.

I would agree although I like a more minimalistic HUD so its more immersive. But HUD doesn't bother me at all in games unless it takes up a huge part of the screen.

jayjay275
06-13-2014, 03:45 PM
That looks like Alpha footage. :/

Shahkulu101
06-13-2014, 03:45 PM
Going to turn everything off from the start again - so the wonky mini map doesn't bother me. But optional objectives?! Are you pulling my pisser?!

Jesus ****ing christ monkey balls!

Legendz54
06-13-2014, 03:51 PM
Going to turn everything off from the start again - so the wonky mini map doesn't bother me. But optional objectives?! Are you pulling my pisser?!

Jesus ****ing christ monkey balls!

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-yFGShB3rBPw/T-odrTwsUnI/AAAAAAAAJVE/0DG7rs76-0w/w800-h800/monkey-balls_small.jpeg

RatonhnhakeFan
06-13-2014, 03:59 PM
Ohh god please no optional 100% synch objectives... Burn them!!!

ACfan443
06-13-2014, 04:00 PM
The HUD flashed up several times during the Making of video

http://abload.de/img/imagejrx5b.jpg
http://abload.de/img/imagepvxxy.jpg


Things were so wonderful with the AMM and Black Box thing, with the whole 'missions adapt to how you play' and 'discover your own paths' that they decided 'you know what, let's not fix EVERYTHING, let's still keep the optional objectives in'. :/ ****, ****, ****. Just remove optional objective.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
And whatís with the ďdonít take any damage?Ē, so much for the AAM crap that they said that it would replace the Craptional Crapjectives?

There's more
http://abload.de/img/imageazb8k.jpg

Multiple optional objectives. I think we can all agree that opinion will remain divided over them, and I'm kind of on the fence - at times I'll appreciate the marginally more rewarding experience they provide (hurrah 100% sync!), while at other times I find them downright frustrating and a chore. But one thing's for certain, being tied to the overall sync progress has always been bad news for completionists who prefer a less intrusive experience. If they were to sever that tie and make optional objectives truly optional, then it would help alleviate the issue.

The compression in the above image is dreadful, so for anyone struggling with the legibility of the text, the top objective says 'sync kill 4 guards' and the bottom one 'do not take any damage'.

jayjay275
06-13-2014, 04:00 PM
http://i.imgur.com/si6U0jN.jpg

Megas_Doux
06-13-2014, 04:02 PM
Optional objectives are optional......

jayjay275
06-13-2014, 04:06 PM
Incoming ban...

LatinaC09
06-13-2014, 04:09 PM
So optional objectives aren't gone?? Ugh no please for once I had hope. :(

MasterAssasin84
06-13-2014, 04:13 PM
Looks clean IMO. Obviously the top left stuff will be gone when Co-Op is off. Map is just a square... I kinda like it? Not sure why. I like the weapon select things bottom right too. This will probably change as usual

https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10433145_675868299135153_1864566535248070651_n.jpg




Being as this is not the finished project i am sure there will be changes in the final version but if you ask me I would prefer the Hud elements to be as minimal as possible rather than clogging the Hud up with various options .

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-13-2014, 04:14 PM
I figured optional objectives would be back, Im not surprised... Ah well.

A square HUD would be new and interesting, but who knows, that might change before release

MasterAssasin84
06-13-2014, 04:36 PM
I figured optional objectives would be back, Im not surprised... Ah well.

A square HUD would be new and interesting, but who knows, that might change before release


As Long as the optional objects do not ultimately restrict the freedom of the game play ( AC3 ) then I am ok with it , AC4 was cool because of the financial rewards so it kind of made them more worth my while and getting rewarded for tactically planning my strategy .

STDlyMcStudpants
06-13-2014, 04:36 PM
The map is going to bug the crap out of me.... why not circle still?!
IMO AC3s HUD was perfect, having the health bar wrap around the map.. i dont like stuff all over my screeeen :D
PS
' Don't take any damage' is THE worst most trollyyy kind of 'optional' objective/trophy/achievement ever invented
F that

SenseHomunculus
06-13-2014, 04:39 PM
Oh god not more of that optional objective ****.

FFS please Ubisoft... make that **** into trophies or something so that those insane completionists can get their crack fix while us sane normal people can enjoy the freedom of not getting a nasty 50% sync screen.

Ummm... doesn't you worrying about getting a "nasty 50% sync screen" by definition make you an "insane completionist?" :p

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 04:45 PM
God ****ing damn it. I've not had much against optional objectives in the past, except when they're too restrictive, but I want Unity to feel fresh. Optional objectives completely go against the design philosophy of player freedom and creativity. It's bullcrap and makes no sense, especially after all they've told us about the adaptive mission structure. "Find out where this person is going. You can tail him, intercept a courier, kill him and loot his body! The choice is yours! ....But ARNO did it this way, and if you don't do it exactly like that every time you replay this mission, well, you're just not doing it right."

Get rid of this crap already.


Edit: Also, the mini-map looks huge. What's wrong with a nice little circle?

I-Like-Pie45
06-13-2014, 04:47 PM
WHERES ASSASSIN_M WHEN YOU NEED HIM

----

rc

STDlyMcStudpants
06-13-2014, 04:51 PM
Ummm... doesn't you worrying about getting a "nasty 50% sync screen" by definition make you an "insane completionist?" :p
Haha
It is bothersome, I am a completionist not in the sense that i have to complete all guild quests, unlock all weapons, and find all monuments
But in the sense that if I complete something, I want credit for it...
Thats why I became a trophy hunter..
I hate beating a game in it's entirety only to be given 36% credit because I didnt do things, didnt play long enough, or play the way the devs wanted me to play... it's bs lol
I get the same feeling from optional objectives in AC...
Because of the way the AC world is, there is no way to include optional objectives without it interfering with credit for completion....
Otherwise I say sure, its RPG Creed now, make them xp bonus... but because the whole idea of the animus is to sync memories, not completing them isnt perfect sync, so it takes down your %
It's like beating super mario bros and the credits dont roll because you took hidden paths to skip levels....

VoXngola
06-13-2014, 04:56 PM
Optional..objectives?
No..why..

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 04:57 PM
that's actually a really good optional objective. It encourages stealth play and thinking over rushing in mindlessly.

I like it.

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 04:58 PM
I liked the optional objectives. But people, with AMM, most of the optional objectives appearing on the game won't apply to Unity. It will mostly be vague stuff, like, don't take damage or finish the mission in 2 minutes or do not get detected. Things that actually encourage you to play the game in a more stealthy way.

For all we know, they might not even be connected to a percentage at all. Maybe they are like: "hey, you know what? if you complete this mission without being detected, we 'll give a badass stealth augmenting hood as a reward"

That is, completing extra skill tree-specific objectives award you with gear for the specific skill tree. Completing a stealthy extra objective awards you with a stealth piece of gear. And perhaps when you full sync the extra stealth onjectives you get the ultimate stealth outfit. How much cooler does this sound?

pirate1802
06-13-2014, 04:58 PM
You like everything, son.

Megas_Doux
06-13-2014, 05:00 PM
I dont like follow those, so do you know what I do????
I IGNORE THEM!!!!!!!

Why the big deal???

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 05:00 PM
I do like everything. Most things have a positive aspect, a silver lining if you will, and if you focus on those rather than focusing on all the faults, you'll have a better experience. That goes for most things in life.

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 05:01 PM
that's actually a really good optional objective. It encourages stealth play and thinking over rushing in mindlessly.

I like it.

+1

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 05:02 PM
I do like everything. Most things have a positive aspect, a silver lining if you will, and if you focus on those rather than focusing on all the faults, you'll have a better experience. That goes for most things in life.

I like this guy.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-13-2014, 05:02 PM
that's actually a really good optional objective. It encourages stealth play and thinking over rushing in mindlessly.

I like it.

Yeah because nothing screams open world game like being encouraged to play a certain way.

I-Like-Pie45
06-13-2014, 05:03 PM
I dont like follow those, so do you know what I do????
I IGNORE THEM!!!!!!!

Why the big deal???

WELL PEOPLE DONT LIKE IT WHEN A BIG RED SIGH POPS UP TELLING THEM THEY FAILED AT AN OPTIONAL OBJECTIVE

IT HURTS THEIR FEELINGS, YOU KNOW, CAUSE ITS ALL RED AND MEAN

----

rc

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 05:04 PM
All games encourage you to play a certain way though.

AC4 encourage you to play more stealthily by giving you higher rewards for doing so.

ACfan443
06-13-2014, 05:06 PM
I have a question, the optional objective 'sync kill 4 guards' (page 3) is obviously part of a co-op mission, so if for whatever reason you're not planning on playing any part of the game co-operatively (no internet connection or not enough friends who have the game for example) does that mean there's absolutely no way you can attain 100% sync?

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 05:06 PM
I liked the optional objectives. But people, with AMM, most of the optional objectives appearing on the game won't apply to Unity. It will mostly be vague stuff, like, don't take damage or finish the mission in 2 minutes or do not get detected. Things that actually encourage you to play the game in a more stealthy way.


Yeah, AC4 had a lot of freedom and all the OOs were vague. Like kill Black Bart with a rope dart..... Oh wait.

I-Like-Pie45
06-13-2014, 05:06 PM
THATS JUST HOW REAL LIFE WORKS ANYWAYS

YOU THINK YOU HAVE FREEDOM BUT THATS AN ILLUSION. BECAUSE DO YOU KNOW WHY? SOCIETY ISNT READY TO HANDLE FREEDOM

====
rc

Megas_Doux
06-13-2014, 05:08 PM
Yeah, AC4 had a lot of freedom and all the OOs were vague. Like kill Black Bart with a rope dart..... Oh wait.

Which nobody was forced to.....
It was not like "you did not kill him THAT way, repeat the mission"

STDlyMcStudpants
06-13-2014, 05:08 PM
I cant wait for the AC game that forces people to play like brutes haha
Why discriminate against play styles?
Even if it isn't black and white, and is 'optional'
Why give a subliminal message to aggressive people to stop having fun
'We know you like to play like a beast an wreak havoc, but if you play in the way you find most enjoyable, you will finish our story in a mere 6 hours, please jump from cover to cover like a scared little girl so this 5 minute mission lasts 30 minutes.'

Sushiglutton
06-13-2014, 05:08 PM
As long as there are robust HUD-customization options (including the option to completely disable optional objectives) it doesn't really matter. And obv this is an early test build, so whatever.

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 05:10 PM
I cant wait for the AC game that forces people to play like brutes haha
Why discriminate against play styles?
Even if it isn't black and white, and is 'optional'
Why give a subliminal message to aggressive people to stop having fun
'We know you like to play like a beast an wreak havoc, but if you play in the way you find most enjoyable, you will finish our story in a mere 6 hours, please jump from cover to cover like a scared little girl so this 5 minute mission lasts 30 minutes.'

they can still do that if they want
And stealth is more satisfying to me than just killing everyone by rushing in.

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 05:11 PM
I have a question, the optional objective 'sync kill 4 guards' (page 3) is obviously part of a co-op mission, so if for whatever reason you're not planning on playing any part of the game co-operatively (no internet connection or not enough friends who have the game for example) does that mean there's absolutely no way you can attain 100% sync?

Sync kill also exists in Wolfpack and you can do them solo. It's just about timing your kills right. TBH I'm not happy that ACU's co-op is taking cues from Wolfpack, it was a crapfest of runners who wouldn't know teamwork if it slapped them in the face. Having optional objectives in co-op limits the way you play. For example in Wolfpack you have OOs like "revive a teammate". This means one of your teammates has to get stunned by a target. If you have a good team, though, it's entirely possible not to get stunned even once. So in order to complete the OO, you actually have to go out of your way to play badly if you want to get the extra points.

Aphex_Tim
06-13-2014, 05:11 PM
Optional objectives are optional......

Sure, but having them appear on screen with every mission already kinda ruins the feeling of figuring out for yourself how to approach the objective.

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 05:14 PM
new game +

only active optional objectives in new game +

but then again AC games are typically too long to actually have a new game +

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 05:15 PM
Which nobody was forced to.....
It was not like "you did not kill him THAT way, repeat the mission"

If you're a completionist, you do have to do it that way. If you're not, it can be a mission spoiler. In the rope dart mission, the game tells you right at the start that you're going to have an opportunity to use the rope dart, which probably means there's gonna be a high place involved. Hmmmm, could it be a ship mast? If so, what would I be doing on a ship if I can just sneak up to.... Oh. There's gonna be a scripted scene where he spots me and runs away, isn't there?

Shahkulu101
06-13-2014, 05:17 PM
I'm looking forward to playing the Brotherhood missions by myself...because apparently they are very challenging solo. I'll still attempt to try out co-op though, if I can recruit buddies.

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 05:19 PM
Yeah, AC4 had a lot of freedom and all the OOs were vague. Like kill Black Bart with a rope dart..... Oh wait.

Yeah, but the philosophy Ashraf had was very similar to the one Hutchinson had. Amancio and the rest of the team seem to be trying to differentiate themselves from the mission design of their predecessors. And they are trying that with the AMM and the BlackBox missions.

And, also, as I said above, these objectives won't necessarily be connected to a percentage. They could be tied up with some rewards. "Take no damage" could reward you with a combat enhancing item. "Do not get detected" could award you with a stealth enhancing item. "Finish the mission in less than 2 minutes" could reward you with a navigation enhancing item etc etc.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-13-2014, 05:19 PM
they can still do that if they want
And stealth is more satisfying to me than just killing everyone by rushing in.

Thats cool that you find stealth more satisfying.
You are just one person, like I am just one person.
I find hand to hand combat more enjoyable and satisfying than hiding in the shadows like a coward.
But my opinion on stealth vs brute carries no more weight than yours does,,,
Neither of our play styles are wrong...
I'm just saying that if you understand the human mind, - displaying an objective whether the word 'optional' is attached or not - sublminally makes it no longer 'optional'
and 9/10 you will find yourself at least TRYING to do it rather than completely ignoring it...
If stealth vs brute were TRULY optional, they would not effect sync and they would not be displayed period.
Optional objective just means 'optional to progress'
It HOWEVER is NOT NOT NOT optional to complete game.

Megas_Doux
06-13-2014, 05:23 PM
If you're a completionist, you do have to do it that way. If you're not, it can be a mission spoiler. In the rope dart mission, the game tells you right at the start that you're going to have an opportunity to use the rope dart, which probably means there's gonna be a high place involved. Hmmmm, could it be a ship mast? If so, what would I be doing on a ship if I can just sneak up to.... Oh. There's gonna be a scripted scene where he spots me and runs away, isn't there?

You have a point there, thing is that ever since Ubi introduced multiplayer I just dont care about being a completionist anymore.

If I were Ubisoft, and since it seems the optional objectives are back, I would place an option of not to show them.

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 05:23 PM
Yeah, but the philosophy Ashraf had was very similar to the one Hutchinson had. Amancio and the rest of the team seem to be trying to differentiate themselves from the mission design of their predecessors. And they are trying that with the AMM and the BlackBox missions.

And, also, as I said above, these objectives won't necessarily be connected to a percentage. They could be tied up with some rewards. "Take no damage" could reward you with a combat enhancing item. "Do not get detected" could award you with a stealth enhancing item. "Finish the mission in less than 2 minutes" could reward you with a navigation enhancing item etc etc.

Then they should not be tied to specific missions, but be an overall sync progress reward, like the Cristina missions in ACB. For example, the game could have an overall challenge like "complete 50% of the missions without being detected" and you would get a special reward.

adventurewomen
06-13-2014, 05:24 PM
I'm not feeling the HUD, it needs a redesign..

Aphex_Tim
06-13-2014, 05:26 PM
It will mostly be vague stuff, like, don't take damage or finish the mission in 2 minutes or do not get detected. Things that actually encourage you to play the game in a more stealthy way.


That still goes against the AMM. For example "do not get detected".
Imagine a couple of guards is blocking your buddy's way in co-op. You reveal yourself, distracting the guards and allowing your buddy to stab them in the back. You were detected for a moment but that won't matter because the guards were instantly killed. You failed the optional objective by using your own playing style; what supposedly the AMM is all about.
Adding optional objectives to this game feels like they're deliberately trying to undermine one of the series most revolutionary features.

Sesheenku
06-13-2014, 05:26 PM
You have a point there, thing is that ever since Ubi introduced multiplayer I just dont care about being a completionist anymore.

If I were Ubisoft, and since it seems the optional objectives are back, I would place an option of not to show them.

I still think they should be reduced to trophies/achievements, completionists are insane enough to be happy with that little virtual square.

They need to be out of the way for those of us who don't want that nasty feeling of a job not done in a way the game desires, if they're truly going back to the roots of the franchise as they claim then they'd best wake up and realize that the one and only thing that made AC good in the assassinations was the fact that you could choose to tackle it however you wanted with no consequences whatsoever.

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 05:29 PM
Then they should not be tied to specific missions, but be an overall sync progress reward, like the Cristina missions in ACB. For example, the game could have an overall challenge like "complete 50% of the missions without being detected" and you would get a special reward.

But that way they won't be able to fit more than... 3? 4 rewards for each tree?

And furthermore, a player would try to, eg "not get detected" in some of the easy missions, and therefore make it easy to obtain the reward and degrade its value.

m4r-k7
06-13-2014, 05:29 PM
That still goes against the AMM. For example "do not get detected".
Imagine a couple of guards is blocking your buddy's way in co-op. You reveal yourself, distracting the guards and allowing your buddy to stab them in the back. You were detected for a moment but that won't matter because the guards were instantly killed. You failed the optional objective by using your own playing style; what supposedly the AMM is all about.
Adding optional objectives to this game feels like they're deliberately trying to undermine one of the series most revolutionary features.

Dude the AMM is focused on the main objectives, not the optional ones.

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 05:30 PM
That still goes against the AMM. For example "do not get detected".
Imagine a couple of guards is blocking your buddy's way in co-op. You reveal yourself, distracting the guards and allowing your buddy to stab them in the back. You were detected for a moment but that won't matter because the guards were instantly killed. You failed the optional objective by using your own playing style; what supposedly the AMM is all about.
Adding optional objectives to this game feels like they're deliberately trying to undermine one of the series most revolutionary features.

Exactly. They've even boasted about the different playstyles in interviews, like how one player prefers stealth and their buddy might prefer combat. If the optional objective forces both to play stealthily, what is even the point of adapting your playstyles?

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 05:33 PM
But that way they won't be able to fit more than... 3? 4 rewards for each tree?

And furthermore, a player would try to, eg "not get detected" in some of the easy missions, and therefore make it too easy to obtain the reward.

It was just an example. There could be many sync challenges, similar to the Abstergo challenges.
"Use the phantom blade in 15 missions."
"Intercept at least 2 couriers."
"Complete at least 10 missions without being detected."
"Use poison in 3 missions."

etc.

I don't see how it matters whether the mission is easy or not. The game should be about freedom. The combat should be difficult enough to encourage discretion, there's no need for OO's as well. If the combat is still too easy, then that's a problem with one of the game's main pillars that needs to be fixed.

killzab
06-13-2014, 05:34 PM
First broken promise guys ! More to come

STDlyMcStudpants
06-13-2014, 05:35 PM
It was just an example. There could be many sync challenges, similar to the Abstergo challenges.
"Use the phantom blade in 15 missions."
"Intercept at least 2 couriers."
"Complete at least 10 missions without being detected."
"Use poison in 3 missions."

etc.
Yes, abstergo challenges were PERFECT
I would much rather have these that did nothing other than unlock cheats/ a new weapon, completely hidden in the pause menu, not interfering with immersion that could be completed at anytime and werent tied to specific missions.

lothario-da-be
06-13-2014, 05:36 PM
Pfff optional objectives, and that map looks way too big, I liked the smaller circle a lot more.

Shahkulu101
06-13-2014, 05:36 PM
First broken promise guys ! More to come

Nobody promised OO's were not returning though...

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 05:37 PM
It was just an example. There could be many sync challenges, similar to the Abstergo challenges.
"Use the phantom blade in 15 missions."
"Intercept at least 2 couriers."
"Complete at least 10 missions without being detected."
"Use poison in 3 missions."

etc.

All right, now I get you.

I believe that what you suggest is not far from what I am saying.

But, nevertheless, we agree that optional objectives should by no means count in the total completion of the mission.

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 05:38 PM
Nobody promised OO's were not returning though...

Yeah, Shak is right and we do not know how they are going to operate yet. Perhaps, give you an extra skill point (which is complimentary and can also be obtained otherwise?). If someone could ask Amancio on twitter, that would be nice.

Edit: Can't find him on twitter, lol. Maybe Loomer could ask him or something...

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 05:40 PM
First broken promise guys ! More to come
HAHA

they never promised no optional objectives. give me one source where they did.

killzab
06-13-2014, 05:41 PM
Nobody promised OO's were not returning though...

Maybe not directly, but "game adapts to your way of playing" is BS

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 05:43 PM
Maybe not directly, but "game adapts to your way of playing" is BS

But it does. Through the AMM. OOs is something totally different than the mission mechanics. The mechanics are objective parts of the game's creation, whereas the OOs are subjective (they have to do with the way each player tackles the situation).

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 05:44 PM
Nobody said optional objectives wouldn't return, that is true. However, OOs go against everything they've advertised about the reworked mission structure, so it seemed like a given.

"We have a new assassin for you, guys!"
"OMG hooray!! Can't wait to parkour around historical buildings again!"
"Yeah, he's quadriplegic. And a pacifist."
"....Oh."

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 05:44 PM
what if optional objectives are randomized, and pulled from a list like the Abstergo challenges and once you do one of them it is counted forever on that list.

lothario-da-be
06-13-2014, 05:46 PM
Lets start a petition...

GunnerGalactico
06-13-2014, 05:48 PM
I figured optional objectives would be back, Im not surprised... Ah well.

A square HUD would be new and interesting, but who knows, that might change before release

I just wish they could've dropped the optional objectives too.


Lets start a petition...

You don't want to be doing that

ACfan443
06-13-2014, 05:49 PM
Sync kill also exists in Wolfpack and you can do them solo. It's just about timing your kills right. TBH I'm not happy that ACU's co-op is taking cues from Wolfpack, it was a crapfest of runners who wouldn't know teamwork if it slapped them in the face. Having optional objectives in co-op limits the way you play. For example in Wolfpack you have OOs like "revive a teammate". This means one of your teammates has to get stunned by a target. If you have a good team, though, it's entirely possible not to get stunned even once. So in order to complete the OO, you actually have to go out of your way to play badly if you want to get the extra points.

Ha, I never thought about it that way. I'm an avid AC multiplayer fan, but I stick mainly to the conventional modes like Wanted, Deathmatch, and Manhunt. I played Wolfpack a few times to obtain one of the MP trophies, and it was actually a lot of fun - until the inexperienced players began recklessly storming in and sabotaging your carefully planned incognito kills, sending the NPCs into a frenzy (a similar case in the assassinate round of manhunt), in that respect I suppose it would be quite a nightmare completing team based objectives in Unity, so I hope they leave them out. I actually prefer the way OOs work in multiplayer, they certainly feel more optional than SP.


Pfff optional objectives, and that map looks way too big, I liked the smaller circle a lot more.

I like AC3's HUD the most, it integrated and decluttered the separate elements of the old HUD and looked very clean and sleek. The user interface was a mess though.
AC4's HUD on the other hand is the worst, purely because there's so much unnecessary, obtrusive crap littering the screen. 'Excuse me, you appear to have a little gameplay on your HUD' - every time I booted up AC4.

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 05:49 PM
Lets start a petition...

The only petition we need is a petition to the developers to write a devblog about how the AMM, the blackbox and the optional objectives work. Noone's telling us that they are like the ones in AC3 and AC4.

Jexx already posted another idea that might be at play here.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-13-2014, 05:50 PM
what if optional objectives are randomized, and pulled from a list like the Abstergo challenges and once you do one of them it is counted forever on that list.

I dont want them tied to missions at all.
I just want freedom
I want it all... or nothing at all....
Either let me play how I want with no list or auto fail me.

lothario-da-be
06-13-2014, 05:52 PM
Why can't they go back to NO HUD like ac1, it seems like they want to make ACU as much like AC1 as possible, this HUD and optional objective stuff doesn't fit in that philosophy.

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 05:53 PM
AC1 has a an HUD.

lothario-da-be
06-13-2014, 05:54 PM
AC1 has a an HUD.
But its 100% playable without.

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 05:55 PM
AC1 has a an HUD.

It was designed to be played without one, I think that's what Lothario is talking about. Unity has stuff like taking cues from your environment, like how Arno passes by a curious group of people and finds a mission that way. That kind of stuff is what AC1 was built on. HUD was just an afterthought.

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 05:55 PM
AC1 has a an HUD.

And an invasive one if I may say. The "Sync" bar was as long as half of my old screen by the end of the game. I'd prefer a minimalistic HUD too though.

I-Like-Pie45
06-13-2014, 05:55 PM
YOU WANT FREEDOM?

YOU CAN'T HANDLE FREEDOM

l, RC

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 05:57 PM
But its 100% playable without.
I don't play AC1 without the mini-map or sync bar.

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 06:01 PM
I don't play AC1 without the mini-map or sync bar.

Then you're playing it wrong. ;)

Srsly though, it was designed to be played without those and you can see it reflected in the sound design and visual cues. ACU seems like it's trying to take a leaflet from AC1's book by making the visual and auditory cues more meaningful to the player, but having an obtrusive HUD that shows you everything ruins the whole point.

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 06:05 PM
I actually don't think it was, at least not in it's current state. I use the sync bar to tell me when line of sight is broken and when the guards are watching me closely (the last one is doable by checking if guards have their swords out, but still). I can understand the mini map but if I don't have it activated I always bring up the actual map to check to location and that gets tiring after a while.

So I disagree.

Kirokill
06-13-2014, 06:07 PM
It's one of the reasons they added rooftop collectibles view I believe, I'll turn off the mini map this playthrough. I mean, eagle pulse sees through walls, navigation you can look at the sun to know directions... I might turn off health aswell it isn't that important nor the weapons wheel.

Hans684
06-13-2014, 06:08 PM
Then you're playing it wrong. ;)

Srsly though, it was designed to be played without those and you can see it reflected in the sound design and visual cues. ACU seems like it's trying to take a leaflet from AC1's book by making the visual and auditory cues more meaningful to the player, but having an obtrusive HUD that shows you everything ruins the whole point.

Being immersed in AC is a double edged sword. The HUD and other gamey features makes me immersed by the fact that I'm reliving memories and all that but either I can't get immersed in the world because the HUD etc... breakers the immersion that I'm in the X era. If I turn them off and get immersed in the world but it breakers it when the Animus pulls me out.

RenoRex1995
06-13-2014, 06:11 PM
Isn't it from the alpha footage or what?
Coz the mission was shown in the co-op demo and we certainly didn't see anything about optional objectives
So it should be either cancelled or hidden (which means those OOs don't matter anymore)

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 06:11 PM
I actually don't think it was, at least not in it's current state. I use the sync bar to tell me when line of sight is broken and when the guards are watching me closely (the last one is doable by checking if guards have their swords out, but still). I can understand the mini map but if I don't have it activated I always bring up the actual map to check to location and that gets tiring after a while.

So I disagree.

The devs have confirmed it was meant to be played without HUD. They only added one after play testers said it was boring to run around the city not knowing where the mission markers are, because they didn't know how to read the cues.

I always play AC1 with all HUD elements off. You can tell guards' level of suspicion depending on if their swords are sheathed or not (or if they have bows at the ready on rooftops). You can find viewpoints by looking for eagles - they only appear over unsynched ones. You can find missions by listening to the civilians' cries and street preachers that differ from the rest. You can even see how many throwing knives you currently have by looking at AltaÔr's character model.

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 06:14 PM
The devs have confirmed it was meant to be played without HUD. They only added one after play testers said it was boring to run around the city not knowing where the mission markers are, because they didn't know how to read the cues.

I always play AC1 with all HUD elements off. You can tell guards' level of suspicion depending on if their swords are sheathed or not (or if they have bows at the ready on rooftops). You can find viewpoints by looking for eagles - they only appear over unsynched ones. You can find missions by listening to the civilians' cries and street preachers that differ from the rest. You can even see how many throwing knives you currently have by looking at AltaÔr's character model.

I already knew all that. I don't think it's implemented well enough. And there's still no solution to how to tell when line of sight is broken in chases because without the sync bar you don't get that BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP noise.

AherasSTRG
06-13-2014, 06:16 PM
Or what if the optional objectives adapt to your skill tree?

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 06:20 PM
I already knew all that. I don't think it's implemented well enough. And there's still no solution to how to tell when line of sight is broken in chases because without the sync bar you don't get that BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP noise.

Actually you do.

Fatal-Feit
06-13-2014, 06:22 PM
**** **** ****. Whoever thought **** Optional Objectives should return can **** go **** himself. *takes a deep breath* Anyway, both the health bars and the map are too overwhelming, IMO. AC:3's HUD was near perfect by placing the health bar next to the map while also keeping their size at a minimum. They should have taken a que from that...

m4r-k7
06-13-2014, 06:26 PM
Guys, I don't think its fair to say they have broken a promise. The AMM mechanic is for the main objectives. That does not mean they won't have optional objectives (which are there because they are hard) The AMM still works - it still re structures the mission according to your playstyle. However, if you do what the mission originally wanted you to do (which is probably harder) they will give you extra sync etc - The mission will still adapt to your playstyle. If you do not want to achieve the optional objective, then you don't have to - the mission will adapt to that.

Yes it is annoying, but they never said that AMM is to do with optional objectives, they said its the main objective. Optional objectives have nothing to do with this new mechanic. Don't let this ruin what could be a great game.

RenoRex1995
06-13-2014, 06:30 PM
Guys, I don't think its fair to say they have broken a promise. The AMM mechanic is for the main objectives. That does not mean they won't have optional objectives (which are there because they are hard) The AMM still works - it still re structures the mission according to your playstyle. However, if you do what the mission originally wanted you to do (which is probably harder) they will give you extra sync etc - The mission will still adapt to your playstyle. If you do not want to achieve the optional objective, then you don't have to - the mission will adapt to that.

Yes it is annoying, but they never said that AMM is to do with optional objectives, they said its the main objective. Optional objectives have nothing to do with this new mechanic. Don't let this ruin what could be a great game.

I wonder why the OOs didn't show up in the demo (coz the missions are the same)
My guess is that they cancelled the OOs, or the made them unimportant (can be hidden)

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 06:31 PM
Actually you do.
Then I never experience it. I must have a bug or something.


I wonder why the OOs didn't show up in the demo (coz the missions are the same)
My guess is that they cancelled the OOs, or the made them unimportant (can be hidden)
or rather: they rarely showcase optional objectives in demos because the UI is hidden

RenoRex1995
06-13-2014, 06:38 PM
Then I never experience it. I must have a bug or something.


or rather: they rarely showcase optional objectives in demos because the UI is hidden

You're right :( I forgot they never turn on the HUD in demo

I always try to fulfill all OOs after beating the game.
But I really hope there aren't any of them
They provide little satisfaction, esp. those saying you have to kill the target using air assassination or rope dart.

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 06:40 PM
Then I never experience it. I must have a bug or something.


or rather: they rarely showcase optional objectives in demos because the UI is hidden

I don't know if it's a bug, but the "bleep bleep" sound doesn't start when the line of sight is broken but when you are hidden. So you have to reach a bench or haystack to hear it.

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 06:44 PM
Nope, it's always there whenever you break line of sight, sounds like a car alarm going off (I know this because my dad literally thought the car alarm was going off when this happened). It's actually quite annoying but it encourages you to reach a hiding spot as fast as possible. (I'm talking about when the sync bar is on by the way)

ACfan443
06-13-2014, 06:48 PM
I don't know if it's a bug, but the "bleep bleep" sound doesn't start when the line of sight is broken but when you are hidden. So you have to reach a bench or haystack to hear it.

I'm fairly certain the rapid bleeping begins when the line of site is broken as jexx mentioned, then a slower bleep follows when you enter a hide spot.

Hans684
06-13-2014, 06:51 PM
Or what if the optional objectives adapt to your skill tree?

That's I great idea for future games.

Sesheenku
06-13-2014, 06:52 PM
Nope, it's always there whenever you break line of sight, sounds like a car alarm going off (I know this because my dad literally thought the car alarm was going off when this happened). It's actually quite annoying but it encourages you to reach a hiding spot as fast as possible. (I'm talking about when the sync bar is on by the way)

Doesn't matter now does it? They have the last known position system to show you've broken the line of sight.

I've never played without HUD, I like wandering the city but wouldn't it be near impossible to find the mission? You would be wandering aimlessly for hours and never find it with the scope of AC cities.

Perhaps since Unity will have so much to do I'll play without the HUD so that I run into more extras.

SixKeys
06-13-2014, 06:55 PM
Nope, it's always there whenever you break line of sight, sounds like a car alarm going off (I know this because my dad literally thought the car alarm was going off when this happened). It's actually quite annoying but it encourages you to reach a hiding spot as fast as possible. (I'm talking about when the sync bar is on by the way)

Maybe it is different when the sync bar is on. I only remember the low pitch bleeping while you're hidden. There are a few sync bar-specific sounds, like when you take damage and it slowly goes up again. If you don't have sync bar visible, you don't hear the refill sound.

Jexx21
06-13-2014, 07:08 PM
Basically what I'm saying is I use the sync bar as a line of sight indicator and I pull up the map too often when I don't have the compass on to justify turning the compass off.

Even with that stuff turned off I still get thrown off because the preachers and heralds are so loud that you can hear them from blocks away.

Dome500
06-13-2014, 11:42 PM
HUD Looks okay though the map should be slighly smaller if you ask me.

As for the "Don't get any damage": What the hell? I thought optional (full sync) objectives were gone? Not cool

roostersrule2
06-13-2014, 11:48 PM
Optional objectives=optional.

JustPlainQuirky
06-13-2014, 11:50 PM
Optional objectives=optional.


Yeah. I find it stupid people get mad at OPTIONAL objectives.

How dare the game give me incentive to try something while at the same time not force me to.

The only thing this really affects is completionists and if you're a completionist that's your own fault.

Wolfmeister1010
06-13-2014, 11:53 PM
Maybe it is for the demo purpose. That footage with the OO was the demo they were talking about building. Could just be directions or some crap for a certain part of the demo.

twenty_glyphs
06-14-2014, 12:04 AM
I thought AC4 finally did Optional Objectives decently well -- mostly meaning at least they were far less annoying. You get 80% sync without the optional objectives instead of just 50%, and it doesn't show you failing them as much as that they aren't checked off. I still think it would be better to not have to sit through the extra few seconds of annoying animations when the optional objectives are shown as checked off or not. I'd rather they just show them not being checked under the text that says 80% sync and be done with it. I'm also not a big fan of multiple objectives per mission because they just clutter everything up.

Something like "don't lose any health" is not too bad of an optional objective, because it doesn't dictate playstyle that much. You can satisfy that by being stealthy and never getting into combat, or by being really good at combat. Obviously, it skews much more towards stealth. I'd still prefer more creative objectives that encourage you to explore the environment or gameplay systems.

I think perhaps a system similar to the Abstergo challenges might be fun. Something like a list of 25-30 unique challenges that are mission-specific. Things like "complete a mission without being detected", "complete a mission without losing any health", "assassinate a mission target from a smoke bomb cloud" etc. Then you could just satisfy those challenges as you went, getting many of them without even thinking about it. Just like the Abstergo challenges, the more challenging objectives would encourage you to try their tactics on missions where it felt natural to you.

Fatal-Feit
06-14-2014, 12:17 AM
I think perhaps a system similar to the Abstergo challenges might be fun. Something like a list of 25-30 unique challenges that are mission-specific. Things like "complete a mission without being detected", "complete a mission without losing any health", "assassinate a mission target from a smoke bomb cloud" etc. Then you could just satisfy those challenges as you went, getting many of them without even thinking about it. Just like the Abstergo challenges, the more challenging objectives would encourage you to try their tactics on missions where it felt natural to you.

I would dig that.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 12:30 AM
I have a question, the optional objective 'sync kill 4 guards' (page 3) is obviously part of a co-op mission, so if for whatever reason you're not planning on playing any part of the game co-operatively (no internet connection or not enough friends who have the game for example) does that mean there's absolutely no way you can attain 100% sync?

Dammit.

They said Coop missions can be played singularly, but if 100% sync is tied to having two people, that SUCKS. SO MUCH SUCKING.

SixKeys
06-14-2014, 02:21 AM
Dammit.

They said Coop missions can be played singularly, but if 100% sync is tied to having two people, that SUCKS. SO MUCH SUCKING.

Again, if the co-op works like Wolfpack, the objectives that can't be completed by one person alone will simply not appear. They will be replaced with objectives that you can do on your own.

Kagurra
06-14-2014, 03:56 AM
SIGH. FFS, still haven't learned with the optional objectives thing.

On another note, this will likely be the first AC I play with the HUD off, considering the high ground and 3D marker things. Might keep the puppeteer on for the first hour or so to get used to the new controls and I don't miss anything, but that's probably it.

travilanche
06-14-2014, 09:53 AM
Just want to say I am on the side that is against optional objectives. Not only do they give mission spoilers but they take away from creativity. And Ubisoft knows people feel this way but they left it in anyway. Which blows my mind since they have been very adamant about expressing that they have listened to fan feedback and fixed the things that the players don't like.

Well apparently they haven't because people have been complaining for years about these "optional objectives".

And now that they are pushing this AMM thing the OO contradicts that style. I don't understand...

Also that HUD sucks. I really hope that isn't in the final cut.

Jexx21
06-14-2014, 10:45 AM
interesting notes about some design elements in recent Ubi games:

Assassin's Creed (Unity), Far Cry 3 (and 4), and Watch_Dogs all share certain concepts:
-the concept of getting to the high ground and syncing (looking out from a viewpoint, turning on a radio box, hacking into a comm tower) to establish information about the surrounding area and sometimes unlock things
- the concept of forts/plantations that you can stealthily infiltrate into to achieve an objective, or you can go action Rambo style into
- co-op mode that is integrated into the singleplayer (Unity and 4 and Watch Dogs) where you (most likely for 4) always play as the main character and the other people look different
- The minimap of Watch_Dogs, Unity, and Far Cry 4 are all rectangles

are they sharing code or something. specifically the last two things.

m4r-k7
06-14-2014, 10:46 AM
If the game is good, then I won't care at all about the optional objectives as having good gameplay will outweight the crappiness of having them.

jayjay275
06-14-2014, 11:01 AM
Why do optional objectives exist? They don't FEEL optional at all, especially when it makes you feel guilty for not doing it the "correct" way you were supposed to. For completionists, it doesn't feel optional either, because it is REQUIRED to get trophies, thus isn't OPTIONAL.
Some of the objectives are out right ridiculous, like skin a crocodile whilst you are tailing two soldiers in Charlestown. Yup, because skinning a crocodile doesn't take long...

travilanche
06-14-2014, 11:35 AM
I am not a completion I at at all and they still don't feel "optional" to me. It feels like "do it this way or your memory is wrong. Ezio did it this way...why can't you?"

Way too restrictive.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 01:19 PM
Just have to say, well done to everyone here bashing Optional Objectives. That wasn't my intention with the thread but I hope this gets passed on to the devs. Pretty much every post is hating on Optional objectives and I think its fair to say the general consensus is that we don't like them. Hopefully our voices will be heard as this thread makes the hate pretty evident.

dxsxhxcx
06-14-2014, 01:37 PM
interesting notes about some design elements in recent Ubi games:

Assassin's Creed (Unity), Far Cry 3 (and 4), and Watch_Dogs all share certain concepts:
-the concept of getting to the high ground and syncing (looking out from a viewpoint, turning on a radio box, hacking into a comm tower) to establish information about the surrounding area and sometimes unlock things
- the concept of forts/plantations that you can stealthily infiltrate into to achieve an objective, or you can go action Rambo style into
- co-op mode that is integrated into the singleplayer (Unity and 4 and Watch Dogs) where you (most likely for 4) always play as the main character and the other people look different
- The minimap of Watch_Dogs, Unity, and Far Cry 4 are all rectangles

are they sharing code or something. specifically the last two things.

that "ghost" feature is from Splinter Cell, if I'm not wrong the pointer that indicates from where you're being detected was first seen in Splinter Cell as well.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 01:48 PM
that "ghost" feature is from Splinter Cell, if I'm not wrong the pointer that indicates from where you're being detected was first seen in Splinter Cell as well.

They mentioned that in the UbiBlog article

deskp
06-14-2014, 02:42 PM
Thats hud looks fine, the map seems a little too big though. I hope they keep the option to turn off elements we dont want.

jdowny
06-14-2014, 03:18 PM
With all this talk of hating optional objectives, has anyone actually done anything about it? It's entirely possible that Ubisoft has no idea how many people dislike them and to what extent. I might try and email one of the producers/developers with a link to this thread, or else make a poll which might better indicate people's views. Because this would be fifth game (seventh including spin-offs) to include OOs.

jayjay275
06-14-2014, 03:20 PM
Well, whoever gets a developer to look at it gets a cookie!

https://d8kyhhndkm363.cloudfront.net/8/306862/chocochipcookie.jpg

jdowny
06-14-2014, 03:29 PM
From an interview with one of the devs at E3:

"I think we have constraints but I'm not too sure where we are about that."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YoE5US5uhc

So whether or not they're an absolute certainty might be up in the air. Still, I think it's best we say something now, not after the game's released.

wvstolzing
06-14-2014, 03:54 PM
I just wanted to chime in, and say that I too despise 'optional objectives'.

deskp
06-14-2014, 04:09 PM
I think optional objectes is good for coop levels, since apparently they are made to be replayed several times.

egriffin09
06-14-2014, 05:22 PM
I think all anyone wants as far as the missions go is: "Simple objective, now just do it how you see fit" as long as ACU has this implemented into the game, I'm good.

Just go back to getting full sync for just doing the mission like AC 1 and AC 2. I always ignore optional objectives anyway. The thing about removing optional objectives is that if they are removed then in the player's mind, the player is doing the mission how they want to do it even if the mission is designed in a way to lean toward a certain way of completing it, it gives the player an "illusion" that they are doing the mission how they want. Even though I do the mission how I want to even with optional objectives because I don't care about full sync, there is always this feeling of "I messed that mission up" after I complete the mission. But I say forget it, I rather play it my way and have more fun.

How is AMM suppose to work with optional objectives anyway? Since they are calling this a roboot of the series, it's a perfect time to remove optional objectives isn't it?

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 05:34 PM
Why should other people like myself lose the opportunity to play optional objectives just because some of you just don't want to deal with a low completion percentage?

It's called completion for a reason.

Jesus.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 05:37 PM
Why should other people like myself lose the opportunity to play optional objectives just because some of you just don't want to deal with a low completion percentage?

It's called completion for a reason.

Jesus.

Its restrictive completion though. The new AAM thing suggested to me you would get total freedom, they even said everythings more open. Yet theses objectives are still in.

Its not like they are fun either. It forces you to do stuff. What if I don't want to stun 5 guards with smoke bombs? What if I don't want to shoot 10 people? These objectives force you to play how the devs want and its not fun.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 05:39 PM
Its restrictive completion though. The new AAM thing suggested to me you would get total freedom, they even said everythings more open. Yet theses objectives are still in.

Its not like they are fun either. It forces you to do stuff. What if I don't want to stun 5 guards with smoke bombs? What if I don't want to shoot 10 people? These objectives force you to play how the devs want and its not fun.

These don't FORCE you to do anything. They're OPTIONAL.

If you're a completionist, you better expect to do what the game wants you to. Complaining you have to achieve something you don't want to bother with in order ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a game is ridiculous.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 05:42 PM
These don't FORCE you to do anything. They're OPTIONAL.

If you're a completionist, you better expect to do what the game wants you to. Complaining you have to achieve something you don't want to bother with in order ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a game is ridiculous.

No its not? I like getting 100%, as in missions. Because it means I have completed everything the Assassin has too, his targets, contracts. I do not expect part of the 100% to be little objectives that take away freedom.

AC is the only game that has these optional objectives too for 100%ing a game. What is wrong with just having the core missions, side quests, Assassination contracts, races and collectibles being 100% like most other game formulas?

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 05:45 PM
No its not? I like getting 100%, as in missions. Because it means I have completed everything the Assassin has too, his targets, contracts. I do not expect part of the 100% to be little objectives that take away freedom.

AC is the only game that has these optional objectives too for 100%ing a game. What is wrong with just having the core missions, side quests, Assassination contracts, races and collectibles being 100% like most other game formulas?

I have a problem with it because you're suggesting the game takeaway a certain gameplay element I happen to like because you can't be bothered to go out of your way to complete them.

If you don't want to put the effort to complete them than that's your own fault. Don't take away my gameplay likes because of that.

Shahkulu101
06-14-2014, 05:46 PM
These don't FORCE you to do anything. They're OPTIONAL.

If you're a completionist, you better expect to do what the game wants you to. Complaining you have to achieve something you don't want to bother with in order ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a game is ridiculous.

When you are asked to achieve something that goes directly against the Open-ended design philosophy that is a problem. A game can't tout it's freedom of choice and dynamic missions structure then require you to do it a certain way in order to reach full completion. That marginalizes completionists, and dampens the experience for those who want to play with freedom without being penalized.

JunYah7
06-14-2014, 05:57 PM
Things were so wonderful with the AMM and Black Box thing, with the whole 'missions adapt to how you play' and 'discover your own paths' that they decided 'you know what, let's not fix EVERYTHING, let's still keep the optional objectives in'. :/ ****, ****, ****. Just remove optional objective. Right now. Please. It will nudge players in a certain direction ruin all your work on making the game as free as possible. Unless they're additional goals that add to the experience. Like, if there's an optional objective to kill a captain so guards will be less organized, or something. Then I'm fine with thatI think. But...

Well.

AAAAAAAAARRRRRGH.

Optional objectives are indeed a pain in the ********....

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 05:57 PM
Optional objectives=optional.

Optional Objective = optional to continue = not optional to complete
TRUE Optional Objective = Mario Bros kill all enemies before the end of level one (Oh, but they never tell you to do that... EXACTLY thats what makes it optional.)
If optional objectives were truly optional they just wouldn't exist period.. we could make our own objectives...
It's like hand holding...
They are giving you the answers to getting through a spot killing all creativity...

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 06:15 PM
I have a problem with it because you're suggesting the game takeaway a certain gameplay element I happen to like because you can't be bothered to go out of your way to complete them.

If you don't want to put the effort to complete them than that's your own fault. Don't take away my gameplay likes because of that.

Who said I can't be bothered to complete them? I always do them on my first playthrough because I feel like I've failed otherwise. Don't know why you think I don't put "effort" in. Its not about effort, its about being tedious and a nuisance.


Not to mention it hinders how you play. It forces you to tackle a mission in a certain way and takes away your own planning and strategy.

Again, I use the same example, use 5 smoke bombs. What if I want to do it all stealth?
Shoot 10 people, again, what If I don't want to shoot people? Or what If I have a **** gun. This means I am panicking to just reload my weapon and just use the gun.

Sesheenku
06-14-2014, 06:38 PM
These don't FORCE you to do anything. They're OPTIONAL.

If you're a completionist, you better expect to do what the game wants you to. Complaining you have to achieve something you don't want to bother with in order ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a game is ridiculous.

I must say it's very disheartening to receive a low percentage merely for playing the game how you want to play it.

What if someone WANTS to be detected? What if someone wants to alert a guard and then send the crowd in to a frenzy to kill him? What if the player wants to use the sewers to enter the house of the target INSTEAD of the optional objective which says enter through the window?

What if the played doesn't want to kill the target within 3 minutes and would rather plan slowly and come up with a satisfying plan?

The players can of course play how they want but they are then punished for doing so, no 100%, which was tied to the Altair Costume in AC3 which has the most irritating and nonsensical optional objectives of any of the games.

I don't want to take away these objectives from other players BUT the thing is when I played AC1 I would often put my own objectives, such as don't be detected until the target is dead. I didn't need the game to do it for me, especially when it puts objectives that go the opposite direction of my play style.

If you must keep it fine but Ubisoft should serious add an option to turn them off entirely, not just turn them off from view but have the option that they have no effect on your completion percentage.

That way everyone can play as they want to play without punishment.

You know what they say, it's not work if you enjoy it but it is work when you're told to do something that goes against how you play and think.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 06:39 PM
optional objectives.

some people are capable to see the OPTIONAL in the sentence above, while others see the OBJECTIVE, the premise behind this mechanic also doesn't help our subconscious mind when it says that this (the optional objective) is the way the ancestor did it (in a way subconsciously implying that this is supposed to be the right way to complete the mission because that's the way the ancestor had success on his task), I'm no psychiatrist and I'm probably talking nonsense but this is the only explanation I found that satisfied my necessity to understand why I feel forced to do these tasks once they appear in the screen.

Yes that is true, but WHY.

AC1 and AC2 didn't have them and you could still get 100% sync. Its just a ruse to get you to replay. Why would you want to play a game when its telling you HOW to play. Adding to my list "remain undetected" forces stealth too.

As an optional objective, remain undetected shouldnt be a thing. If it was mission criteria, as in you fail the whole mission, then it would be okay as you are more inclined to think that is indeed how your ancestor carried out the objective.

dxsxhxcx
06-14-2014, 06:47 PM
Yes that is true, but WHY. As an optional objective, remain undetected shouldnt be a thing. If it was mission criteria, as in you fail the whole mission, then it would be okay as you are more inclined to think that is indeed how your ancestor carried out the objective.*

I deleted my post because I thought it was too crazy, glad to see I'm not the only one who see things that way.. lol

*and also because IF wasn't an option in those missions, if you were detected, you would fail, so that was the only logical way to play that mission.

to add to my previous post that I deleted but is quoted above: IMO a true OPTIONAL objective shouldn't punish you if you DECIDE to not do it.

a big red X on the screen or be told that we achieved less than 100% on a mission because we didn't complete the mission in a certain way is a form of punishment.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 06:56 PM
AC3

Infiltratiing southgate- One optional objective is to kill the general. Why? If it was important it would be in the mission criteria, the actual objective. Obviously it doesnt affect the story if you dont kill him so why have it as an objective?

Braddock Expedition - Kill 2 guards before entering combat... WHY. Again, WHY. Whats the point just kill 2 stealthy if it ends up in an all out fight anyway? Another objective, destroy powder carts... Why, again, just why?

On Johnsons Trail - Limit Firearm use to 6, use powder kegs to destroy cargo. These 2 don't make sense, seeing as you need to use 3 shots to destroy the cargo if you go for the keg route. But why would Connor do that if he has an unlimited supply of mini bombs he can use for sabotage?

The Angry Chef - This one is brilliant. Perform 5 low profile assassinations. All Stephane is doing is waving his arms around shouting. Connor tells Stephane that "This is not the way" yet proceeds to kill redcoats. Hypocrite much.

The Tea Party - Perform Musket air assassination is just ridiculous. I don't see Connor having to do this as at all during this mission, just doesnt make sense as a criteria.

The Midnight Ride - Do not trigger open conflict. Again, if this was truly how Connor did the objective this would not be optional.

Conflict Looms - Air assassinate a grenadier. So Connor takes out all the guys on the ship stealthy, considering another objective is remain undetected, yet another objective requires you to get high enough to air assassinate one guard. Not to mention if you do this first you fail the remain undetected objective.

Battle of Bunker Hill - Limit Regular kills. Why? You rampage enough in free roam, don't have this restriction any other time, kill those guards whilst Stephane is flapping away, yet all of a sudden there is a kill cap?

Bridewell prison - Limit prison guard deaths to 2. Again, why with the kill cap? They were racist ****s to Connor, I would kill them all. At least you have a motive.

Public Execution - Washingtons bodyguard must survive. Why? If they die nothing affects the story, nor if they live.


I really cant be bothered to do the other 4 sequences but this is why Optional objectives are dumb.

Mr_Shade
06-14-2014, 07:05 PM
Right..

I suggest some in here stop acting like Ubisoft killed their first born /cat/nintendo64..


I will see if I can find some info out for you guys.. however it will be after the weekend most likely - SO - I suggest you all calm down, stop swearing and fighting and WAIT…


If you can that is.

lothario-da-be
06-14-2014, 07:12 PM
Just give us the option to disable OO before we start the game so I don't have to see I failed them for every mission. Problem solved.

Sesheenku
06-14-2014, 07:15 PM
Ubisoft do you know why everyone took to AC1? With the choices you've made in Unity I think you do. Freedom of choice. There was no consequence for playing the game how one wanted to play, other than a massive army of guards attacking you for it.

While AC has many unique and enjoyable features they all suffer immensely without the ability to tackle these features in the desired way.

As a long time fan I ask that you make these objectives optional, as in there is an option in the menu to turn them off AND have them not be counted for completion rate.

This way the players that enjoy them can have them and those of us who don't needn't be discouraged by less than 100% for playing your game with our own style and strategy.

Since AC1 I've made my own objectives and it was always to not be detected BUT sometimes I do want to be detected, sometimes I want to try a different approach and I don't want a virtual smack in the face for doing so.

I will enjoy Unity immensely regardless of whether you implement this or not BUT if you did implement this I assure you I would consider this to be a truly perfect AC as long as all promises are delivered upon, as in the revamped stealth, parkour, and combat AND provided you don't pull a watch dogs and decrease visual fidelity

(I doubt you will as this isn't cross-platform but I'm just putting it out there.)

Please, if you intend to give us freedom and choice then do it all around, let us choose whether or not these optional objectives are present and affect our completion rate or not by placing the option in the menu or before you begin the game.

I understand that this may require that you can only choose the option once per file but that's fine. Just please consider this request.

(Moved this post as Mr.Shade requested I place it here.)

sem1rek
06-14-2014, 07:20 PM
I was able to accept reasons for optional objectives, that ancestor acted in a way and I should act same to get full sync. But why the heck would Connor kill everybody on ship without detection, then go up to do air assassination, then blast those canons and gunpowder and then go up again to fly american flag? I was asking myself if Connor was really so stupid. It is maybe a year when I played AC3 last time and I still remember stupid objectives in this memory, I played it hundred times to get full sync (it was needed to get some outfit if I remember correctly).

LieutenantRex
06-14-2014, 07:23 PM
The optional objectives have to be truly optional. Give us the option to disable them completely.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 07:36 PM
I leave for 2 hours and come back to a plethora of posts complaining about optional objectives.

When you commit yourself to complete a game 100%, you have no right to complain about how much of a hassle it is. It's supposed to be a hassle.

And I don't want to be screwed over my enjoyment because others don't want to complete it.

I like optional objectives. I want them to stay. I feel more immersed knowing I did something exactly how said ancestor did it. Shoot me.

It's not required and if you're a completionist you should know to expect 'nuisances'. Geeze.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 07:42 PM
I leave for 2 hours and come back to a plethora of posts complaining about optional objectives.

When you commit yourself to complete a game 100%, you have no right to complain about how much of a hassle it is. It's supposed to be a hassle.

And I don't want to be screwed over my enjoyment because others don't want to complete it.

I like optional objectives. I want them to stay. I feel more immersed knowing I did something exactly how said ancestor did it. Shoot me.

It's not required and if you're a completionist you should know to expect 'nuisances'. Geeze.

If youve been reading my posts i never said about how its "hassle". Also if you read my posts you would see how the optional objectives most of the time just don't make any sense whatsoever.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 07:45 PM
@pac

then they could make the optional objectives make more sense in-context.

No reason to remove them outright.

Shahkulu101
06-14-2014, 07:46 PM
I leave for 2 hours and come back to a plethora of posts complaining about optional objectives.

When you commit yourself to complete a game 100%, you have no right to complain about how much of a hassle it is. It's supposed to be a hassle.

And I don't want to be screwed over my enjoyment because others don't want to complete it.

I like optional objectives. I want them to stay. I feel more immersed knowing I did something exactly how said ancestor did it. Shoot me.

It's not required and if you're a completionist you should know to expect 'nuisances'. Geeze.

We should expect grinding and annoying stuff like that, but the fact of the matter is Optional Objectives make missions less enjoyable. Missions are the larger bulk of the game, and if there's a factor that lessens the games core experience then you've a right to complain about it.

Optional objectives restrict freedom by telling you the 'correct' way to do it and penalize you if you dare have your own play-style in a game about open-ended assassinations.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 07:48 PM
I leave for 2 hours and come back to a plethora of posts complaining about optional objectives.

When you commit yourself to complete a game 100%, you have no right to complain about how much of a hassle it is. It's supposed to be a hassle.

And I don't want to be screwed over my enjoyment because others don't want to complete it.

I like optional objectives. I want them to stay. I feel more immersed knowing I did something exactly how said ancestor did it. Shoot me.

It's not required and if you're a completionist you should know to expect 'nuisances'. Geeze.

Lets say you're playing Rayman (platformer)
The level looks like this

Start ____________ ____________ ___ ____ End
You make it to the end but because you didnt jump here (even though there was no need to, there is no gap)
Start _____x_______ ____________ ___ ____ End
You were not given credit for beating the level...
THIS is what an optional objective is
it has nothing to do with being a completionist
Completing a level is completing a level... an 'optional' objective should hold absolutely NO weight on level completion
HOWEVER a simple change of wording to 'Level Challenge' that didnt effect %age and ONLY effected trophies/achievements and I'd suddenly be okay with them

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 07:48 PM
@sha

Or you could play them however you want and go back to replay them to get the objectives like I do.

Not that hard.


Lets say you're playing Rayman (platformer)
The level looks like this

Start ____________ ____________ ___ ____ End
You make it to the end but because you didnt jump here (even though there was no need to, there is no game)
You were not given credit for beating the level...
Start _____x_______ ____________ ___ ____ End
THIS is what an optional objective is
it has nothing to do with being a completionist
Completing a level is completing a level... an 'optional' objective should hold absolutely NO weight on level completion
HOWEVER a simple change of wording to 'Level Challenge' that didnt effect %age and ONLY effected trophies/achievements and I'd suddenly be okay with them

You still get credit for beating the level. Just not 100%. And it's not comparable really because you're not reliving someone's life in rayman and thus arent trying to sync with them.

%age only matters if you're a completionist. You still move on either way. That's a really dumb complaint IMO

If you want to get full percent, you have to go out of your way to earn it.

Shahkulu101
06-14-2014, 07:50 PM
@sha

Or you could play them however you want and go back to replay them to get the objectives like I do.

Not that hard.

That's a waste of my time, and also enforces the point that they are just shallow replay value.

dxsxhxcx
06-14-2014, 07:50 PM
I leave for 2 hours and come back to a plethora of posts complaining about optional objectives.

When you commit yourself to complete a game 100%, you have no right to complain about how much of a hassle it is. It's supposed to be a hassle.

And I don't want to be screwed over my enjoyment because others don't want to complete it.

I like optional objectives. I want them to stay. I feel more immersed knowing I did something exactly how said ancestor did it. Shoot me.

It's not required and if you're a completionist you should know to expect 'nuisances'. Geeze.



I'm not even a completionist, I just think they do more harm than good and I think I have the right to at least express my opinion about the matter, specially if it's something that bothers me, the same way you have all the right to enjoy them and want them to stay, no one (I at least don't, but if I did I'm sorry for that) is saying you shouldn't like them or express your desire for them to stay, but this post of yours just seem like you are trying to disqualify others people opinions because they aren't aligned with your views..

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 07:50 PM
@sha

Or you could play them however you want and go back to replay them to get the objectives like I do.

Not that hard.

You keep saying hassle, and now you are mentioning its "not hard". No one said they were hard, we said they were restrictive.

And like I've been saying, most of the time they dont make sense. 100% is how the ancestor carried out the objective, thats fine, some OO's are fine, but some are just plain dumb, both as a 100% sync objective and again as an actual thing anyway. See my list of AC3 OO's/

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 07:52 PM
That's a waste of my time, and also enforces the point that they are just shallow replay value.

You mean I have to go out of my way and play more to One Hundred Percent a game!? Oh the inhumanity!!

Hans684
06-14-2014, 07:53 PM
Right..

I suggest some in here stop acting like Ubisoft killed their first born /cat/nintendo64..


I will see if I can find some info out for you guys.. however it will be after the weekend most likely - SO - I suggest you all calm down, stop swearing and fighting and WAIT…


If you can that is.

You have passed previous suggestions/requests to teams before right?

Anyway my request to the teams(official and unofficial AC's) is to tell them on behalf of the entire forum(and beyond) to either; Let the optional objectives to go away, Mix them with the Adoptive mission design(AMM(the new Unity mission design so that the optional objectives adopt to the players play style like the mission)) or make them fully optional by letting us turn them off and that they don't have any impact on the sync. This is for future games and the teams making them. Unity clearly is proof that Ubisoft is listening and planning ahead, so give this message to future teams for future games on the behalf of the forum and everyone else agains them. The optional objectives is going to be in Unity, it's too far in development to add or take way stuff, just polishing at the moment. This is why I want you give the massage for future AC titles. You may or may not do but the criticism agains them will always be there like the suggestion for crunching that we will get in Unity.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 07:54 PM
@dx

no. I don't mean to attack.I just feel the gameplay elements I like are legitimately threatened by this many people complaining.

I don't want optional objectives to not count as %age. IMO that's really stupid and defeats the purpose.

@pac

well I disagree. And they're supposed to be restrictive. that's the whole point of the challenge

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 07:56 PM
@sha

Or you could play them however you want and go back to replay them to get the objectives like I do.

Not that hard.



You still get credit for beating the level. Just not 100%. And it's not comparable really because you're not reliving someone's life in rayman and thus arent trying to sync with them.

%age only matters if you're a completionist. You still move on either way. That's a really dumb complaint IMO

If you want to get full percent, you have to go out of your way to earn it.

I wasn't comparing rayman to AC..I was trying to explain the frustration of optional objectives...
Not being given credit because you didnt jump at a certain point in the level....
You are not given credit for completing a level otherwise you would get 100%
50% says I stopped halfway through the mission....
Not 'you played half the way we wanted you to'

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 07:56 PM
@pac

well I disagree. And they're supposed to be restrictive. that's the whole point of the challenge

What Challenge? They aren't hard at all. Its the equivalent of me telling you how to play.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 07:59 PM
@pac

I disagree. I've had challenges with optional objectives plenty of times.

Plus I feel more immersed that way.

But like i said, optional.

By being a competionist you should expect to deal with things you might not like. And non-completionists really have no reason to get their jimmies rustled by a %age.

@STD

You completed the level. That's all that matters.

Percentage only matters for completionists.

You want full percentage? Earn it and do what they say you have to do. Not that hard.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 08:02 PM
@STD

You completed the level. That's all that matters.

Percentage only matters for completionists.

You want full percentage? Earn it and do what they say you have to do. Not that hard.

You dont like to complete games?
You've never beat AC since you don't care about 100%
You probably what, completed 74% of the games?

Shahkulu101
06-14-2014, 08:03 PM
You don't get it. The game offers you all these different ways to do thing, now more than ever with the new AMM, and optional objectives restrict your options. So if you want to play differently than the developers intended - too bad you're doing it wrong. That just completely negates giving us multiple options in the first place - especially if you are punished in any way. And not getting 100% because you wanted to use your own play-style IS punishment of player creativity. The game Penalizes you for playing the way the games are designed - for finding your own path amidst a wealth of options.

And forgive me, as a completionist, that I want my game content to be enjoyable. ;) Don't get why adding sub-par, artificial content is accepted practice. Everything should be quality.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:04 PM
You dont like to complete games?
You've never beat AC since you don't care about 100%
You probably what, completed 74% of the games?

Flawless logic is flawless.


You don't get it. The game offers you all these different ways to do thing, now more than ever with the new AMM, and optional objectives restrict your options. So if you want to play differently than the developers intended - too bad you're doing it wrong. That just completely negates giving us multiple options in the first place - especially if you are punished in any way. And not getting 100% because you wanted to use your own play-style IS punishment of player creativity. The game Penalizes you for playing the way the games are designed - for finding your own path amidst a wealth of options.

And forgive me, as a completionist, that I want my game content to be enjoyable. ;) Don't get why adding sub-par, artificial content is accepted practice. Everything should be quality.

It only restricts you if you choose to follow them. You should only choose to follow them if you're a completionist. If you're a competionist, you're expected to face restrictions and challenges. Complaining otherwise is just silly IMO.

And even as a completionist, you can still play it the way you want first then go back to get the objectives later like I do. Tedious yes but expected if you want to 100% something.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 08:05 PM
Flawless logic is flawless.
It is, unless you stabbed 50 rooftop guards with a feather, you didn't beat ACR

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:07 PM
It is, unless you stabbed 50 rooftop guards with a feather, you didn't beat ACR

I guess I never truley beat Transistor either because I didn't unlock all the optional power ups before beating the game.

C'mon man.

beating and 100% completion are 2 different things. Do I really have to point that out?

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 08:10 PM
I guess I never truley beat Transistor either because I didn't unlock all the optional power ups before beating the game.

C'mon man.

beating and 100% completion are 2 different things. Do I really have to point that out?

Nope, beating means = 100 %
You dont win a boxing match for making it to the end... you have to win.... 100%...

Shahkulu101
06-14-2014, 08:12 PM
Flawless logic is flawless.



It only restricts you if you choose to follow them. You should only choose to follow them if you're a completionist. If you're a competionist, you're expected to face restrictions and challenges. Complaining otherwise is just silly IMO.

And even as a completionist, you can still play it the way you want first then go back to get the objectives later like I do. Tedious yes but expected if you want to 100% something.

I don't mind if content is hard and I have to work for it. However, if content is simply a nuisance and hampers my experience I've a right to complain.

Look at however you want; not fully completing an AC game because you expressed player freedom is punishment for playing the games as they are designed. Which does not make sense and contradicts everything AMM exists for.

Farlander1991
06-14-2014, 08:12 PM
The biggest problem with optional objective is not that they're required for 100% sync, but that they're suggestive.

You have this assassination mission where you have all these different assassination routes planned out, and then badaboom, a sign 'air assassinate the target', and your brain instinctively searches for that route instead of letting the player figure things out himself. Quoting Inception, if I say 'don't think about elephants' - elephants are the first thing that comes to mind. And it may ruin the AMM thing as well. Instead of letting the mission flow naturally, your instinct is to make it follow a specific way.

There's already a 'challenges' section in AC games. Put that stuff there. 'Complete X assassination missions without getting detected', 'Complete X brotherhood missions without getting damage', etc. etc. etc.. Everything related to challenge can be put there, but keep it out of mission objectives. Just tell us the goal, don't nudge how to do it.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:12 PM
Nope, beating means = 100 %
You dont win a boxing match for making it to the end... you have to win.... 100%...

Oh my gosh

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt24/babiixxtae/facepalm.gif

Sorry just gonna have to disagree with you there.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 08:15 PM
Oh my gosh

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt24/babiixxtae/facepalm.gif

Sorry just gonna have to disagree with you there.

Did you complete your workout?
'Yeah, but I skipped all of the monotonous optional moves because I don't care about them, I'm not a completionist'

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:16 PM
The biggest problem with optional objective is not that they're required for 100% sync, but that they're suggestive.

You have this assassination mission where you have all these different assassination routes planned out, and then badaboom, a sign 'air assassinate the target', and your brain instinctively searches for that route instead of letting the player figure things out himself. Quoting Inception, if I say 'don't think about elephants' - elephants are the first thing that comes to mind. And it may ruin the AMM thing as well. Instead of letting the mission flow naturally, your instinct is to make it follow a specific way.

There's already a 'challenges' section in AC games. Put that stuff there. 'Complete X assassination missions without getting detected', 'Complete X brotherhood missions without getting damage', etc. etc. etc.. Everything related to challenge can be put there, but keep it out of mission objectives. Just tell us the goal, don't nudge how to do it.

Eh, I'm all for making the options appear invisible via options menu, but no way would I want it not be worth completion percentage.


I don't mind if content is hard and I have to work for it. However, if content is simply a nuisance and hampers my experience I've a right to complain.

Look at however you want; not fully completing a game because you expressed player freedom is punishment for playing the games as they are designed. Which does not make sense and would contradict everything AMM exists for.
Everyone has a right to complain. I just exercise my right to disagree with you wholeheartedly.

And I disagree so much. I shouldn't be able to 100% game just by doing whatever I want like any casual. I will earn that 100% by enduring the restrictions. Feel like I earned it instead of 100% ing the game by playing it "my way."

@std

sorry STD but I'm just going to say that analogy is horribly flawed.

No ill-will tho. Still friends here.

jdowny
06-14-2014, 08:17 PM
And I don't want to be screwed over my enjoyment because others don't want to complete it.

If this is your stance, then coming to any form of middle ground is impossible because any compromise will also apparently compromise your enjoyment. Can you not see that these objectives are limiting the freedom? Of course they're optional, and you don't have to do them - no one's denying this, but the way they're presented to the player if they fail them - with an 80% completion instead of 100% for instance - goes against the freedom given to players, one of the core pillars of the game. I don't want to feel, at any point in the game, like I don't have the freedom to do what I want. That's not why I play AC.

And about 100% being a hassle - yes, there's a feeling of achievement if you've done it. But the issue with OOs as opposed to say, collecting all the flags, is that the OOs are built into the mission structure. In AC II, getting the feathers was actually a lot of fun because it was something I could do in my free running around the cities. But OOs are there in your face with a red cross if you don't do them the way the games are supposedly intended. Most people don't care about 100%, but I think most people are quite frustrated when they see a completion screen saying you only got 75% completion.

This topic has come up before several times. The way I see it they have three options:

Get rid of optional objectives entirely.
People don't have OOs as much as I thought. In all the polls I've seen, about 40% of people hate them, 40% would like them changed/don't mind, and about 20% like them. So as much as I disagree with them, 20% of the fanbase is a lot to disappoint if they were removed completely.

Make them optional
This one makes absolute sense to me. If, for you and other people, the appeal of OOs is in the challenge, then there should be no objection to removing them from the 100% completion. So you can turn them on and off but they will no longer count towards 100%. This seems to be the middle ground in the argument. If that bothers anyone, then there can be some minor reward for their completion, like a new suit.

Change them
This is another middle ground. If we change their design so that they're not so in your face but actually blend seamlessly into the story and can be completed or ignored without punishment. So perhaps on a mission, scenarios could be scattered that they player has the option to participate in or carry on. An example that's come up often is the Battle of Lexington and Concord in AC III. While on horseback, the player can stop the Regulars from executing/escorting civilians. Now, if the OOs are changed, the player could still have the option of interfering if they want to, with a note to say they've done it on completion (but again, it wouldn't count towards 100%). This sort of scenario makes sense in the story.

But it's when you have incredibly frustrating ones like 'air assassinate a grenadier' combined with 'don't get detected' that I lose my cool. They're incredibly specific, they don't make sense in context and they're just bloody difficult. Also, they can directly contradict a player's style. Like 'complete this mission in under 6 minutes.' No. I don't want to rush it. I genuinely want to take my time and admire the level structure and details.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 08:20 PM
@std

sorry STD but I'm just going to say that analogy is horribly flawed.

No ill-will tho. Still friends here.

Lol, I don't think it is though... It might be a psychogical subliminal thing (therfore not a choice)
But I can't move from a game until I've done everything...
And I don't mind doing everything.. but when I not only have to do everything my way, but your way too to get credit..thats when I start minding

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:21 PM
I honestly just don't understand it.

I don't like plenty things in the games. And they can be frustrating at times but I wouldn't take them out just because I can't get 100% without them.

It really disheartens me.

Shahkulu101
06-14-2014, 08:23 PM
I honestly just don't understand it.

I don't like plenty things in the games. And they can be frustrating at times but I wouldn't take them out just because I can't get 100% without them.

It really disheartens me.

It's because they make missions - the main part of the game - worse. As to why, it's been explained many times.

Nothing to get, you just refuse to accept any reasoning.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 08:24 PM
Oh my gosh

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt24/babiixxtae/facepalm.gif

Sorry just gonna have to disagree with you there.

Uh, you cant "beat" something by completing half of it. Or in AC cases 25% if you fail 3 optional objectives.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:25 PM
It's because they make missions - the main part of the game - worse. As to why, it's been explained many times.

Nothing to get, you just refuse to accept any reasoning.


Hey Hey Hey.

Hey.

No need for that kind of talk.

I'm being perfectly reasonable. And I personally find that the objectives make the main part of the game better. I understand not everyone likes them, but that's why they're optional. And those who want to 100% will just have to put up with the 'nuisance' like any other game IMO.

But I guess I'm just not thinking logically, huh?

ACfan443
06-14-2014, 08:26 PM
It's because they make missions - the main part of the game - worse. As to why, it's been explained many times.

Nothing to get, you just refuse to accept any reasoning.

Pretty much this.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 08:27 PM
I honestly just don't understand it.

I don't like plenty things in the games. And they can be frustrating at times but I wouldn't take them out just because I can't get 100% without them.

It really disheartens me.

It isnt about the completing though...
I'm a trophy hunter.. I LOVE trophies like climb X building and jump off without taking damage, or climb x building in x seconds
But what I don't love is when I go to play a game and it's design is walk through mode
And by walkthrough mode I mean they lay out a path for you and tell you what to do to correctly pass this level
Optional objectives are essentially a failed mission screen with the option to skip and come back later...

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 08:29 PM
You don't get it. The game offers you all these different ways to do thing, now more than ever with the new AMM, and optional objectives restrict your options. So if you want to play differently than the developers intended - too bad you're doing it wrong. That just completely negates giving us multiple options in the first place - especially if you are punished in any way. And not getting 100% because you wanted to use your own play-style IS punishment of player creativity. The game Penalizes you for playing the way the games are designed - for finding your own path amidst a wealth of options.


This post is one of the best reasonings, well done.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:29 PM
Alrighty then.

I'm wrong.

I believe optional objectives are fine as they are. I don't want them removed from the game and I don't want them to not count as percentage completion.

I'm also an unreasonable illogical thinker who doesn't understand how much effort people should put into 100%ing a game.

So stupid am I.

Shahkulu101
06-14-2014, 08:30 PM
Hey Hey Hey.

Hey.

No need for that kind of talk.

I'm being perfectly reasonable. And I personally find that the objectives make the main part of the game better. I understand not everyone likes them, but that's why they're optional. And those who want to 100% will just have to put up with the 'nuisance' like any other game IMO.

But I guess I'm just not thinking logically, huh?

I'm not sorry - but perhaps I worded it a bit strongly.

I'm done here - but I'd like to know what makes you think content in a game can be sub-par in any circumstance. Just because we want to complete a game doesn't mean we should accept content we don't like. We should expect challenge - yes - but not content that makes the overall game worse.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-14-2014, 08:32 PM
I honestly think the best thing to do is take them out completing or simply not make them optional
Force them....
All or nothing at all.. I said it once and I'll say it again.. lol

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:33 PM
I could say the opposite, Shah.

Just because I don't enjoy something, doesn't mean I should cut it so other people can't play it. Especially if-according to some- the content makes the overall game better.

Perspective.

I just want to be considered before anyone considers cutting out gamplay content.

Shahkulu101
06-14-2014, 08:34 PM
I could say the opposite, Shah.

Just because I don't enjoy something, doesn't mean I should cut it so other people can't play it. Especially if-according to some- the content makes the overall game better.

Well I can make my argument and the others can make theirs, and the overall majority would show what the developers may have to do in terms of implementing player feedback.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:36 PM
You got me there.

it does boil down to majority rules.

I just wanted to convince others. I honestly enjoy optional objectives.

I feel so singled out.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 08:45 PM
You got me there.

it does boil down to majority rules.

I just wanted to convince others. I honestly enjoy optional objectives.

I feel so singled out.

why do you like being told how to play?

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:46 PM
I like knowing how the ancestor did it and mimicing it gets me really immersed.

Hans684
06-14-2014, 08:51 PM
I like knowing how the ancestor did it and mimicing it gets me really immersed.

We do play memories so they always to something in a specific way wether it's show by OO's or the memory itself.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:52 PM
I know that. Doesn't change the fact that I enjoy the OO.

lothario-da-be
06-14-2014, 08:53 PM
I think we should start a petition against these optional objectives :p

Farlander1991
06-14-2014, 08:54 PM
Here's a question.

Is it fair to have people playing their own way (in a series that from the very first game has established itself as allowing the players to choose their approaches and playstyles) treated worse than people playing in ways specified by the game? Because this is what happens now.

I can't have my Connor kill only when it is absolutely necessary. If I don't use a soldier as a shield from a firing line or assassinate guards with the hidden blade from low profile (in a situation where I don't feel like killing is the right thing to do, just knocking unconscious should do fine), the game tells me I'm WRONG.

I wanted Edward to use berserk darts only on the most bastardly of targets (contracts including), because they deserve it. That's how I feel Edward would've done it, but if I don't use like 4-5 berserk darts in a mission where there's only normal guards, the game tells me I'm WRONG.

I can understand restrictions forced by narrative (though, AMM should be able to alleviate most of them), but to be honest those restrictions are part of the main mission objective. But what happens is that the game tells us: here's a playground for you, here are the objectives, and there might be a bunch of ways to do it so feel free to figure things out, and you as a player are like, 'great, awesome!' and then the game tells you, 'but if you don't do it THIS particular way and you don't do THESE particular things, then you're doing it the WRONG way'. 'Oh, you haven't actually completed the mission, because you're doing it WRONG.' This is why optional objectives feel annoying.

I agree that optional challenges for people who want them should be there, but I disagree that they should be a part of the mission. Just like the mission itself, the players who desire challenge should have the right to choose a mission where they want to complete it. What if there's a mission with particularly hard battles that doesn't have a 'don't get any damage' optional objective? Then if you challenge yourself to do it without any damage, the game tells you, 'so what? I don't care'. But if the challenges are separate from missions, it will be like, 'oh, so you've completed this mission without taking any damage! Good job!'. This is a way to be fair to everybody - both who like the optional challenges and those who don't want those specific goals to intrude into the mission.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:56 PM
I feel so singled out right now.

pacmanate
06-14-2014, 08:57 PM
I feel so singled out right now.

Okay... Point is, majority vote from almost everyone in this thread is OO's are bad.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 08:58 PM
I know I know.

Sucks for me. But whatever.

If they take it out, I'll get over it I guess.

Farlander1991
06-14-2014, 09:02 PM
I know I know.

Sucks for me. But whatever.

If they take it out, I'll get over it I guess.

As I said in a post above, there is a way to have a compromise that pleases everybody and treats all groups fairly.

JustPlainQuirky
06-14-2014, 09:03 PM
Eh. I don't believe in true compromise.

Otherwise the templars and assassins would have stopped their endless battles. :rolleyes:

Farlander1991
06-14-2014, 09:08 PM
Eh. I don't believe in true compromise.

Otherwise the templars and assassins would have stopped their endless battles. :rolleyes:

The difference is that Assassin and Templar ideologies are conflicting in core principles - they can't co-exist. The deal with optional objectives/challenges and mission freedom can - they don't cancel each other out. Rising to a challenge can be a part of that mission freedom (becasue, well, FREEDOM! :D ), and said challenge can avoid suggestively restricting said freedom.

Sesheenku
06-14-2014, 09:16 PM
Eh, I'm all for making the options appear invisible via options menu, but no way would I want it not be worth completion percentage.


Everyone has a right to complain. I just exercise my right to disagree with you wholeheartedly.

And I disagree so much. I shouldn't be able to 100% game just by doing whatever I want like any casual. I will earn that 100% by enduring the restrictions. Feel like I earned it instead of 100% ing the game by playing it "my way."

@std

sorry STD but I'm just going to say that analogy is horribly flawed.

No ill-will tho. Still friends here.

Well I could argue that casuals need the hand holding to tell them how to do a mission.

Let's go back to AC1 yet again. When you play AC1 there's nothing to tell you how to do your job, it's actually easier to **** up that way, there's no hints to tell you how to infiltrate the structure where your target is, you have to figure it out on your own and if you **** up, you **** up.

Nobody is asking for complete removal, we're asking for the OPTION to remove it and it's impact on sync % the OPTION.

I don't want to be told hints, I want to analyze the situation and do it myself. It's like if you're a young kid and you're older sibling is trying to teach you, you know they just want you to get better BUT you want to learn it yourself, you don't want them telling you how to think.

You want to develop your own style of play and analysis.

Here's the biggest problem with the objectives.

All we ask is for the option to turn it off completely, from sync % and visibility.

Besides getting 100% on all sequences isn't 100% of the game, the side quests and other stuff is required for 100% THAT is tedious completionist ******** but the optional objectives just ruin the ability to think freely and stifle creativity.

It's like that other guy says, if it tells you to air assassinate then you're going to likely ignore any other paths, it's not out of you way after all, it's annoying to not do it.

I want to complete the missions my way and not be punished, I'm not a completionist, if I was I would have restored Rome and all that **** but I didn't. That's the tedious completionist crap, it shouldn't be forced in the missions, optional? Sure, fine. Leave it as an option though.

Kagurra
06-14-2014, 09:51 PM
Optional objectives limit creativity and options in the level, because even if you replay it later, you still think "Oh, well this way is the RIGHT way" and you end up doing it that way again. This was more of an issue in the previous games because of the linearity during main missions, but still. They need to go. The only reason they're in the game is for pseudo difficulty and to pad to game with random content to make it seem bigger and more replayable or something. I don't know they're thinking, the devs that is.

From what I saw, Unity will most likely be more challenging than the previous games, so, IMO instead of making cheesy optional objectives to provide a sense of difficulty to the player when they retry a bunch of times, just make the actual game less of a cake walk, which hopefully they're doing.

egriffin09
06-14-2014, 09:57 PM
What if the only way the player knew what the optional objectives were for a mission was to access/view them through menus? This could work. Meaning when the mission starts, the player doesn't know what the optional objectives are, the mission only gives the player the "main" objective of the mission. That way the player can look at the optional objectives if they want, but it doesn't take away from the mission as "play the mission how you want." If the optional objectives are hidden in the menus then most players will forget to look at them and end up playing the mission how they want. But the completionist can look through the menus to view the optional objectives. That way Ubi can satisfy both type of player.

Also, if the player just so happen not to get 100% on a mission, nothing shows on the screen (no x's or anything, not even the % of the mission you completed..this info can only be viewed through the menus), BUT if you do 100% the mission the screen will indicate to the player 100% sync complete at the end of the mission. This would satisfy both players as well, I think.

Or they could just implement a option to simply toggle optional objectives on/off.

Kagurra
06-14-2014, 10:11 PM
What if the only way the player knew what the optional objectives were for a mission was to access/view them through menus? This could work. Meaning when the mission starts, the player doesn't know what the optional objectives are, the mission only gives the player the "main" objective of the mission. That way the player can look at the optional objectives if they want, but it doesn't take away from the mission as "play the mission how you want." If the optional objectives are hidden in the menus then most players will forget to look at them and end up playing the mission how they want. But the completionist can look through the menus to view the optional objectives. That way Ubi can satisfy both type of player.

Also, if the player just so happen not to get 100% on a mission, nothing shows on the screen (no x's or anything, not even the % of the mission you completed..this info can only be viewed through the menus), BUT if you do 100% the mission the screen will indicate to the player 100% sync complete at the end of the mission. This would satisfy both players as well, I think.

Or they could just implement a option to simply toggle optional objectives on/off.

No this would be bad. What if you forget to check the pause menu every single time you do a mission? Then you gotta replay the whole thing to get the achievement. This actually happened to me once during AC4 because the objectives never popped up, and I had to replay the whole thing after I had finished it.

egriffin09
06-14-2014, 10:30 PM
No this would be bad. What if you forget to check the pause menu every single time you do a mission? Then you gotta replay the whole thing to get the achievement. This actually happened to me once during AC4 because the objectives never popped up, and I had to replay the whole thing after I had finished it.

I understand what you are saying. Maybe if the screen had "press (insert button) to view optional objective on the screen throughout the mission under the mini map, but it only shows the objectives if the player presses that button (it could be the touch pad for PS4 and maybe back button on x box 1)

Kagurra
06-14-2014, 10:38 PM
I understand what you are saying. Maybe if the screen had "press (insert button) to view optional objective on the screen throughout the mission under the mini map, but it only shows the objectives if the player presses that button (it could be the touch pad for PS4 and maybe back button on x box 1)

Eh... I still just think they should be removed and replaced with another type of difficulty achievement.

SixKeys
06-15-2014, 01:31 AM
To the people saying "why should the devs take out something I enjoy just because other people don't think it fits the game?": hunting, naval, rock-climbing, multiplayer, brotherhood mechanic, hookblade, den defense, third-person modern day....These things will (probably) not be a part of Unity, as much as people may or may not have enjoyed them in previous games. Sometimes stuff gets taken out when it no longer fits the current design philosophy (which has changed with the introduction of AMM) or when it no longer feels fresh. The majority of people here obviously feel the optional objectives have had their time and now it's time for a new approach to mission design.

travilanche
06-15-2014, 02:02 AM
If they have optional objectives at all, then they should only be like the guild challenges from brotherhood and revelations. They can be worked on during missions, but have zero bearing on your sync percentage. That way its not in your face if you choose not to do them.

I actually kind of miss the guild challenges.

Shahkulu101
06-15-2014, 02:07 AM
If they have optional objectives at all, then they should only be like the guild challenges from brotherhood and revelations. They can be worked on during missions, but have zero bearing on your sync percentage. That way its not in your face if you choose not to do them.

I actually kind of miss the guild challenges.

They are still there in BF essentially, in the form of Abstergo Challenges...

SixKeys
06-15-2014, 02:17 AM
Yep, the guild/Abstergo challenges were fun. They were more in the back of your mind instead of in your face, so when something popped up saying you achieved something, it was more of a nice surprise than a distraction.

MrDynogames
06-15-2014, 03:09 AM
Personally I do like the Optional objectives in previous games. However with the new AMM I think they need to change. For starters I think they need to no longer count towards sync. I think the best way would be to make them challenges in a sense. But it would be helpful to know when a mission would be the ideal place to do said challenge. So basically when the mission loads and you see the OO, that all it would tell you is "This challenge can be done here."

Ureh
06-15-2014, 03:19 AM
Yep, optional objectives shouldn't be there. Not with AMM. They know there're OCD-fans, so why not take the pressure off a bit?

SixKeys
06-15-2014, 03:52 AM
Personally I do like the Optional objectives in previous games. However with the new AMM I think they need to change. For starters I think they need to no longer count towards sync. I think the best way would be to make them challenges in a sense. But it would be helpful to know when a mission would be the ideal place to do said challenge. So basically when the mission loads and you see the OO, that all it would tell you is "This challenge can be done here."

I disagree. We don't need the devs to hold our hand.

LoyalACFan
06-15-2014, 08:08 AM
Personally I do like the Optional objectives in previous games. However with the new AMM I think they need to change. For starters I think they need to no longer count towards sync. I think the best way would be to make them challenges in a sense. But it would be helpful to know when a mission would be the ideal place to do said challenge. So basically when the mission loads and you see the OO, that all it would tell you is "This challenge can be done here."

It sort of negates the point of a "challenge" if you're told exactly when, where and how to do it, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Since I guess this thread has become a petition of sorts, I'll lend my voice to the choir; optional objectives suck, get rid of them forever.

Legendz54
06-15-2014, 08:24 AM
I think the constraints on the optional objectives are too loose.. tighten them.. People of AC need to be told where and what to do and how to do the mission because Its ubisoft's game.. not ours.. Ubisoft is the monarchy and they can ram as many optional objectives they want down our throats

#tightenoptionalobjectivesandmakeitlinearaspossibl e

misterB2001
06-15-2014, 09:47 AM
Optional Objectives have no place in the first play through of the main narrative.

Maybe they could add them when you replay the chapter? Maybe they could add easy/medium/hard OO's to aid replayability after the main story is complete?

Or have them as a menu option that can be turned on/off by the player?

m4r-k7
06-15-2014, 12:02 PM
Guys I just thought of something (sorry if its been said before)

These optional objectives may be ONLY for multiplayer as they have said numerous times that the synchronised kills (i.e. the stealth kills as a team) are the best way of demonstrating the awesomeness of AC co-op and so they would put stealth objectives in to influence the team to work together,plan etc. Secondly, the capture was on the multiplayer demo. Thirdly, I havn't heard them say on any interviews that the AMM is for co-op. Therefore perhaps the AMM is for single player only and not the brotherhood missions. For example, the tail mission Amancio keeps on mentioning when explaining what AMM includes tailing your target and if he suspects you he will run, you then have to catch him / kill him etc I dont think would work in multiplayer at all. Therefore hopefully the OO are in multiplayer only, and not single player.

pacmanate
06-15-2014, 01:53 PM
OO's are basically this.

Say one of you buys the game and I am sitting next to you. And I tell you how to play.

Thats basically it. Someone is telling YOU how to play. I don't like it. Thats one thing AC1 and AC2 got right.

Sesheenku
06-15-2014, 02:18 PM
OO's are basically this.

Say one of you buys the game and I am sitting next to you. And I tell you how to play.

Thats basically it. Someone is telling YOU how to play. I don't like it. Thats one thing AC1 and AC2 got right.

Precisely, back when just AC was out my friends and I would play on my PS3, since I had mastered that particular AC I would write little challenges PRECISELY like optional objectives and I'd grade them.

Lol it was amusing to watch them try to compete with each other and me.

For example for all 9 assassinations I'd give them a bonus for quietly killing all the guards around the target and of course killing the target without getting detecting regardless of how they did it.

I would also give them a rating for how well they did the chase scene after an assassination.

Naturally I never made them do anything I couldn't replicate but I was a beast back then, my parkour, combat, and stealth were impeccable, I ****ing loved AC I played the crap out of it till It was basically my air.

Nobody wants that **** forced though, we did it to compete with each other but it's no fun on your own.

d4st4n96
06-15-2014, 03:02 PM
This game would be PERFECT for me if:
Ubisoft made the map a little small and if they get rid of the optional objectives... like FOREVER!

MCRMJ
06-15-2014, 03:21 PM
Rename the optional objectives, call them challenges or something similar, then flip the trophy to a 'Complete X amount of challenges'. Not all challenges, but a set amount of them. Allows the player to pick and choose which ones they fancy tackling.

At the very least stop making them where they make absolutely no sense in the context of the character. The AC3 air assassinate a grenadier for example or put to sleep 2 crocodiles (skin them whatever it was). Would Edward, in the middle of a tailing mission, stop to do this? Of course he bloody wouldn't.

Even some even affect the mission the character is in the middle of, please tell me why when tailing Torres, Edward would have to break his tail to go to out of the way parts of the map to kill gunners? Would he REALLY risk his mission to do something like that?

pacmanate
06-15-2014, 03:28 PM
Rename the optional objectives, call them challenges or something similar, then flip the trophy to a 'Complete X amount of challenges'. Not all challenges, but a set amount of them. Allows the player to pick and choose which ones they fancy tackling.

At the very least stop making them where they make absolutely no sense in the context of the character. The AC3 air assassinate a grenadier for example or put to sleep 2 crocodiles (skin them whatever it was). Would Edward, in the middle of a tailing mission, stop to do this? Of course he bloody wouldn't.

Even some even affect the mission the character is in the middle of, please tell me why when tailing Torres, Edward would have to break his tail to go to out of the way parts of the map to kill gunners? Would he REALLY risk his mission to do something like that?

Exactly, this is what I was saying, they dont make sense.

The only one I think should exist is: Don't get seen. Yes it is forced stealth, but it shouldnt be optional and should make sense in the context of the mission.

Legendz54
06-15-2014, 03:29 PM
Optional objectives are the best thing about AC, they need to add more constraints.

d4st4n96
06-15-2014, 03:33 PM
Optional objectives are the best thing about AC, they need to add more constraints.
yes, but sometimes, they force you to play in a way you don't want to!

Legendz54
06-15-2014, 03:45 PM
yes, but sometimes, they force you to play in a way you don't want to!

no optional objectives is love !!! Optional objectives is life!!

As haytham said

"they want to be told what to do, they yearn for it!"

AherasSTRG
06-15-2014, 03:48 PM
All right, after all those pages of arguments and after replaying several missions in AC3, I too can say that I do not want optional objectives to return. Either change them or remove them at all.

d4st4n96
06-15-2014, 03:51 PM
no optional objectives is love !!! Optional objectives is life!!

As haytham said

"they want to be told what to do, they yearn for it!"
not sure if trolling or....

Shahkulu101
06-15-2014, 03:51 PM
no optional objectives is love !!! Optional objectives is life!!

As haytham said

"they want to be told what to do, they yearn for it!"

Don't even joke, we can't have the devs think you're serious. :nonchalance:

STAHP!

Sesheenku
06-15-2014, 03:54 PM
Optional objectives are the best thing about AC, they need to add more constraints.

Are you mad?!?! Do you want them to create AC The Final Fantasy 13 version! No choices! Just hallways!

Legendz54
06-15-2014, 03:55 PM
Don't even joke, we can't have the devs think you're serious. :nonchalance:

STAHP!

I twitter the devs everyday and ask them to keep optional objectives and to make the missions more strict and linear :/

Shahkulu101
06-15-2014, 03:58 PM
I twitter the devs everyday and ask them to keep optional objectives and to make the missions more strict and linear :/

Nice try - you said you didn't have twitter. :p

Legendz54
06-15-2014, 04:04 PM
Nice try - you said you didn't have twitter. :p

Yea im just being a ****head and winding everyone up ahahha

Sesheenku
06-15-2014, 04:08 PM
I twitter the devs everyday and ask them to keep optional objectives and to make the missions more strict and linear :/

You should come over for tea.

I'll poison it!!!!!!

....

With aspartame.

You'll never get the after taste out of your mouth! GWAHAHAHAH!

Dome500
06-15-2014, 05:49 PM
Damn optional objectives....

Seriously it goes against the whole philosophy of player freedom and freedom of approach and a lot of people disliked OOs anyway.
So why bother?

Give us the Abstergo challenges and stuff like that but keep your OOs.

rob.davies2014
06-15-2014, 05:53 PM
Do not like OOs, they should be removed. I miss the freedom of AC1. I want to do it my way. But if there's an OO there then I usually do it just so it doesn't say I didn't fully complete the mission :/

poptartz20
06-15-2014, 06:17 PM
First off Imma let you finish but I just wanna say... AC3 had the best HUD of all AC Games.

Now that Mini map wow... that thing is terrible. It's waay to big it's to the point of where it more of a distraction.

As far as option objectives urgh... while I appreciate what they are trying to do by adding that extra challenge while still making it optional I think it would just be better overall if AC just added difficulty levels to the game we could solve the problems with this. A Normal mode could just be open ended etc. while if you play on a harder mode the combat would not only be more challenging but that when you start getting optional objectives.

I personally don't care the OO in the game. Especially when I'm told how to kill someone. :\

m4r-k7
06-15-2014, 06:46 PM
Guys a really really interesting video interview which not only shows the inside of notre dame (very crappy video though) but the producer says that they are giving lots of choice to the player although he "thinks there will be constraints" but they are not too sure at the moment. For this bit of info it starts at about 6:25. I think its about optional objectives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YoE5US5uhc

poptartz20
06-15-2014, 06:51 PM
Yeah! I remember seeing this interview! I just brought it up in another thread.. but yeah.. at least if there are OOs I would at least hope they gave you extra skill points for completing them.

Mr_Shade
06-15-2014, 06:57 PM
yes, but sometimes, they force you to play in a way you don't want to!

I'm sure the Optional Objectives - will be just that.. Optional


If you don't manage to complete it - it won't scream at you and insta fail the mission.. just a nice bonus if your able to complete it.. if only for your own sense of accomplisment.


There's no information at the moment, however the team are aware some of you find the word 'optional' offensive...

m4r-k7
06-15-2014, 07:02 PM
I'm sure the Optional Objectives - will be just that.. Optional


If you don't manage to complete it - it won't scream at you and insta fail the mission.. just a nice bonus if your able to complete it.. if only for your own sense of accomplisment.


There's no information at the moment, however the team are aware some of you find the word 'optional' offensive...

Its not that they scream insta fail. It just makes you feel like you are not playing the way the game wants you too, which is a horrible feeling as one of the games aim is to highlight the fantasy of being an assassin, and that's by completing the mission in the way you want to, not by how the game ultimately wants you too :D

jayjay275
06-15-2014, 07:02 PM
Does them being "aware" mean anything will happen though, like removing them from the game entirely, so we can play the way we want to? :/