PDA

View Full Version : Why can’t we be more open-minded about Assassin’s Creed?



RinoTheBouncer
06-24-2014, 10:22 AM
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I realized that a lot of us are clinging to certain elements in AC games as if they’re the only thing that makes a game an Assassin’s Creed game. Many of us are too closed-minded to let go of them, even for one or two games and maybe the developers or the decision makers are closed-minded as well when it comes to re-inventing Assassin’s Creed.

I feel like the games have indeed changed a lot of things but instead of changing the side stuff, the changed the core that the games don’t feel like Assassin’s Creed anymore or they just feel like they’ve strayed away from what the games used to be. It’s like someone baking a cake and instead of changing the dressing or the additional items that gives the flavor to the cake, they changed the core ingredients that it’s no longer a cake, perhaps a pancake now or a cream puff or an eclair with a cake dressing.

So why can’t we be more open-minded about AC and preserve the core while changing the equipments, the tools, the side stuff? for example, we’ve been stuck between 1200 to 1900, why? because "it only feels like an AC game when it’s not too modern and not too ancient”, said some fans. and others said “I won’t play AC if there’s no hidden blade or no haystack” and other said “a modern day AC would just kill the franchise. It won’t feel like an AC game”.

Well why not? what if we set an AC game in Sumer or the First Civ. times, before and after Toba Catastrophe? or lets say an AC game in modern day, just one game, not the end of the world and you might actually love it even though you’re against it now. I for one hate everything historical but when I played AC1 back when it came out, I fell in love.

We can also have an AC game with NO HIDDEN BLADES, you use daggers or darts or knives or pure melee combat and acrobatic moves, or another with NO ROBES, you just dress like a normal citizen or disguise yourself as one of the guards or as a politician or somebody whom you’ve killed at the start and take his role throughout the whole game, pulling the strings towards your own aims.

I believe that as long as we have an Assassin and we have the conspiracies and the Creed itself, why should we be stuck in one period of time or with a certain main weapon or with a set of skills or a certain type of outfits? AC was all about climbing buildings and being on lands and with ACIV, we’re aboard the Jackdaw most of the time and a lot of people seemed to praise the gameplay (well many of us hated the story) but in terms of gameplay, it was a new attempt, same for ACIII which was all in jungles and on trees and the cities didn’t really have many high buildings like Firenze, for example.

The game is called Assassin’s Creed and each installment tried hard to convince us how the Assassins, the Templars and their conflict have existed since the dawn of human history, so why not be more diverse? why not focus on the conspiracies rather than a setting that is more recognizable to the majority of people or keep some symbols present like the Hidden Blade or the Haystacks or the Leap of Faith or the 1200 to 1800 period and the more western/European locations while we let the core decay? why can’t the core get stronger and focuses a lot on being a great story and game rather than being recognizable or mainstream or familiar with the gameplay of the past games?

Lets say you’re a fan of Madonna. She’s known for Pop music but is it wrong that she tries other genres as well? what’s wrong with being more experimental? it makes you more of a respected artist. Video Games are an art and I believe developers shouldn’t just try and repeat the past hits nor trim the essence of the game to appeal to new gamers. I believe each artists should be original and that’s how they’ll gather more fans rather than playing it safe after being so successful.

Feel free to discuss...

Farlander1991
06-24-2014, 10:39 AM
It's kind of ironic that one of the biggest critics of the new modern-day approach and how it doesn't fit the franchise creates a thread about being open-minded :p

On a more serious note, I both agree and disagree with you. I don't find the comparison with Madonna exactly fitting, because Madonna in this case would be Ubisoft, who does many games in many different genres and styles, while a franchise would be like a single album, where you expect a certain degree of consistency. I mean, if there'd be an album where one song is rock, the second is pop, the third is smooth folk jazz, it would be a mess of an album. But if one artist made an awesome rock album with rock songs, and a separate awesome folk jazz album, things would be different.

So in a franchise like AC, there must be something to keep it all together. Heck, you yourself say, "as long as we have an Assassin and we have the conspiracies and the Creed itself" - that's already leaving elements in to keep it all tied together. I would even say that we only need the Creed for an Assassin's Creed game. A story where we don't follow the Assassins or Templars but discover their Creed can be told, and can be told successfully. Heck, ACIV was partially that in this regards, where the game is very much about the Creed and other philosophies rather than about Assassins vs. Templars conflict.

LoyalACFan
06-24-2014, 10:59 AM
I don't really think this is an issue. I don't think fans of this series are as close-minded as you make them out to be. Look at AC3; regardless of how you felt about it, it was a pretty radical departure from previous games and it was certainly marketed as such. It was openly shown to be the first AC to heavily feature firearms, a rural environment with no ancient architecture to climb, and an unconventional protagonist, yet the hype for it was absolutely insane. If they reveal a game that breaks from tradition yet again, I have no doubt that the majority of fans will eat it up like candy, assuming it doesn't look horrid in its reveal trailers. An AC game set in feudal Japan, ancient Egypt, imperial China, or pre-biblical Sumeria would be extremely different from anything we've ever seen from this franchise before, but all of those are very common ideas I see fans clamoring for.

That said, AC is a franchise, and as such there ARE certain elements that have to be retained for it to even feel like an Assassin's Creed game. The core pillars of navigation, fight, and stealth are insufficient; tons of games feature novel approaches to each of those concepts and they sure as hell don't feel like AC (Arkham City is the best example that springs to mind). If they make an AC game with no history, no parkour, no hidden blades, no leaps of faith, no open world, no robes, no assassinations... then what the hell have you made? I know you're a huge fan of the modern story, Rino, but to be frank you're in the minority. I used to see periodic requests for a fully modern game every now and then, but that completely stopped after AC3. Based on everything I've seen here on the forums and elsewhere (e.g. YouTube, IGN, and even the AC Wiki) the Juno story is an afterthought for most fans. Climbing, fighting, sneaking and stabbing our way through history has always been the primary allure of Assassin's Creed, and if they were to drop that, well... They would have essentially made a Watch_Dogs sequel with a goofy sci-fi goddess.

Farlander1991
06-24-2014, 11:08 AM
I don't think fans of this series are as close-minded as you make them out to be.

I do think a certain degree of close-mindedness (but to be honest that's too strong of a word, I think it should be changed to something like 'affection to certain elements or concepts' or smth along those lines) can be applied to the vocal (but small) group of these forums who consider themselves hardcore AC fans. Like, 80% of the fans don't even think about if muskets belong or don't belong in an AC game, they enjoy the general things AC is known for, while here there are a bunch of people who are very against muskets and are adamant about the thought that firearms and AC don't fit together at all (even though we had NPC firearms since ACB and playable firearms since AC2, so it seems weird that firearms can be so hated considering there literally has been only one AC game without them O_o )

shobhit7777777
06-24-2014, 11:13 AM
Consistency

LoyalACFan
06-24-2014, 11:18 AM
I do think a certain degree of close-mindedness (but to be honest that's too strong of a word, I think it should be changed to something like 'affection to certain elements or concepts' or smth along those lines) can be applied to the vocal (but small) group of these forums who consider themselves hardcore AC fans. Like, 80% of the fans don't even think about if muskets belong or don't belong in an AC game, they enjoy the general things AC is known for, while here there are a bunch of people who are very against muskets and are adamant about the thought that firearms and AC don't fit together at all (even though we had NPC firearms since ACB and playable firearms since AC2, so it seems weird that firearms can be so hated considering there literally has been only one AC game without them O_o )

These are just the forums though, and as you say there's a small but vocal group that tends to be more stubborn (probably including myself, being honest, seeing as how I'd be crushed if they made an AC game without hidden blades :p). We aren't indicative of the fanbase though. I was primarily basing my analysis on comments I've seen on third party sites, especially YouTube, where you'd expect to find the more (for lack of a better word) "casual" fans. The die-hard group screaming "NO, don't change anything, AC only works between 1100 and 1800 with male protagonists and no guns!" are definitely outnumbered by the ones proposing radical departures from previous games.

LatinaC09
06-24-2014, 12:26 PM
Technically we don't need hoods, hidden blades, haystacks or any of those things for an assassin to be an assassin but for me it's kind of like Star Wars without a lightsaber...I'm open minded to new things as long as they're introduced correctly. The thing about not having those elements is that it will effect the gameplay. If it was a movie it would be different but since you're playing these characters it most likely wouldn't feel the same. (I worded that the best I could forgive me it's very early in the morning right now)

GunnerGalactico
06-24-2014, 12:27 PM
I don't necessarily think that it has anything to do with people close-minded. I feel that most people are afraid of change. Some people feel that if Ubi takes away the iconic white outfit and beaked hood... the main character is not an Assassin or if they take away the LoF, scaling buildings to get to view points or the hidden blades... it wouldn't feel like AC anymore. Sometimes Ubi has to take away some mechanics and elements to make way for the new ones because they have to keep the series as fresh as possible. Some people embrace the change, others don't take to it as well.

SpiritMuse
06-24-2014, 12:48 PM
I don't necessarily think that it has anything to do with people close-minded. I feel that most people are afraid of change. Some people feel that if Ubi takes away the iconic white outfit and beaked hood... the main character is not an Assassin or if they take away the LoF, scaling buildings to get to view points or the hidden blades... it wouldn't feel like AC anymore. Sometimes Ubi has to take away some mechanics and elements to make way for the new ones because they have to keep the series as fresh as possible. Some people embrace the change, others don't take to it as well.
This. People don't like change. Everyone has their specific things they like about the games and protest that "it's not AC" if those specific elements aren't there. Or if they change anything at all. There also seem to be people who somehow have the notion that the game makers should follow their every demand, but then there are a lot of people who have entitlement issues these days, not just in fandom.

For me personally, what makes AC AC is parkour and hidden blades. And assassinations. Fortunately, it looks like there's very little chance any of those elements are going to change, but even if they do I'd be curious enough to give the new game a chance. But even the iconic white robe and hood are not essential to me. In fact, I've always felt the white robe was way too conspicuous and have worn it as little as possible in all games. So I liked the disguise aspect of Liberation, where I could really feel like I was hiding in the crowd instead of standing out like a sore thumb in my bright whites. And I'm glad that Arno's default color is dark blue and not white.

RinoTheBouncer
06-24-2014, 01:10 PM
It's kind of ironic that one of the biggest critics of the new modern-day approach and how it doesn't fit the franchise creates a thread about being open-minded :p

On a more serious note, I both agree and disagree with you. I don't find the comparison with Madonna exactly fitting, because Madonna in this case would be Ubisoft, who does many games in many different genres and styles, while a franchise would be like a single album, where you expect a certain degree of consistency. I mean, if there'd be an album where one song is rock, the second is pop, the third is smooth folk jazz, it would be a mess of an album. But if one artist made an awesome rock album with rock songs, and a separate awesome folk jazz album, things would be different.

So in a franchise like AC, there must be something to keep it all together. Heck, you yourself say, "as long as we have an Assassin and we have the conspiracies and the Creed itself" - that's already leaving elements in to keep it all tied together. I would even say that we only need the Creed for an Assassin's Creed game. A story where we don't follow the Assassins or Templars but discover their Creed can be told, and can be told successfully. Heck, ACIV was partially that in this regards, where the game is very much about the Creed and other philosophies rather than about Assassins vs. Templars conflict.


I knew someoneís gonna say that, hehehe and I donít wanna sound like a hypocrite, but dropping a character with an identity, face and presence and replacing it with a floating iPad that weíre told to pretend itís us wasnít really a re-invention, it was more of a reduction of the quality to save resources. While for example, giving us a dagger instead of a hidden blade or setting the game in Sumeria in 4000BC instead of somewhere between 1200-1800 is a change.

A whole game in Modern Day is also a change, a risky one but it could work, it may even bring new fans to the series if itís done right that it still feels like an AC game rather than a GTA or W_D or whatever.

Regarding the comparison with Madonna, I agree that you could look at Madonna as Ubisoft, but you can also look at Ubisoft as Warner Bros. Interscope, a record label that handles Madonna and other artists and Madonna equals AC and it has itís different innovative titles/installments. I do agree that an album having too many genres would sound more like a mess, and thatís why we need a core for AC just like how Madonna for example has a core, the style of her singing and performance that even when sheís singing a hip-hop influenced song or a ballad, youíd still feel that itís a Madonna song.

My point with AC was that the hidden blades or the 1200 to 1800 period arenít what made AC an AC game. It was the conspiracies, the story-telling, the interconnected events and games, in my opinion, thatís what makes you feel itís Assassinís Creed. If you ever watched FRINGE T.V. show, youíll noise A LOT similarities with AC and itís a purely Sci-Fi, modern day story. So if we go back to Sumer or we try a Japanese setting or even a modern day setting, if the conspiracies, the themes, the connectivity and the mythology is the same, it will feel like an AC game. Like for example, Tomb Raider is a Tomb Raiding game, which means you go to ancient locations, you dig and you find artifacts, but can anyone deny that the Tokyo level in TR:Legend wasnít fun? can anyone deny that London from TRIII didnít feel like Tomb Raider? I donít think so.

I wholeheartedly that there must be something holding it together, but I guess we differ with what exactly should remain to keep it together.


I don't really think this is an issue. I don't think fans of this series are as close-minded as you make them out to be. Look at AC3; regardless of how you felt about it, it was a pretty radical departure from previous games and it was certainly marketed as such. It was openly shown to be the first AC to heavily feature firearms, a rural environment with no ancient architecture to climb, and an unconventional protagonist, yet the hype for it was absolutely insane. If they reveal a game that breaks from tradition yet again, I have no doubt that the majority of fans will eat it up like candy, assuming it doesn't look horrid in its reveal trailers. An AC game set in feudal Japan, ancient Egypt, imperial China, or pre-biblical Sumeria would be extremely different from anything we've ever seen from this franchise before, but all of those are very common ideas I see fans clamoring for.

That said, AC is a franchise, and as such there ARE certain elements that have to be retained for it to even feel like an Assassin's Creed game. The core pillars of navigation, fight, and stealth are insufficient; tons of games feature novel approaches to each of those concepts and they sure as hell don't feel like AC (Arkham City is the best example that springs to mind). If they make an AC game with no history, no parkour, no hidden blades, no leaps of faith, no open world, no robes, no assassinations... then what the hell have you made? I know you're a huge fan of the modern story, Rino, but to be frank you're in the minority. I used to see periodic requests for a fully modern game every now and then, but that completely stopped after AC3. Based on everything I've seen here on the forums and elsewhere (e.g. YouTube, IGN, and even the AC Wiki) the Juno story is an afterthought for most fans. Climbing, fighting, sneaking and stabbing our way through history has always been the primary allure of Assassin's Creed, and if they were to drop that, well... They would have essentially made a Watch_Dogs sequel with a goofy sci-fi goddess.

I agree that Iím one of the fans who care a lot about the story, about modern day, about first civ. about the connectivity more than I care about what well-known historical figure or famous location are we gonna visit, but what Iím saying here is more of a change in general, not necessarily a full modern day game. I think if they attempt to make one, it might really work and for so long I wanted to believe that WATCH_DOGS is the spiritual successor to ACís modern day plot, but when I actually did play W_D, the game is totally different from AC. Itís more of a GTA kinda game and I believe AC is not a historical GTA but itís trying to become one.

The first 4-5 games were heavily focused on story-telling, characters, conspiracies, the Assassins, the Templars, and the Creed, leaving the historical part to be a background. For example ACI did take place in a well-known historical event but the whole focus was on the Assassins and Altairís quest to earn back his rank by performing the 9 assassinations and through that and the modern day story, we learn about whatís really going on. But lately, the gameís been trying to focus more on the side activities, the sightseeing and historical tourism. I find that to be more distorting to the image or the true nature of the franchise than just one game set in modern day or Sumer or First Civ. times.

They can keep the parkour but I doubt that using a dagger for example instead of muskets, hidden blades, pistols, darts and poison is really that destructive to the image of the franchise. All I wish to see is that they try. Maybe one game that is different, maybe it will be highly welcomed. I mean look at them now, trying to be so mainstream and even bringing Co-op to introduce new fans yet I see more threads complaining about Unity than I see those that celebrate it. Iím not a big fan of historical movies or games but ACI won me as a fan from the very beginning and ACII glued me to the franchise. With ACI, theyíve just started a franchise they had no expectations and they were just being original and being themselves and it worked, I donít see why they canít do it again.


Technically we don't need hoods, hidden blades, haystacks or any of those things for an assassin to be an assassin but for me it's kind of like Star Wars without a lightsaber...I'm open minded to new things as long as they're introduced correctly. The thing about not having those elements is that it will effect the gameplay. If it was a movie it would be different but since you're playing these characters it most likely wouldn't feel the same. (I worded that the best I could forgive me it's very early in the morning right now)

I understand that these elements became very iconic and more of an identifying element of the franchise, and maybe they shouldnít just remove all those in one game, but to avoid a game before Altair just because there will be no hidden blades is ridiculous because the story and the new gameplay could compensate and might actually be welcomed. They wouldnít know unless they try.


I don't necessarily think that it has anything to do with people close-minded. I feel that most people are afraid of change. Some people feel that if Ubi takes away the iconic white outfit and beaked hood... the main character is not an Assassin or if they take away the LoF, scaling buildings to get to view points or the hidden blades... it wouldn't feel like AC anymore. Sometimes Ubi has to take away some mechanics and elements to make way for the new ones because they have to keep the series as fresh as possible. Some people embrace the change, others don't take to it as well.

Yeah, but the problem is that Ubi is only taking out the stuff that make the game. They ruined the modern day gameplay and plot, they ruined the connectivity between games, they added co-op yet theyíre only clinging to certain iconic elements that donít really change much. I feel like theyíre telling us ďhey taste this cakeĒ while in fact, it only looks like a cake but doesnít taste like one. You see?

SHADOWGARVIN
06-24-2014, 01:30 PM
A whole game in Modern Day is also a change, a risky one but it could work, it may even bring new fans to the series if itís done right that it still feels like an AC game rather than a GTA or W_D or whatever.

This will never happen. Ubisoft has said this many times. It wouldn't work.


If you ever watched FRINGE T.V. show, youíll noise A LOT similarities with AC and itís a purely Sci-Fi, modern day story.

This is ridiculous! I've seen every episode of Fringe multiple times. It's absolutely nothing like AC. It has nothing in common with AC. I don't know what show you've been watching, but it wasn't Fringe.


I feel like theyíre telling us ďhey taste this cakeĒ while in fact, it only looks like a cake but doesnít taste like one. You see?

No, i don't see. That comparision doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't understand why you keep complaining about the AC games. If you don't like what Ubisoft is doing, don't buy the game! It's as simple as that.

RinoTheBouncer
06-24-2014, 01:33 PM
This will never happen. Ubisoft has said this many times. It wouldn't work.



This is ridiculous! I've seen every episode of Fringe multiple times. It's absolutely nothing like AC. It has nothing in common with AC. I don't know what show you've been watching, but it wasn't Fringe.



No, i don't see. That comparision doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't understand why you keep complaining about the AC games. If you don't like what Ubisoft is doing, don't buy the game! It's as simple as that.

I have a suggestion, if you donít like what I post, donít bother reading my threads, eh? follow your own advice.
If Ubisoft didnít wanna hear our opinions and ďcomplaintsĒ they wouldnít have made forums.

Farlander1991
06-24-2014, 02:11 PM
I knew someone’s gonna say that, hehehe and I don’t wanna sound like a hypocrite, but dropping a character with an identity, face and presence and replacing it with a floating iPad that we’re told to pretend it’s us wasn’t really a re-invention, it was more of a reduction of the quality to save resources.

I strongly disagree with that last statement. The reason behind modern day as it is now is not to save resources per se, but to allocate them properly. And while the new modern day is decreased in its complexity, it is increased in quality. Assassin's Creed IV might not have the "OMFGBESTMODERNDAYSTORYPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!", but it's the one that actually tells the most and in the best way. It's a different approach to tell the story rather than the traditional third-person narrative. An approach that, I might add, Assassin's Creed has used throughout the modern day in the past and has dealt the best results. Heck, one might even say that it's going back to AC roots because that's how the narrative was told in AC1 essentially.

Here's the thing, Assassin's Creed IV gives character development to Desmond that sorely lacked in AC3 (and, ironically enough, ACR handles all pre-ACR Desmond character development in a, what do you know, simplistic gameplay sequences). Assassin's Creed IV gives more depth to Vidic (which none of the pre-AC4 games did). Assassin's Creed IV explores history of Abstergo and their future plans. Assassin's Creed IV has got more modern day content and development than AC2 (ESPECIALLY AC2, which barely has any modern day at all), than ACR, than AC1, even than ACB (which tried its best and achieved quite a lot due to a smart reuse of existing resources), and it also did what was sorely missing in AC3. It's a different kind of storytelling, one not to everybody's liking (as any creative choice is), but it doesn't mean that it's NOT quality.


Like for example, Tomb Raider is a Tomb Raiding game, which means you go to ancient locations, you dig and you find artifacts, but can anyone deny that the Tokyo level in TR:Legend wasn’t fun? can anyone deny that London from TRIII didn’t feel like Tomb Raider? I don’t think so.

You say that it's not the Hidden Blades that make AC, but does TR get rid of double pistols (essentially the equivalent of AC Hidden Blades) in the Tokyo level? ;) Nope. Heck, the only Tomb Raider game to not have the iconic double pistols is the 2013 reboot. And even then it featured those at the very end (most likely to be present in the sequel, because it's an iconic element of the franchise and character and it was used as a visual element of the final 'birth' of the Tomb Raider we all know). What you use as an example in Tomb Roaider, btw, AC does on a consistent basis.

SHADOWGARVIN
06-24-2014, 02:37 PM
Everything you said was pure nonsense. This forum is for people to communicate with eachother, not to throw a temper tantrum. Grow up.

ze_topazio
06-24-2014, 05:14 PM
The historical tourism thing is one of the cores of this franchise, take that and is no longer Assassin's Creed, if I want to see modern day New York I can catch a plane and visit it or I can watch pictures and videos, but I have no other way of seeing XVIII century New York, XV century Florence or XII century Damascus, the same way that I have lots of options when it comes to fictional cities, I don't need AC for that.

Megas_Doux
06-24-2014, 05:49 PM
The historic lore of the game is, for bad or good, the MOST important element of this franchise, more so than parkour, freedom , hidden blades and hoods. Explore the gorgeous caribbean during the early XVIII century while captaining a ship, the holy land and all of its mystery while the third crusade rages on, the Italian renaissance and all of its beautiful city states, the great Constantinople during the rise of the ottomans and now the tumultuous revolutionary Paris is what trully sets this game as unique!!!!!!

I dont mind more modern or TWCB gameplay, but a FULL game out both???? Ubi already made that mistake with Call of Juarez: The Cartel, critics and fans hated it alike for a bunch set of good reasons!!!!! And you mentioned Tomb Raider also , the worst rated Tomb Raider is Angel of darkness, which aside from the plot holes and poor controls just COMPLETELY disregarded "tombs". Like 85 percent of the game is made of heisting modern buildings, the fanbase, me included, felt betrayed, that WAS NOT Tomb Raider......

The same goes for this franchise, without it, there is NO Assassins Creed....

Jexx21
06-24-2014, 05:56 PM
I strongly disagree with that last statement. The reason behind modern day as it is now is not to save resources per se, but to allocate them properly. And while the new modern day is decreased in its complexity, it is increased in quality. Assassin's Creed IV might not have the "OMFGBESTMODERNDAYSTORYPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!", but it's the one that actually tells the most and in the best way. It's a different approach to tell the story rather than the traditional third-person narrative. An approach that, I might add, Assassin's Creed has used throughout the modern day in the past and has dealt the best results. Heck, one might even say that it's going back to AC roots because that's how the narrative was told in AC1 essentially.

Here's the thing, Assassin's Creed IV gives character development to Desmond that sorely lacked in AC3 (and, ironically enough, ACR handles all pre-ACR Desmond character development in a, what do you know, simplistic gameplay sequences). Assassin's Creed IV gives more depth to Vidic (which none of the pre-AC4 games did). Assassin's Creed IV explores history of Abstergo and their future plans. Assassin's Creed IV has got more modern day content and development than AC2 (ESPECIALLY AC2, which barely has any modern day at all), than ACR, than AC1, even than ACB (which tried its best and achieved quite a lot due to a smart reuse of existing resources), and it also did what was sorely missing in AC3. It's a different kind of storytelling, one not to everybody's liking (as any creative choice is), but it doesn't mean that it's NOT quality.



You say that it's not the Hidden Blades that make AC, but does TR get rid of double pistols (essentially the equivalent of AC Hidden Blades) in the Tokyo level? ;) Nope. Heck, the only Tomb Raider game to not have the iconic double pistols is the 2013 reboot. And even then it featured those at the very end (most likely to be present in the sequel, because it's an iconic element of the franchise and character and it was used as a visual element of the final 'birth' of the Tomb Raider we all know). What you use as an example in Tomb Roaider, btw, AC does on a consistent basis.

Farlander can I marry you?
I consistently agree with most if not all of the points you make on these forums.

What system do you play on, because I want to run around Paris with you on a romantic vacay.

nohomo :P

Sesheenku
06-24-2014, 06:10 PM
A cake with chocolate frosting is no longer a cake with buttercream frosting.

Next you'll want Pokemon to be set in a gloomy world with no cities and Pokemon are your enemies.

Sorry dude a series like this has certain things you can't take out, the hidden blade, the hood, the parkour they're all iconic and the definition of Assassin in Assassins Creed.

Time period sure? But yeah indeed I don't want in a time period where machine guns are prevalent or one where there's no hidden blade, maybe the one with Darius where part of the game he doesn't have the hidden blade and then invents it later, sure but a whole game without it? No.

Taking those out would be akin to remaking Silent Hill 2 or 3 without James or Heather.

Oh btw, I hope you realize OP that the Modern Day is the very thing that damns this game to being a connected series, without it Ubisoft could play the Final Fantasy card and just make a bunch of games on the same concept but change all the innards entirely.

pacmanate
06-24-2014, 06:13 PM
We can also have an AC game with NO HIDDEN BLADES, you use daggers or darts or knives or pure melee combat and acrobatic moves, or another with NO ROBES,

... normally I agree with everything you say but...


get out!

Layytez
06-24-2014, 06:14 PM
Me frankly I'm just bored of the time periods. Recent games have been in eras where there is a tonne of material already out there to learn from if you wanted. I would like a time period where we don't know much about it thus Ubisoft adding their own creativity to it within reason and not making things up of course. The mystery and surprise has also kinda died down since we already expecting things to happen and people to appear since we already know the time period.

Sesheenku
06-25-2014, 01:53 AM
Me frankly I'm just bored of the time periods. Recent games have been in eras where there is a tonne of material already out there to learn from if you wanted. I would like a time period where we don't know much about it thus Ubisoft adding their own creativity to it within reason and not making things up of course. The mystery and surprise has also kinda died down since we already expecting things to happen and people to appear since we already know the time period.

Meh, I forgot about history the minute I stepped out of high school. I don't know how people bother to remember that stuff quite frankly.

AdamPearce
06-25-2014, 02:47 AM
I strongly disagree with that last statement. The reason behind modern day as it is now is not to save resources per se, but to allocate them properly. And while the new modern day is decreased in its complexity, it is increased in quality. Assassin's Creed IV might not have the "OMFGBESTMODERNDAYSTORYPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!", but it's the one that actually tells the most and in the best way.

ACI laughs.


Assassin's Creed IV has got more modern day content and development than AC2 (ESPECIALLY AC2, which barely has any modern day at all)

Subject 16 ? Anyone ?


than AC1

lol nope


than ACB (which tried its best and achieved quite a lot due to a smart reuse of existing resources)

ACIV had no gameplay at all, I don't see how that's beating ACB's modern day in any way. Plus, ACB advanced the plot ten times more than ACIV, and it had S16 Enigmas, which automatically K.O ACIV and it's stupid biography about character we already know everything about.


Rino> I don't think AC needs an First Civ. or Modern Day game because the MD and the PD are tied together, they are a whole, in narrative and gameplay. Remove one, the other crumbles. For the First Civ., a full game would be terrible, it would totally kill the mystery and the epicness of it. Though, I would love little seuquences ŗ la Altair in Revelations, that would be totally awesome.

Jexx21
06-25-2014, 03:38 AM
Why is Initiates laughing? Unless you're saying that Initiates tells the best modern day story.

AdamPearce
06-25-2014, 04:12 AM
Why is Initiates laughing? Unless you're saying that Initiates tells the best modern day story.

ACI = AC1 = Assassin's Creed, the game.

Though that was a common understanding, since the games are numeroted in roman.

Jexx21
06-25-2014, 04:34 AM
Nope, pretty much everyone uses actual numbers when abbreviating the game titles like that. AC1, AC2, ACB, ACR, AC3, ACL, AC4, and now ACU... I've seen people use ACI for Initiates as well.

AdamPearce
06-25-2014, 05:02 AM
Nope, pretty much everyone uses actual numbers when abbreviating the game titles like that. AC1, AC2, ACB, ACR, AC3, ACL, AC4, and now ACU... I've seen people use ACI for Initiates as well.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then, I just always have used the roman, but I agree it can be confusing. ;p

Hans684
06-25-2014, 05:11 AM
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/06/24/opinion-just-because-its-different-doesnt-mean-its-bad.aspx

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 07:23 AM
ACIV had no gameplay at all, I don't see how that's beating ACB's modern day in any way. Plus, ACB advanced the plot ten times more than ACIV, and it had S16 Enigmas, which automatically K.O ACIV and it's stupid biography about character we already know everything about.

I was speaking mostly about narrative (and speaking of narrative, S16 enigmas don't advance the plot at all, they just expand on the world building... AC2 truth also doesn't bear anything to the plot, just additional lore, while ACB truth is more relevant, I agree), and ACIV narrative is much more than just biography, but you want to speak gameplay? Fine, let's speak gameplay.

AC1 - 100% of modern day gameplay consists of exploring a small confined environment and reading e-mails.
AC2 - 90% of modern day gameplay happens in the freakin' Animus itself via abstract glyph puzzles.
ACB - 80% of modern day gameplay is us exploring a not too small confined environment, reading e-mails, and glyphs.
ACR - 90% of modern day gameplay is abstract first-person platforming, while the rest 10% is us exploring an insanely small confined environment (where there's nothing to do).
AC3 is the whole exception here, where exploring a small confined environment is only like 50% of the modern day, and even then we parkour through designed environments so explorations takes bigger advantages of the core gameplay features.

And then we have AC4, where 100% of the modern day gameplay is us exploring a normally-sized confined environment (AC1/AC2/ACB/ACR), solving abstract puzzles (AC2/ACB), reading e-mails (AC1/ACB/AC3), as well as spying on people and getting modern day world information via other ways (but all AC games have this to some extent at least through the form of talking with characters).

You don't like AC4 gameplay, fine, don't like AC4 gameplay, but it's the same as 80% of gameplay of all the other previous games, with the 20% that was left off being only the parkour/combat elements which in all games with the sole exception of AC3 took the backseat (and, I might add, were not present in AC1 at ALL, which, surprise surprise, is the case of AC4 as well).

RinoTheBouncer
06-25-2014, 07:48 AM
... normally I agree with everything you say but...


get out!

Hahaha, that’s what I’m trying to say here. Mention an AC game without a Hidden Blade or a Robe and everybody says “get out!”. Why can’t we be more open minded about a good AC game regardless of the gadgets?


I strongly disagree with that last statement. The reason behind modern day as it is now is not to save resources per se, but to allocate them properly. And while the new modern day is decreased in its complexity, it is increased in quality. Assassin's Creed IV might not have the "OMFGBESTMODERNDAYSTORYPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!", but it's the one that actually tells the most and in the best way. It's a different approach to tell the story rather than the traditional third-person narrative. An approach that, I might add, Assassin's Creed has used throughout the modern day in the past and has dealt the best results. Heck, one might even say that it's going back to AC roots because that's how the narrative was told in AC1 essentially.

Here's the thing, Assassin's Creed IV gives character development to Desmond that sorely lacked in AC3 (and, ironically enough, ACR handles all pre-ACR Desmond character development in a, what do you know, simplistic gameplay sequences). Assassin's Creed IV gives more depth to Vidic (which none of the pre-AC4 games did). Assassin's Creed IV explores history of Abstergo and their future plans. Assassin's Creed IV has got more modern day content and development than AC2 (ESPECIALLY AC2, which barely has any modern day at all), than ACR, than AC1, even than ACB (which tried its best and achieved quite a lot due to a smart reuse of existing resources), and it also did what was sorely missing in AC3. It's a different kind of storytelling, one not to everybody's liking (as any creative choice is), but it doesn't mean that it's NOT quality.



You say that it's not the Hidden Blades that make AC, but does TR get rid of double pistols (essentially the equivalent of AC Hidden Blades) in the Tokyo level? ;) Nope. Heck, the only Tomb Raider game to not have the iconic double pistols is the 2013 reboot. And even then it featured those at the very end (most likely to be present in the sequel, because it's an iconic element of the franchise and character and it was used as a visual element of the final 'birth' of the Tomb Raider we all know). What you use as an example in Tomb Roaider, btw, AC does on a consistent basis.

When I chatted with Darby on acinitiates.com, he’s the one who told me that due to time and resources constraints, they will look at modern-day story as a context rather than an interconnected story like a series as in past games. He also said that to create a 3rd person mission requires more resources and a whole other team to take care of that and that it takes a long time. So that’s why I had that idea of the quality is being reduced and that further confirmed my believe that no matter what they say about ACIV being in development since ACI or whatever, there’s still not enough time or resources.

Trust me, when I started playing ACIV, I came to it with an open mind to see if the new first person thing will really make me feel immersed or part of the game as they claimed or whatever, but by the time I was halfway through, I was like “No, I feel more immersed playing 3rd person as Lara Croft than I do here”.

I don’t understand why ACII is considered to have less modern day than any other when it reality, it expanded on the modern day of ACI. In ACII we got fighting scenes, we got the bleeding effect thing and it did feel like the story was growing and in the end, we knew that Minerva is actually talking to us. To me that’s more data about the current story that matters than some recordings about Abstergo’s past.

Regarding Tomb Raider. Yes TR2013 and Angel of Darkness both had no dual pistols, and I know they’ll probably return in the next game, but to me, I feel like TR has changed way too much to make me consider the pistols to be the biggest deal out there.


Me frankly I'm just bored of the time periods. Recent games have been in eras where there is a tonne of material already out there to learn from if you wanted. I would like a time period where we don't know much about it thus Ubisoft adding their own creativity to it within reason and not making things up of course. The mystery and surprise has also kinda died down since we already expecting things to happen and people to appear since we already know the time period.

YES! I totally agree with you. I feel like those eras they’re exploring have already been done a billion times in games, films, books, paintings..etc. and I’d rather have a period that was rarely covered. Lets say Sumer which has absolutely no movies about it and Ancient Egypt as well, when was the last time we had a high budget film about Ancient Egypt? when was the last time a game involved us going to the pyramids since Tomb Raider 4?

They say they wanna offer historical tourism, but non of the locations they’ve explored so far was unknown to us.


ACIV had no gameplay at all, I don't see how that's beating ACB's modern day in any way. Plus, ACB advanced the plot ten times more than ACIV, and it had S16 Enigmas, which automatically K.O ACIV and it's stupid biography about character we already know everything about.

I totally agree with you.


Rino> I don't think AC needs an First Civ. or Modern Day game because the MD and the PD are tied together, they are a whole, in narrative and gameplay. Remove one, the other crumbles. For the First Civ., a full game would be terrible, it would totally kill the mystery and the epicness of it. Though, I would love little seuquences ŗ la Altair in Revelations, that would be totally awesome.

I agree that a full game on either side would be highly controversial among fans but maybe they can make a modern day game about Erudito. Something that isn’t the core of the conspiracy but on a side that has been there for so long and rarely explored or perhaps a game about Eve, before and after the revolution. It would be interesting to me at least.

But I do agree that modern day and historical and first civ. era go hand in hand. The problem is that the developers aren’t giving MD and First Civ. any justice. We thought that after ACIII, Juno will actually rule the world, now she’s some software and I bet you that they’re gonna kill her by “deleting” her before she leaves the system and the modern day of ACIV, it has no gameplay. Ubisoft should know that if I like they puzzles they put, we have devices for that called “iPads” or “iPhones” or whatever, but maybe since our character is an iPad so perhaps they enjoy the iPad quality puzzles LOL.

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 08:08 AM
When I chatted with Darby on acinitiates.com, he’s the one who told me that due to time and resources constraints, they will look at modern-day story as a context rather than an interconnected story like a series as in past games. He also said that to create a 3rd person mission requires more resources and a whole other team to take care of that and that it takes a long time.

Yes, 3rd person mission require more resources, but it doesn't go against my point. But it's mostly a matter of semantics (gamedev doesn't have a unified terminology), so I'm going to drop this :)


I don’t understand why ACII is considered to have less modern day than any other when it reality, it expanded on the modern day of ACI. In ACII we got fighting scenes, we got the bleeding effect thing and it did feel like the story was growing and in the end, we knew that Minerva is actually talking to us.

The bleeding effect is a subplot, though, one that in ACII's case can happen regardless of what's in the game. We could have absolutely the same bleeding effect sequence if Desmond was at Abstergo, in the Grand Temple or on the moon. The problem with ACII modern day plotline is that there is only one actionable thing that really happens - we escape from Abstergo. That's it.

The whole thing about Desmond becoming an Assassin via the bleeding effect, the bleeding effect getting worse, etc., that doesn't require anything specific in the modern day (it doesn't hurt that it's there too, though).

The plotline that was introduced in AC1 was forgotten at all. When we end AC2 we aren't any closer to preventing Abstergo satellite launch (or farther away, from that matter). The cliffhanger at the end of ACII with Minerva not only has no bearing on the satellite plot, it didn't require absolutely anything that happened in AC1 and AC2 modern day, and it introduced a second main plotline. Now, when I finished ACII I was awed, but in retrospective, after seeing Desmond's storyline whole, that Minerva cliffhanger is the worst thing AC2 could've possibly done, and has really affected the modern day plot not in a good way. ACII didn't advance Main Plotline #1, and it didn't introduce Main Plotline #2 until the very-very end. Everything else that happens in AC2 is either a subplot (bleeding effect) or lore expanding (subject 16 glyphs). Heck, even ACIV with its 20-30 min of Main Plotline has more happening in its Main Plotline than AC2 does.

RinoTheBouncer
06-25-2014, 08:18 AM
Yes, 3rd person mission require more resources, but it doesn't go against my point. But it's mostly a matter of semantics (gamedev doesn't have a unified terminology), so I'm going to drop this :)



The bleeding effect is a subplot, though, one that in ACII's case can happen regardless of what's in the game. We could have absolutely the same bleeding effect sequence if Desmond was at Abstergo, in the Grand Temple or on the moon. The problem with ACII modern day plotline is that there is only one actionable thing that really happens - we escape from Abstergo. That's it.

The whole thing about Desmond becoming an Assassin via the bleeding effect, the bleeding effect getting worse, etc., that doesn't require anything specific in the modern day (it doesn't hurt that it's there too, though).

The plotline that was introduced in AC1 was forgotten at all. When we end AC2 we aren't any closer to preventing Abstergo satellite launch (or farther away, from that matter). The cliffhanger at the end of ACII with Minerva not only has no bearing on the satellite plot, it didn't require absolutely anything that happened in AC1 and AC2 modern day, and it introduced a second main plotline. Now, when I finished ACII I was awed, but in retrospective, after seeing Desmond's storyline whole, that Minerva cliffhanger is the worst thing AC2 could've possibly done, and has really affected the modern day plot not in a good way. ACII didn't advance Main Plotline #1, and it didn't introduce Main Plotline #2 until the very-very end. Everything else that happens in AC2 is either a subplot (bleeding effect) or lore expanding (subject 16 glyphs). Heck, even ACIV with its 20-30 min of Main Plotline has more happening in its Main Plotline than AC2 does.

Fair enough, but ACIV didn’t do much about Juno, either. I mean for a game with such a shocking cliffhanger like ACIII, we’re supposed to see something going on not just discover that she’s some software and that’s it. I know what you’re saying about ACII and maybe we just have different taste but I had more fun seeing a character with an identity, interacting with people, talking, joking, yelling than just a floating iPad hacking other devices for old info.

I can’t deny that seeing Desmond’s phone pics didn’t make me so sentimental but I they could’ve at least thrown in some cliffhanger in the end. If they can pull of something like AC:B, or ACIII,modern day, it would be amazing. I also can’t deny that ACII cliffhanger introduced a whole new story and that AC’s story got way too complicated for it’s own good, but no one can deny that ACII and the whole Ezio trilogy as well as ACIII (except for the ending) were well directed and made.

To be perfectly honest, I enjoyed AC:R’s FPS missions. They were unique. We have a reason for being in FPS and I would’ve felt better if it was 3rd person cause I prefer 3rd person but the whole design impressed me. I can’t say the same about suddenly deciding to put me in the game and omitting any sense of personality to the protagonist. Being part of the game is not as easy as removing the main character’s 3D model and voice overs.

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 08:39 AM
Fair enough, but ACIV didn’t do much about Juno, either. I mean for a game with such a shocking cliffhanger like ACIII, we’re supposed to see something going on not just discover that she’s some software and that’s it.

The thing is, ACIV was supposed to act also as a new introduction point to the franchise, and as so, should've showed where things are at. A beginning of a new arc, like a new season of a TV show. So they started with showing that there's this construct Juno that needs a body to get out and is aided by recreations of her lover from back in time. Plus we learn about Assassins and Templars. To me, that's enough info for a game that starts a new arc, AC1 had approximately the same amount of relevant modern day info. Though, they say ACU is also an introduction point to the franchise, and that kinda defeats the purpose of ACIV, so I'm not sure what Ubi is thinking there.


I know what you’re saying about ACII and maybe we just have different taste but I had more fun seeing a character with an identity, interacting with people, talking, joking, yelling than just a floating iPad hacking other devices for old info.

Honestly, I would prefer a 3rd person character. But the way the AC story was told with a third person character in the end was a real mess, and I prefer a less messy way.


but I they could’ve at least thrown in some cliffhanger in the end.

Oh no, to hell with cliffhangers. I much prefer the story to progress little by little than keep getting a 'WTF?' moment every game, because those got tiresome.


To be perfectly honest, I enjoyed AC:R’s FPS missions. They were unique.

I thought they were alright. Did you also notice, though, that AC:R FPS missions were the ones that had most character development (as well as background info) for Desmond up to that point? That's because they didn't have to create actual farm/city environments, to create all the complex dialogue scenes between different characters (even in hubs), and have it also be a part of the traditional third person gameplay. AC:R had Desmond go from his reluctant state to accepting his fate as an Assassin in five short abstract sequences. An arc that by all rights he should've gradually been going through from AC1 to ACB (but instead it was more little nudges that didn't really go far), but could be implemented due to the nature of the way the story was told. And to be honest AC4 has got more character development for Desmond than AC3, and that's just thanks to audio logs and photos (AC3 had only time to do the father/son subplot).

This is why I'm not sad to see the traditional 3rd person gameplay go. Yes, I would prefer to be it that way, but this means the character must also have an arc (something AC has struggled to do with Desmond), and we alleviate that problem, the environments and gameplay and actions must be much more complex, and we alleviate that problem, and we are left with focus on what's going on in the world - which is what AC modern day has been doing for the most part already and is best at.

RinoTheBouncer
06-25-2014, 09:12 AM
The thing is, ACIV was supposed to act also as a new introduction point to the franchise, and as so, should've showed where things are at. A beginning of a new arc, like a new season of a TV show. So they started with showing that there's this construct Juno that needs a body to get out and is aided by recreations of her lover from back in time. Plus we learn about Assassins and Templars. To me, that's enough info for a game that starts a new arc, AC1 had approximately the same amount of relevant modern day info. Though, they say ACU is also an introduction point to the franchise, and that kinda defeats the purpose of ACIV, so I'm not sure what Ubi is thinking there.

I’m surprised about AC:U being an intro to the franchise. Sounds like we’re gonna get into another Resident Evil or Tomb Raider crisis where we get into multiple “introductions”.


Honestly, I would prefer a 3rd person character. But the way the AC story was told with a third person character in the end was a real mess, and I prefer a less messy way.

I agree that I’d rather have a less messy way but I doubt the lack of identity and change of perspective/camera is gonna make things any more or less messy than they already are. I’d vote for a better story writing and character development. I feel like the “Me” in the game is gonna kill any character development or memorable dialogues.


Oh no, to hell with cliffhangers. I much prefer the story to progress little by little than keep getting a 'WTF?' moment every game, because those got tiresome.

I kinda found cliffhangers to be the justification for annualizing the series. You end with a cliffhanger, something that keeps you excited and waiting and almost obliged to buy the next game.


I thought they were alright. Did you also notice, though, that AC:R FPS missions were the ones that had most character development (as well as background info) for Desmond up to that point? That's because they didn't have to create actual farm/city environments, to create all the complex dialogue scenes between different characters (even in hubs), and have it also be a part of the traditional third person gameplay. AC:R had Desmond go from his reluctant state to accepting his fate as an Assassin in five short abstract sequences. An arc that by all rights he should've gradually been going through from AC1 to ACB (but instead it was more little nudges that didn't really go far), but could be implemented due to the nature of the way the story was told. And to be honest AC4 has got more character development for Desmond than AC3, and that's just thanks to audio logs and photos (AC3 had only time to do the father/son subplot).

I agree that there were a lot of mistakes in the way Desmond was developed. I really loved Desmond’s Journey and The Lost Archive, but I believe that part of Desmond’s story should’ve been playable or at least a proper cutscene. But I’d still take Desmond’s arc over the new one, so far. I mean Desmond isn’t the best and most developed game character in the world and he could be far from that but to me, it’s better than nobody, I guess. As I said before, I didn’t buy the “me” in the game, not for a second.

This is why I'm not sad to see the traditional 3rd person gameplay go. Yes, I would prefer to be it that way, but this means the character must also have an arc (something AC has struggled to do with Desmond), and we alleviate that problem, the environments and gameplay and actions must be much more complex, and we alleviate that problem, and we are left with focus on what's going on in the world - which is what AC modern day has been doing for the most part already and is best at.[/QUOTE]

Again, I’d vote for a better story writer and a better director and arc, as a whole. I’m ok with a whole new story after Juno’s arc. New character, new time, new place, new people but lets keep it 3rd person because it’s fun to play as an Assassin in modern day as well, even for a few short missions. They can still develop a good story for a 3rd person character. My only problem with Modern Day is the lack of character. They did not only shift it to FPS, they removed the character and made him something imaginary to each player. I think that’s more like saying “If you have headache, shoot yourself in the head” rather than take some pills.

People complained about the lack of character development and the complexity of the Desmond arc so their response was to literally kill of the character and any future developments.

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 09:26 AM
I feel like the “Me” in the game is gonna kill any character development or memorable dialogues.

I wouldn't say so. They didn't remove character development of other characters.

We knew about Lucy, Shaun, Rebecca far more than we have had about Desmond, because there are more ways to tell about them than there was with Desmond. Not only there was dialogue, there were e-mails. In ACIV where Desmond is a third-person side character in the game's context, there are his voice recordings that tell a lot about him (when would you include stuff like that in AC3 where we actually control Desmond? We can't go into monologue there). Or, on example of ACIV, we learn more about the sage (and his craziness) via the QR codes we collect. There still can be memorable characters, there still can be memorable dialogues, and there still is and can be character development, just around us (though, again, in the case of AC1-ACB, that was mostly the case anyway when it comes to character development)

pacmanate
06-25-2014, 11:31 AM
Hahaha, thatís what Iím trying to say here. Mention an AC game without a Hidden Blade or a Robe and everybody says ďget out!Ē. Why canít we be more open minded about a good AC game regardless of the gadgets?.

Because there are some things that need to remain in order for it be even called Assassin's Creed. Might as well make a new franchise? If that makes sense.

RinoTheBouncer
06-25-2014, 02:18 PM
I wouldn't say so. They didn't remove character development of other characters.

We knew about Lucy, Shaun, Rebecca far more than we have had about Desmond, because there are more ways to tell about them than there was with Desmond. Not only there was dialogue, there were e-mails. In ACIV where Desmond is a third-person side character in the game's context, there are his voice recordings that tell a lot about him (when would you include stuff like that in AC3 where we actually control Desmond? We can't go into monologue there). Or, on example of ACIV, we learn more about the sage (and his craziness) via the QR codes we collect. There still can be memorable characters, there still can be memorable dialogues, and there still is and can be character development, just around us (though, again, in the case of AC1-ACB, that was mostly the case anyway when it comes to character development)

Well, most people’s arguments against the modern day of AC was the “bland” character of Desmond. If the other characters’ development was enough, they would’ve been satisfactory to most of you guys. I was ok with Desmond the way he was but most of you complained about how he lacked any development so I don’t see how the lack of character development in the protagonist can be compensated with his extermination and relying on secondary characters. We only saw Shaun and Rebecca for like 2 minutes if not less, throughout ACIV.

I’m not saying the data on the computers and the QR codes weren’t rich, but adding a new, identifiable character is neither that hard to create nor is it going to reduce the quality, as long as the story is worthy. I mean who wouldn’t wanna parkour on the walls in secret and climbing the side of the Abstergo Entertainment building instead of having to use elevators?


Because there are some things that need to remain in order for it be even called Assassin's Creed. Might as well make a new franchise? If that makes sense.

As far as I remember, the Assassins have existed since the dawn of humanity and the Hidden Blade was only created during the times of Altair, so it can be an Assassin’s Creed game if it had poison instead of a Hidden Blade, which was something Iltani was famous for in Babylonian times. I doubt that removing one weapon will make it a new franchise. It’s not like anybody used the Hidden Blades in ACIII and ACIV more than the Tomahawk and the Dual Swords, respectively.

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 02:29 PM
Well, most people’s arguments against the modern day of AC was the “bland” character of Desmond. If the other characters’ development was enough, they would’ve been satisfactory to most of you guys.

That's kind of a twisted logic I think. It's like saying if bread for a burger is very dry and not tasty, the rest of the burger should still be satisfactory.


but adding a new, identifiable character is neither that hard to create nor is it going to reduce the quality

You have a very strange view of what's not hard to do. If it's not that hard, then make your own 3rd person action game series where the main character has got only 30 min of screen-time out of 900 min of gameplay per game and make him identifiable and with a normal arc :p (hope that didn't sound mean, was saying that only in good argument fun. I wouldn't say it's such an easy task)

rob.davies2014
06-25-2014, 02:36 PM
I'm hoping in the next few games we hear details about how the satellite launch was delayed but is still going ahead and that's what the modern day plot revolves around.
So then they don't have to introduce even more modern day plots and we can finish something which was left completely open even though it was presented as being very important.

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 02:43 PM
I'm hoping in the next few games we hear details about how the satellite launch was delayed but is still going ahead and that's what the modern day plot revolves around.
So then they don't have to introduce even more modern day plots and we can finish something which was left completely open even though it was presented as being very important.

So this time Juno plotline would be pushed to the sidelines and resolved in an e-mail like satellite was in AC3? No thanks, no more parallel main plotlines (unless different games handle different plotlines in parallel, I suppose... but from now on there really shouldn't be an AC game dealing with more than one main plot in the modern day)

rob.davies2014
06-25-2014, 02:55 PM
So this time Juno plotline would be pushed to the sidelines and resolved in an e-mail like satellite was in AC3? No thanks, no more parallel main plotlines (unless different games handle different plotlines in parallel, I suppose... but from now on there really shouldn't be an AC game dealing with more than one main plot in the modern day)

Sorry, I should have specified, they should bring it in after the Juno plotline is over.

The satellite plotline is a good one and I'd like to see them give it proper closure.

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 02:59 PM
Sorry, I should have specified, they should bring it in after the Juno plotline is over.

The satellite plotline is a good one and I'd like to see them give it proper closure.

I'm more than fine with that scenario :) (not to mention that the satellite plotline is actually the one that actually focuses on the Templar vs. Assassin conflict... while the whole solar flare and Juno plots are not a part of that at all)

RinoTheBouncer
06-25-2014, 04:35 PM
That's kind of a twisted logic I think. It's like saying if bread for a burger is very dry and not tasty, the rest of the burger should still be satisfactory.

But then in that case, would you ask for a new sandwich or remove the burger and eat it as a vegetables sandwich? :P


You have a very strange view of what's not hard to do. If it's not that hard, then make your own 3rd person action game series where the main character has got only 30 min of screen-time out of 900 min of gameplay per game and make him identifiable and with a normal arc :p (hope that didn't sound mean, was saying that only in good argument fun. I wouldn't say it's such an easy task)

Well of course itís hard for me as a person with an iMac and limited knowledge about 3D and game making in general, but for a company that spends million on a game that makes even more millions, then there should be a great motive behind that. Theyíve done it before when the franchise was still new, I donít see what stops them from doing it again. I understand your sarcasm, my friend hehe :P

If I was in charge, Iíd give 1 hour instead of 20 mins modern day gameplay. Something that is enjoyable and scattered among the historical missions and of course, all related to the story.

dxsxhxcx
06-25-2014, 04:48 PM
So this time Juno plotline would be pushed to the sidelines and resolved in an e-mail like satellite was in AC3?

It might not be solved that way but IMO if AC4 trend continues this is going to be as anti-climatic as that, imagine how awesome will be the new guy that just arrived (and we know nothing about because the current modern day style is here to avoid the creation of a deeper/more complex character) defeating Juno with the press of a button and without say a single word.

Even if Ubisoft from now on says we are a specific character with a specific role, if all we'll do is just walk around telepathically pressing buttons, play mini-games and watch events as they unfold with nothing to say about them like we did in AC4 I really fail to see how anyone can expect a scenario like this to be better than what we had in AC3, that IMO wasn't good as well, but there's no way that with the current modern day style they can achieve something better.


ON TOPIC:

all we need for an AC game are two groups with similar ideals as the Assassins/Templars we have now for us to be able to identify who is who (or a REALLY good excuse to why it was different during "x" time) and the free running/parkour and combat (the core) be similar to what we have now as well, we don't need hidden blades or the robes/hood to be an Assassin, they certainly add a lot to the character BUT not more than the ideals each group stand for.

Mr_Shade
06-25-2014, 04:52 PM
Because there are some things that need to remain in order for it be even called Assassin's Creed. Might as well make a new franchise? If that makes sense.

indeed.

If certain things where removed - or - altered then it would be a new game..

[cough] shadows of you know what set in your know where [LOTR] game..



Change is good - however you have to also have constants..

Kakuzu745
06-25-2014, 08:00 PM
I definitely do not think that the fans of this franchise are as close minded as the fans from others sagas...actually, if you ask me people have been quite accepting of many changes.

And as someone already posted, it is about having some innovation without ignoring some key elements that makes the franchise what it is.

There is something I definitely agree with the OP...we need more ancient eras, that is a fact...

Sesheenku
06-26-2014, 10:04 PM
I definitely do not think that the fans of this franchise are as close minded as the fans from others sagas...actually, if you ask me people have been quite accepting of many changes.

And as someone already posted, it is about having some innovation without ignoring some key elements that makes the franchise what it is.

There is something I definitely agree with the OP...we need more ancient eras, that is a fact...

Sounds pretty opinion-y to me.

Kakuzu745
06-26-2014, 10:19 PM
Sounds pretty opinion-y to me.

It is called a figure of speech ;)

Sesheenku
06-26-2014, 11:16 PM
It is called a figure of speech ;)

If you meant it as hyperbole.

Morgan-GW
06-27-2014, 01:52 AM
I believe that as long as we have an Assassin and we have the conspiracies and the Creed itself...Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen anyone point out that the ancestor protagonist (as opposed to the modern one) in AC4 was not an Assassin, nor did he abide by the Creed. I only finally bought the game about a month ago because it was on sale for $14, mainly because it looked like a pirate game that Ubi had slapped the AC name on to boost sales. Yes, now that I've played it I can see how it fits, but the very success of Black Flag shows that all many people need is that name on the cover :-(.

At least it made it fun to run on the rooftops again -- I think Venice was the last place I felt like it wasn't more trouble than it was worth to leave the streets, until Havana.

The problem is, different people have different things that make a game "feel like Assassin's Creed." And the more the devs try to please everyone, the more they'll end up pleasing no one :-(.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-27-2014, 01:54 AM
Because if we wanted a different game than what AC is.. we would buy a different game than AC is...

Sesheenku
06-27-2014, 01:55 AM
Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen anyone point out that the ancestor protagonist (as opposed to the modern one) in AC4 was not an Assassin, nor did he abide by the Creed. I only finally bought the game about a month ago because it was on sale for $14, mainly because it looked like a pirate game that Ubi had slapped the AC name on to boost sales. Yes, now that I've played it I can see how it fits, but the very success of Black Flag shows that all many people need is that name on the cover :-(.

At least it made it fun to run on the rooftops again -- I think Venice was the last place I felt like it wasn't more trouble than it was worth to leave the streets, until Havana.

The problem is, different people have different things that make a game "feel like Assassin's Creed." And the more the devs try to please everyone, the more they'll end up pleasing no one :-(.

You're wrong.

After the failure of recent pirate games AC saw an opportunity, to expand a previously added activity AND take in that share of market that wanted a pirate game that didn't suck.

Unfortunately they didn't pay enough attention to their core fan base in the process, it was just a business move though.

Fans don't buy it just because of the name. They bought it cause it was AC and other bought it cause it was a pirate game.

Morgan-GW
06-27-2014, 01:57 AM
The devs are also (I hope) aware that the vast majority of the people who buy these games don't post to the forums, so if they only make the games to please the hardcore then they'll lose a lot of sales :cool:.

Sesheenku
06-27-2014, 02:01 AM
The devs are also (I hope) aware that the vast majority of the people who buy these games don't post to the forums, so if they only make the games to please the hardcore then they'll lose a lot of sales :cool:.

If they don't please their hardcore they'll lose their most loyal fans.

Don't be ridiculous. The casual market is ever changing and fickle. The hardcore loyal fans are here to stay, hell we're still here after the crappy AC3 and AC4.

You can't please one demographic, you have to please your loyal fans first and then try to find ways to entice the rest of the audiences without pissing off their most loyal fans.

Morgan-GW
06-27-2014, 02:03 AM
Fans don't buy it just because of the name. They bought it cause it was AC...I think you need to rephrase that, because it looks like you contradicted yourself. Since the rest of what you wrote makes sense (I disagree, but you stated your case well), I have to assume it's just the failings of print and not a failing in your point.

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has the numbers of people how many people they lost with their Non-Assassin-with-no-Creed game vs. how many they brought in with pirates, because overall sales won't tell that story, and without those numbers all we can do is guess which of us are right and which are wrong :-).

JustPlainQuirky
06-27-2014, 02:03 AM
I felt AC IV kind of disregarded plenty harcore fans by having little progression in the Juno saga and hardly any emphasis to the Creed and Templar Order as a whole.

Plenty times in the game I forgot it was an AC game.

Morgan-GW
06-27-2014, 02:21 AM
I felt AC IV kind of disregarded plenty harcore fans by having little progression in the Juno saga and hardly any emphasis to the Creed and Templar Order as a whole.

Plenty times in the game I forgot it was an AC game.Yeah, pretty much.

People need to not confuse "loyal fan" with "frequent forum poster." How many people regularly post to these forums? And how many copies have these games sold? Every single forum poster buying a copy will not make a game successful unless a lot of non-posters buy it, too.

FWIW, I have played all of the console games, got 100% of the achievements on AC1 and AC2 (twice, long story but I played it once on PS3 then again on XBOX), have most of the single-player trophies on ACB, ACR, AC3, AC4, and ACLHD, and was active on P:L, so I'm not exactly a noob to the series or a "casual gamer." But neither am I one of those people who thinks games need to get harder just to stay hardcore.

Ddrober
06-27-2014, 02:38 AM
Well I am pretty darn sure that we aren't going to get a modern day AC game, seeing as it looks like there is going to be even less modern day stuff than AC4, if any at all. Heck the very vocal anti modern day types seem perfectly content to drop the Juno story all together because it didn't interest them. As for those of us that did enjoy those 20 minutes of story? Tough, they want the resources used to do that reallocated to give them more history. With that in mind I imagine any period from the 19th century on is a no go, because the vocal community as close minded enough that they decided from the get go they won't like the idea, so who cares what setting it has. Same deal with some locations. You even mention Japan and people tell you to shut it, that they don't want ninjas or samurai because apparently the only period in history Japan existed was during the warring states feudal period. Want one in during/after the Boshin war where you could have Shogunate vs Imperial forces with a mix of Western forces? No go because obviously its going to be an overdone ninja game and its too modern.

Instead we're stuck with the period you mentioned, nothing else is allowed without complaining. They don't care about the Templar vs Assassin storyline, they just want to run around digital version of London in X century or Y city in the 13th century. At least that is my take.

Sesheenku
06-27-2014, 03:48 AM
I think you need to rephrase that, because it looks like you contradicted yourself. Since the rest of what you wrote makes sense (I disagree, but you stated your case well), I have to assume it's just the failings of print and not a failing in your point.

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has the numbers of people how many people they lost with their Non-Assassin-with-no-Creed game vs. how many they brought in with pirates, because overall sales won't tell that story, and without those numbers all we can do is guess which of us are right and which are wrong :-).

They didn't just pick it up with no thought because of the name, they bought it because it's a series they love, because they want it to get better, they wanted to believe it wasn't another crappy AC game.

Very different from seeing a games name and going YUP GOTTA HAVE IT!

Rugterwyper32
06-27-2014, 04:22 AM
Frankly, I've stuck with the series because it's the one historical series of its kind I know there is and even at its lowest points I've still found it really enjoyable. I, for one, have never really cared about the modern day story as I've never seen it as anything more than a glorified framing device (and I do prefer how it worked in AC4 because of its self-awareness) and I'd much prefer games that stick to pre-car times (I can deal with guns, but cars are a no-go for me). A modern AC would be the one AC I'd probably refuse to buy altogether, even.
Was there another historical series that was proper competition in any way that focused on the historical element, I'd probably hop onto it, though I'd stick with the AC series because it can still provide an interesting narrative and the series still has potential it has yet to reach, which Unity seems to be one step closer to than previous games.

Jexx21
06-27-2014, 07:45 AM
They didn't just pick it up with no thought because of the name, they bought it because it's a series they love, because they want it to get better, they wanted to believe it wasn't another crappy AC game.

Very different from seeing a games name and going YUP GOTTA HAVE IT!

I think you're projecting your opinions onto the general populace.

Sesheenku
06-27-2014, 08:12 AM
I think you're projecting your opinions onto the general populace.

In a way yes but I think it's a safe bet that most fans, which were generally disappointed by 3 picked up 4 despite that fact, hoping that it would be better.

RinoTheBouncer
06-27-2014, 11:34 AM
They didn't just pick it up with no thought because of the name, they bought it because it's a series they love, because they want it to get better, they wanted to believe it wasn't another crappy AC game.

Very different from seeing a games name and going YUP GOTTA HAVE IT!

I wholeheartedly agree with this. When I bought ACIV, I was thinking “Lets hope we get a better outcome than ACIII” even though I did love ACIII except for the badly directed ending. And I’ll get Unity because I’m hoping it sets things right. I just hope AC won’t make me too desperate that I think “I won’t get this, it’s gonna be another crappy game, anyway”.


Well I am pretty darn sure that we aren't going to get a modern day AC game, seeing as it looks like there is going to be even less modern day stuff than AC4, if any at all. Heck the very vocal anti modern day types seem perfectly content to drop the Juno story all together because it didn't interest them. As for those of us that did enjoy those 20 minutes of story? Tough, they want the resources used to do that reallocated to give them more history. With that in mind I imagine any period from the 19th century on is a no go, because the vocal community as close minded enough that they decided from the get go they won't like the idea, so who cares what setting it has. Same deal with some locations. You even mention Japan and people tell you to shut it, that they don't want ninjas or samurai because apparently the only period in history Japan existed was during the warring states feudal period. Want one in during/after the Boshin war where you could have Shogunate vs Imperial forces with a mix of Western forces? No go because obviously its going to be an overdone ninja game and its too modern.

Instead we're stuck with the period you mentioned, nothing else is allowed without complaining. They don't care about the Templar vs Assassin storyline, they just want to run around digital version of London in X century or Y city in the 13th century. At least that is my take.

And that’s what shatters my heart, because I became a fan since the very first game and all I said about it was “No other game does story telling the right way like AC does” and now I feel like AC is ditching the story and is only becoming a simulator to historical times. Yes, I understand that historical tourism is an important part of AC, but back then there was a story whether it’s historical or modern, there was a story that was connected and that we all cared about and now it’s just a reason to see this famous city or that famous personality.

Hans684
06-27-2014, 06:20 PM
I totally understand if Ubisoft don't take the forums entirely serious, according to this thread(could add the entire AC forum and still get the same conclusion) in a nutshell with every post so far the conclusion of the series is that it's dead or worse a zombie. The forums is far to overcritical to be taken completely serious.

JustPlainQuirky
06-27-2014, 06:27 PM
Forum members will always seem over critical. And perhaps we are. Plenty, anyway.

Many of us are just big fans who point out flaws we see because we love the series and want to see it improve. :o

Hans684
06-27-2014, 07:58 PM
Forum members will always seem over critical. And perhaps we are. Plenty, anyway.

Many of us are just big fans who point out flaws we see because we love the series and want to see it improve. :o

I do want it to impove, no doubt about that. Just not by acting like a female on her period.(no offense and a stereotype example)

PS: I'm a big fan to.

cawatrooper9
06-27-2014, 08:05 PM
Just throwing this out there- The Chinese Assassins didn't use hidden blades, so I suppose that idea isn't entirely impossible.

Hans684
06-27-2014, 08:08 PM
Just throwing this out there- The Chinese Assassins didn't use hidden blades, so I suppose that idea isn't entirely impossible.

-_- Shao Jun is the only Chinese Assassin shown we know without HB, other than that it's far to fast to assume anything.

JustPlainQuirky
06-27-2014, 08:09 PM
I do want it to impove, no doubt about that. Just not by acting like a female on her period.(no offense and a stereotype example)

PS: I'm a big fan to.

This is a common thing on all fan forums. Trust me ive been in them.

Critisizm is most common from passion so it's expected really. I don't really consider it a bad thing unless people start cussing and hating on specific people.

cawatrooper9
06-27-2014, 08:18 PM
"The techniques of the Chinese Assassins differed greatly from those of the other Assassin branches. Most notably, the Chinese Assassins did not use Hidden Blades; the signature weapon of the Assassins in Europe, the Middle East and Colonial America. Instead, the Chinese Assassins wore bracers equipped with needles, in place of Hidden Blades. Being located close to the hands, the Assassins could quickly throw multiple needles in a row. Additionally, the Chinese Assassins wore concealed blades in their footwear, which came to good use with their Chinese fighting techniques, that involved the use of the leg and foot more often."
Taken from the Assassins Creed Wiki

RinoTheBouncer
06-27-2014, 08:25 PM
Just throwing this out there- The Chinese Assassins didn't use hidden blades, so I suppose that idea isn't entirely impossible.

Finger crossed to seeing that happening for real. It would be two birds with one stone, the Chinese setting and a whole new weapons set.


Forum members will always seem over critical. And perhaps we are. Plenty, anyway.

Many of us are just big fans who point out flaws we see because we love the series and want to see it improve. :o

I totally agree. We only become over-critical because we want to see the series improve and not rely on the past to succeed. A great example would be Resident Evil.

Hans684
06-27-2014, 08:48 PM
This is a common thing on all fan forums. Trust me ive been in them.

Critisizm is most common from passion so it's expected really. I don't really consider it a bad thing unless people start cussing and hating on specific people.

Fair enough.


"The techniques of the Chinese Assassins differed greatly from those of the other Assassin branches. Most notably, the Chinese Assassins did not use Hidden Blades; the signature weapon of the Assassins in Europe, the Middle East and Colonial America. Instead, the Chinese Assassins wore bracers equipped with needles, in place of Hidden Blades. Being located close to the hands, the Assassins could quickly throw multiple needles in a row. Additionally, the Chinese Assassins wore concealed blades in their footwear, which came to good use with their Chinese fighting techniques, that involved the use of the leg and foot more often."
Taken from the Assassins Creed Wiki

My mistake, long time since I've read that article.

cawatrooper9
06-27-2014, 08:51 PM
No worries, it's a pretty obscure bit of info. No idea how I even remembered it, really.

pacmanate
06-28-2014, 01:41 AM
I had a bit more of a thought process on this. And im writing this at 1:40am so if it doesnt make sense then sorry.

Altair obviously wasn't the first person in the timeline... I wouldn't mind going futher back than Altair's time, to where there weren't any hidden blades... Or maybe just even the "fall" of the assassins if you can call it that. Ezio said the order was reborn at Masyaf, so im guessing something happened before then. Would be cool to see how the assassins operated with simplistic weapons. Could mean more hand to hand skills and stealth.

LoyalACFan
06-28-2014, 01:51 AM
No worries, it's a pretty obscure bit of info. No idea how I even remembered it, really.

To be fair, Shao Jun did train under Ezio and he gave her something in a box when she left his estate (which we still haven't figured out what it is, dammit :nonchalance:). She could have easily picked up on the Hidden Blade tech under his tutelage, or he may have even given her schematics in that little box. Assuming the potential China game stars Shao Jun (which it should) hidden blades are not out of the question.

ze_topazio
06-28-2014, 01:54 AM
When Ezio said the order was reborn he was talking about the changes made by Altair.

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 03:19 AM
I had a bit more of a thought process on this. And im writing this at 1:40am so if it doesnt make sense then sorry.

Altair obviously wasn't the first person in the timeline... I wouldn't mind going futher back than Altair's time, to where there weren't any hidden blades... Or maybe just even the "fall" of the assassins if you can call it that. Ezio said the order was reborn at Masyaf, so im guessing something happened before then. Would be cool to see how the assassins operated with simplistic weapons. Could mean more hand to hand skills and stealth.

Well Ceasar was killed by a **** ton of Assassins all with daggers so yeah.. I highly doubt it would be more engaging.

Ivanalexdesign
06-28-2014, 10:27 PM
What I like most of Assassin's Creed in general is the ability to explore time periods before the present because it fascinates me to explore the cultures of previous civilizations and how their lives may have compared/contrasted to how I would have loved to live my own life ideally whether fictional or nonfictional. I do not know much about you but I would kill if I could explore the possibility to explore the lives of great men and women in history whose lives never made it in the history books. I also like to beieve in the possiblity that some of these great beings might have been personal ancestors of our own meaning that we might have that same great quality embedded in our DNA forever meaning that we all have that great capacity to live extraordinary lives. Like the great Assassin Ezio Auditore once said, "Nothing is true, Everything is permitted." This leads me to perplex how much of real life is true and how much of it has been covered up by these real life templars that have wanted us to live inside of these bubbles of control because they fear how powerful we would become if we had true and divine knowledge of our deepest ancestors all the way down the strain of DNA from the present all the way down to the first beings to walk this great Earth. Imagine how differently we might choose to live our lives if we knew that any of us could be as great as those who have once walked before us. This is why I am such a fan of the series because I admire how the creators are not only creating a game for you to enjoy on your downtime but to spark your imagination to perplex how much of what we have been taught in school has been true and how much of it has been filtered to control how we think of people in the past. I want you to let go of your ego for the moment and take a couple minutes to think maybe that if anything were possible and that nothing was written in stone whether or not someone has brought you to believe, that if we lived in past lives would there ever be even the slightest possiblity that we could have lived as one of these great men/ women that have lived extraordinary lives and had morals similar to our own and lived a lifestyle without fear but instead lived to pursuit their own idealization of what they believed to life an extraordinary life. I realize that spectators will always have something to say because they could not understand the concept of an imagination different from their own and that being human defines having an opinion whether right or wrong. In conclusion, I hope that Ubisoft contunues to make great games that many more great games in the Assassin's Creed series of the ideal hero that rose up in a world against all odds and altered to course of mankind to rid the templars' ideal of population control and to re-establish a world of endless possibilities where people have the ability to be their true selves without living in fear that they could never live freely. I am so sorry for this long thesis but I hope to spark brains to realize that their is no right/wrong way to live are lives and that you could be whoever you want to be. I hope Ubisoft continues to make great games that are not only for educational historical entertainment but also to inspire us all to pursue that which drives us to live a self fulfilling lifestyle and that maybe someone may want to write a book about you someday and how you rose up in a world against all odds. Godbless!

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 10:32 PM
Wall O' text.

steveeire
06-28-2014, 10:45 PM
I'd love to see the birth of the Assassins and the beginning of the Assassins Templer conflict, I always enjoyed the the thought, that the conflict began between two friends.

But getting back to the topic, the only thing you need for an AC game is that its set in history and you are an Assassin, so with that in mind AC can take place at any time, and each game should evolve from the last one and as you come forward in time things will change and some will become obsolete and we should embrace this, a modern day setting would be an awesome challenge for ubisoft to take on. We should all keep an open mind as long as the stories and characters are good.

Sesheenku
06-29-2014, 03:04 AM
What I like most of Assassin's Creed in general is the ability to explore time periods before the present because it fascinates me to explore the cultures of previous civilizations and how their lives may have compared/contrasted to how I would have loved to live my own life ideally whether fictional or nonfictional. I do not know much about you but I would kill if I could explore the possibility to explore the lives of great men and women in history whose lives never made it in the history books. I also like to beieve in the possiblity that some of these great beings might have been personal ancestors of our own meaning that we might have that same great quality embedded in our DNA forever meaning that we all have that great capacity to live extraordinary lives.

Like the great Assassin Ezio Auditore once said, "Nothing is true, Everything is permitted." This leads me to perplex how much of real life is true and how much of it has been covered up by these real life templars that have wanted us to live inside of these bubbles of control because they fear how powerful we would become if we had true and divine knowledge of our deepest ancestors all the way down the strain of DNA from the present all the way down to the first beings to walk this great Earth. Imagine how differently we might choose to live our lives if we knew that any of us could be as great as those who have once walked before us.

This is why I am such a fan of the series because I admire how the creators are not only creating a game for you to enjoy on your downtime but to spark your imagination to perplex how much of what we have been taught in school has been true and how much of it has been filtered to control how we think of people in the past. I want you to let go of your ego for the moment and take a couple minutes to think maybe that if anything were possible and that nothing was written in stone whether or not someone has brought you to believe, that if we lived in past lives would there ever be even the slightest possiblity that we could have lived as one of these great men/ women that have lived extraordinary lives and had morals similar to our own and lived a lifestyle without fear but instead lived to pursuit their own idealization of what they believed to life an extraordinary life.

I realize that spectators will always have something to say because they could not understand the concept of an imagination different from their own and that being human defines having an opinion whether right or wrong. In conclusion, I hope that Ubisoft contunues to make great games that many more great games in the Assassin's Creed series of the ideal hero that rose up in a world against all odds and altered to course of mankind to rid the templars' ideal of population control and to re-establish a world of endless possibilities where people have the ability to be their true selves without living in fear that they could never live freely. I am so sorry for this long thesis but I hope to spark brains to realize that their is no right/wrong way to live are lives and that you could be whoever you want to be. I hope Ubisoft continues to make great games that are not only for educational historical entertainment but also to inspire us all to pursue that which drives us to live a self fulfilling lifestyle and that maybe someone may want to write a book about you someday and how you rose up in a world against all odds. Godbless!

For ****s sake man, SEPARATE YOUR THOUGHTS INTO PARAGRAPHS.

Is pressing space after every group of thoughts so hard? Christ.. Oh and add some bleeding punctuation, ever heard of commas?

Your run on sentences are quite nearly illegible.

RinoTheBouncer
06-29-2014, 09:55 AM
I had a bit more of a thought process on this. And im writing this at 1:40am so if it doesnt make sense then sorry.

Altair obviously wasn't the first person in the timeline... I wouldn't mind going futher back than Altair's time, to where there weren't any hidden blades... Or maybe just even the "fall" of the assassins if you can call it that. Ezio said the order was reborn at Masyaf, so im guessing something happened before then. Would be cool to see how the assassins operated with simplistic weapons. Could mean more hand to hand skills and stealth.

I’m loving this idea. I always thought about going to the period before Altair and now that we have super amazing graphics with PS4, I think the old era where there are less large buildings and big cities is gonna look amazing rather than pale because there will be room for more details and NPCs and all.. and the fact that we can show the fall of the Assassins, a game that focuses on a sad ending towards the Assassins would be absolutely amazing.

Sesheenku
06-29-2014, 11:16 AM
I’m loving this idea. I always thought about going to the period before Altair and now that we have super amazing graphics with PS4, I think the old era where there are less large buildings and big cities is gonna look amazing rather than pale because there will be room for more details and NPCs and all.. and the fact that we can show the fall of the Assassins, a game that focuses on a sad ending towards the Assassins would be absolutely amazing.

Well technically the modern day is one big sad ending for the assassins ;P it's Colonial America all over again, except this time they don't have any prodigies left like Connor.

pacmanate
06-29-2014, 11:33 AM
Well technically the modern day is one big sad ending for the assassins ;P it's Colonial America all over again, except this time they don't have any prodigies left like Connor.

Ah but that's the thing, we witnessed a rebirth. I want to see the Assassin's fail, have everything taken away from them.

thomasjackw
06-29-2014, 09:25 PM
I personally think an AC game with a focus on non lethal approaches would be pretty sick, imagine instead of rushing into a building and stabbing everybody in the throat, you take your time, hide bodies, make it really focus on stealth, imagine a hidden blade, that was actually a non lethal Taser type projectile/close range weapon?, have it take place modern day as well.

purplekurple
06-29-2014, 09:39 PM
I personally think an AC game with a focus on non lethal approaches would be pretty sick, imagine instead of rushing into a building and stabbing everybody in the throat, you take your time, hide bodies, make it really focus on stealth, imagine a hidden blade, that was actually a non lethal Taser type projectile/close range weapon?, have it take place modern day as well.

Sounds awful. Assassin kill people.

steveeire
06-29-2014, 09:42 PM
Sounds awful. Assassin kill people.

Actually according to the Assassin's Creed they are only supposed to kill there targets.

JustPlainQuirky
06-29-2014, 09:57 PM
Darby said there could be a pacifist assassin :cool:

steveeire
06-29-2014, 10:02 PM
He/she would be very good at their job then.

JustPlainQuirky
06-29-2014, 10:05 PM
Assassin-ism or whatever is a philosophy. Different from our definition. :p

Jexx21
06-29-2014, 11:32 PM
An Assassin isn't always an assassin.

JustPlainQuirky
06-29-2014, 11:33 PM
Wat?

Jexx21
06-29-2014, 11:58 PM
An Assassin isn't always an assassin.

Assassin = someone who follows the Creed of a group called the Assassin Order
assassin = contract killer

JustPlainQuirky
06-30-2014, 12:00 AM
pffffft

I didn't know capitalization was used to differentiate the two.

I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Sesheenku
06-30-2014, 06:09 AM
An Assassin isn't always an assassin.

But every interesting Assassin is an assassin.

Jexx21
06-30-2014, 06:18 AM
that's a generalization and subjective

Sesheenku
06-30-2014, 08:29 AM
that's a generalization and subjective

Assassins Creed itself would argue against that, seeing as all its playable characters are assassin type Assassins.

Nobody wants to be the Assassin Courier.

Jexx21
06-30-2014, 08:32 AM
I never said I would play a game where the Assassin is a pacifist, but I would certainly read a book about it.

A nonlethal Assassin would be cool though.

purplekurple
06-30-2014, 09:42 AM
I never said I would play a game where the Assassin is a pacifist, but I would certainly read a book about it.

A nonlethal Assassin would be cool though.

No it wouldn't, it would be lame as he'll. A terrible idea.

SixKeys
06-30-2014, 01:17 PM
An Assassin isn't always an assassin.

Assassin = someone who follows the Creed of a group called the Assassin Order
assassin = contract killer

Not exactly. Mercenaries are contract killers. An assassin is anyone who attempts to take the life of a notable person, be it for personal gain, fame or political reasons. That's why I don't capitalize assassins when speaking about the order. There's very little difference between them and any other politically or ideologically motivated assassin.

D.I.D.
06-30-2014, 01:33 PM
No it wouldn't, it would be lame as he'll. A terrible idea.

You should give Dishonored a try, and play it with the aim of killing nobody. There's an achievement called Clean Hands if you succeed. You have a list of targets, but it's not necessary to kill them. A lot of the non-violent outcomes are really just dodging responsibility, but whether you see these actions as merciful or simply sensible (given that you're trying to prove your innocence) is up for interpretation. The more you get into it, the less sense it would make to kill anybody at all, and it's a more honest representation of what you'd really do if you were in that situation. A lot of games hand you a revenge fantasy and persuade you that you'd kill everybody that wrongs you, but that's not really how most people work.

Ultimately, the "clean" results are much nastier, and more satisfying if you long for revenge, than a fast death via a weapon.

Hans684
06-30-2014, 01:52 PM
You should give Dishonored a try, and play it with the aim of killing nobody. There's an achievement called Clean Hands if you succeed. You have a list of targets, but it's not necessary to kill them. A lot of the non-violent outcomes are really just dodging responsibility, but whether you see these actions as merciful or simply sensible (given that you're trying to prove your innocence) is up for interpretation. The more you get into it, the less sense it would make to kill anybody at all, and it's a more honest representation of what you'd really do if you were in that situation. A lot of games hand you a revenge fantasy and persuade you that you'd kill everybody that wrongs you, but that's not really how most people work.

Ultimately, the "clean" results are much nastier, and more satisfying if you long for revenge, than a fast death via a weapon.

Replayed the same way every time, never gotten that achievement. I've heard it's some sort of bug or something.

D.I.D.
06-30-2014, 03:15 PM
Replayed the same way every time, never gotten that achievement. I've heard it's some sort of bug or something.

Hmm, I don't know then. I don't pay any attention to achievements, so I was just watching for the zero kill in the end of level stats and the "good" ending. I think there was something iffy about the Granny Rags/Slackjaw encounter, because it registered one kill the first time I played it even though I used either sleep darts or the choke hold (can't remember which non-lethal method, since it was a couple of years ago now) and I had to replay with different choices.

Markaccus
06-30-2014, 03:48 PM
To answer the OP...

I think that ANY time period has excellent potential for an AC game. I also believe that the time line for the existence of the hidden blade does not stretch back to really ancient times, so in any game set before its invention (i am not sure when this was) there should logically be no hidden blades. Haystacks were at certain times in history quite common in the streets, other times and places you wouldn't get them. They are just hiding places, so i am sure they could drop them and have other ways to hide, if we were playing in a setting where haystacks would not logically be. Anything set before the actual creation of any real assassins order would mean no allusion to assassins in game, but calling it assassins creed still works, because we are living the life of the people who are the ancestors of an assassins order. The story line dictates the two factions have always existed, but probably not under the same names originally.

thomasjackw
06-30-2014, 04:37 PM
I've personally thought a game set in Australia when the first few boats of convicts were sent there and Australia was basically run by criminals, you could play as someone falsely accused of something in Britain, sent to Australia, then recruited into the order to prove your innocence, the templars have gone to australia, sensing a chance to finally create their utopia, they're the reason the aboriginals were being killed, the Templars thought of them as a nuisance, anybody else got good ideas?x