PDA

View Full Version : Best/Worst Moments in 360/PS3 Generation Assassins Creed



WendysBrioche
06-28-2014, 03:19 AM
Clarification: I meant your best personal fun/awesome/good moments not necerailly the quality of each game if anyone was confused. Like things you did in the game that were cool, and whatever was lame/went wrong. But ya, definitely feel free to post which parts were a drag and which were great, that's fine too. ;)

Okay, two things,

#1 With Unity, it seems we're finally leaving the last generation of Assassins Creed Games, and entering into a new phase of "Next-Gen" Assassin's Creed, where the last gen begins to look like a funny little arcade game next to the high budget current tech, (for the first time ever, I popped in AC 2, an all-time favorite, and thought, wow this looks terrible(tech wise, game is still beautiful) mind you, when I first played AC 2 I thought this would never happen in my entire life. :p)

and

#2 I cant stop myself from abusing the post new thread button. A(So sorry! Also I searched to see if there was an older thread like this I couldn't find one! So sorry if there is and I failed!)

What are your best/worst moments in Assassin's Creed. I know I've had some of my best (game) of all time in this series, and eh, definitely not my worst but some pretty bad mess-ups here and there.

Mine (Ill post more as I remember them):

Best

AC 1: Best sword fighting I've ever experienced in ANY Entertainment Media. Some pretty good ones in there, this ones going to be hard to top I think even with future tech.

Ezio. Sexy. Beautiful. Badass. Words don't do justice to justice to my second favorite character of all time, (sorry first goes to John Marston rip)

Numerous Assassinations executed perfectly.

Staring at my glorious Assassin. Do it at least once every game.

Being a badass and jumping in a direction I'm not looking to get the perfect angle on the assassin

Garnier De Naplouse. I thought he was the most thought provoking and moving enemy of the series. You just thought he was a sick bastard and knew it then you find something that contradicts everything you thought.

Manuel Palaiologos. Sorry I thought he kicked Rodrigo Borgia's ***.

Worst

Assassinating the wrong target

Removal of fabric physics in AC 2/ lightning that looked like the characters were all made of ribbons it took me 2 years after the game was released to finally "get" the effect. Then I finally was able to appreciate its beauty

Cheesy dialogue in AC 3 i.e. Benjamin Franklin "I'm gonna build an almanac", ten seconds later Templar says overdramatic "or why don't we cut off his ****ing c...
ock." Just a bad combination and really inconsistent and innapropriate and unnesseceray entertainment felt too forced.

This ones not that bad I laugh at it now but CHARLESSS LEEEEEEEE way too cheesy :p

Exploring the tunnel system in AC 3 completely (ughhh...)

Trying to steal from people in AC 3 while being stalked by cats

Dropping my sword and being forced to use a guards sword don't remember exactly what happened but for some reason this sucked

Trying to get full sync on some of the missions

Getting pushed into a river

Getting killed by a bunch of girls (9) I stole from in Revelations (ya... I did that.) :o

Trying to be a badass and jump in a direction I'm not looking... and failing...

JustPlainQuirky
06-28-2014, 03:24 AM
I thought AC:1 combat was turrible :p

but i agree with rest. glad u liked.

I'll edit in my likes and dislikes in a bit.

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 03:49 AM
Best of

AC1 : Pretty much everything, when it came out as unpolished as it was it was all we had and it was good enough, the ideas were fresh and cool and the combat was a good balance of difficulty.

AC2 : The game that addressed every single problem in AC1 and then some, it's obvious why people think this is the best game, it's the one that blew away our expectations and hype and was everything it said it would be and more.

ACB : Wasn't too bad, Rome was pretty cool and they fixed the minor issues present in AC2 like terrible LoD textures, it was a fun if familiar ride.

ACR : While not like 2 it was still a good refinement on previous systems, the combat wasn't totally easy as at least spearmen required you to break their defense, Constantinople was a bit similar in some areas but still nice and had excellent texture quality. Bombs were cool too and I found them useful.

AC3 : Uh... The Homestead missions were amazing and had massive emotional impact, the Templar dialogue was the absolute best yet and tree climbing was cool

AC4 : It was cool to jump from your ship and swim in the ocean to an island, the exploration was nice if limited and the sea was beautiful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst of

AC1 : An ultimately unsatisfying experience that left the player wanting more out of it, it was cool but not cool enough, it was fun but not fun enough.

AC2 : It got a bit repetitive by Sequence 11 but that's it, the rest of the game is stellar and this is so minor SOOO minor when it's just one sequence among 13 other awesome sequences.

ACB : Repetitive, combat was way too easy, didn't really have a focus on assassinations anymore, felt pretty similar although still fun

ACR : The gold filter in Constantinople got old fast, Den Defense is irritating as is the notoriety glitches that remain in the game TO THIS DAY. Quite frankly it's inexcusable

AC3 : Over simplified combat, carelessly shoving all the parkour and running options into one button, over simplification of climbing making it duller than ever before and completely mindless, butchered stealth, terrible mission design and optional objectives, lousy texture work in some areas, worthless side activities.

AC4 : Glitchy combat, choppy combat animations, low variety of weapons and thus dull combat because of it, all islands were basically hallways with trees blocking your way making it seem un-organic and scripted, too much sailing, too little assassinating, too little islands with anything substantial to do on them
.

JustPlainQuirky
06-28-2014, 03:55 AM
Ehh I'll just do seperate post.

Best:

AC1- Altair's development as a character. Really cool interactions with Malik

AC2- Good narrative and general gameplay that set the standard for future AC games

ACB- Cute assassin bebehs

ACR- Great Narrative and Exotic missions. Tear jerking conclusions to Altair and Ezio saga.

AC3- Awesome Narrative. Haytham/Connor duo best duo in the franchise IMO

AC4-innovative ship gameplay

---

Worst:

AC1- Combat sucked

AC2- Cartoonishly evil templar

ACB-SUPER cartoonishly evil templar. Story not very important in the grand scheme of things.

ACR-Short and gameplay isnt TOO fun

AC3-Credible characters like Charles Lee ruined by single cartoonishly evil moments.

AC4-Narrative terrible. Minimal modern day plot progression. Main baddie Templars uninteresting and underdeveloped.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-28-2014, 04:20 AM
I'll use your template for mine :p

Best:

AC1 - Altair's badassness and his conversations with Malik

AC2 - Cool character, gameplay, atmosphere

ACB - Same as above

ACR - Altair and Ezio meeting

AC3 - Awesome storyline. Haytham/Connor awesomeness, combat was funnnn <3

AC4 - innovative ship gameplay, modern day was alright

---

Worst:

AC1 - Combat hurtsssssss T_T

AC2 - Cartoonishly evil templar

ACB - Could have merged with AC2

ACR - Short

AC3 - George Washington turned out to be a ******, Charles Lee, ............... GLITCHESSSS.

AC4 - Narrative was meh, didn't like pirate games to begin with, couldn't get into the storyline much, Edward wasn't a real assassin.

JustPlainQuirky
06-28-2014, 04:22 AM
AC:3 Glitches are awesome though :rolleyes:

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 04:24 AM
Best of:

AC I: Story, protagonist, Investigations, combat, setting and social stealth. This game was an Assassin simulator in every sense of the word. the design of it was directed at play completely HUD-less, every dialogue, instruction...etc was aimed at visual notice from the player to observe the environment.

AC II: Nothing of note, it's the worst in the series for me....probably the setting and music and the Assassination side missions, nothing else.

ACB: Combat, even though it was impossible to die and the side missions, this game really had the best side missions and they ALL meshed well together.

ACR: Story, actual character progression for Ezio who has been stagnant since AC II, Den defense, Desmond story and setting. Constantinople is my all time favorite setting from the series and contrary to popular opinion, i found the Desmond missions extremely fun and I enjoyed the art direction of said missions and really liked the puzzles of it all.

AC III: Story, a return of form for the series that has been suffering from horrible plots since AC II, Protagonist, an awesome and much needed change from Ezio, some great side missions like the Naval battles, the homestead, the liberation missions, the frontiersman, brawler and hunting quests, a more dynamic economic system, the slightly improved combat, the new stealth mechanics, the tree parkour, hunting, seasons, weather and i'll stop here.

AC IV: my favorite game in the series in terms of gameplay, it took everything that had amazing potential in AC III and it let out that potential, it's a MUCH better designed, more intact version of AC III.

Worst of:

AC I: The lack of side missions

AC II: where do I start?? at the terrible pace of the narrative, the repetitive nature of the design in plot loop starting from sequence 8, the complete lack of progression for Ezio other than in the last 10 minutes, the slow and clunky combat, the lack of any sort of progression for the Modern day, the horrible cast of characters apart from Machiavelli and La Volpe, the inconsistent rooftop guard AI, the stagnant economic system, the illusion of a progression system when none exists because it does not matter if you're wearing a **** ton of armor or bought the strongest swords, stats are of no consequence to the game because it's easy as hell, the black and white story where Assassins are portrayed as saints while Templars as mustache twirling villains, the non-sensical side missions that included beating up husbands and being a courier boy, the removal of investigations and freedom of approach...I could go on and on but i'll stop here.

ACB: Same exact problems with AC II, it's my second least favorite AC but at least they improved the combat and side missions.

ACR: Some design flaws that are MUCH bigger in AC III, mostly with the new cinematic approach to game design.

AC III: Some side missions and the terrible game design. some side missions like the Assassination contracts and the courier assignments were half-arsed and the terrible game design..well, i'v talked about it a lot and I don't need to talk about it again.

AC IV: Mostly the story...I liked what Darby wanted to tell, especially after a second playthrough but I think some of the cuts and short time they had, made for a lot to be desired.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-28-2014, 04:27 AM
omg M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sheldon-Hug-The-Big-Bang-Theory.gif

JustPlainQuirky
06-28-2014, 04:32 AM
Woah m is alive

what sorcery is this?!?!?!

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 04:51 AM
By the way, about the Ezio saga Templars... I'm just gonna leave this here.

"Templars looked at the Renaissance as a dark time for the Order: while other men progressed humanity's knowledge, the 15th century Templars led by the debauched Borgia did not care for such ideals, using the Order as a platform to gain power and influence. By the 17th century, the Templars began adjusting their philosophy. Instead of making personal bids for powers, the Templars sought to influence rather than control the leaders and intellectuals of the new age."

They're supposed to be insane ****** bags.

Every order becomes corrupted at some point, the Assassins during Al Mualim and Abbas, the Templars during the Borgia reign.

Megas_Doux
06-28-2014, 04:55 AM
Many good and some bad, by the worst has to be and by far:

Vittoria Agli Assassini!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110429203655/assassinscreed/de/images/3/3b/Vittoria_agli_Assassini.png

That AWFUL italian accent and the whole cheesiness of the scene still haunts me up to this day......

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 05:01 AM
Woah m is alive

what sorcery is this?!?!?!


omg M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sheldon-Hug-The-Big-Bang-Theory.gif
Not for long, i'll be leaving again


By the way, about the Ezio saga Templars... I'm just gonna leave this here.

"Templars looked at the Renaissance as a dark time for the Order: while other men progressed humanity's knowledge, the 15th century Templars led by the debauched Borgia did not care for such ideals, using the Order as a platform to gain power and influence. By the 17th century, the Templars began adjusting their philosophy. Instead of making personal bids for powers, the Templars sought to influence rather than control the leaders and intellectuals of the new age."
and? it doesnt change the fact that the conflicts of the stories of AC II and ACB were incredibly over-simplified and cartoonish.

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 05:41 AM
and? it doesnt change the fact that the conflicts of the stories of AC II and ACB were incredibly over-simplified and cartoonish.

It's kind of the point. The Borgia were mad and Ezio cared more about revenge than anything else.

It's fine for you to hate it but it's supposed to be that way.

Out of every story in AC is a showing of the progress and failures of each order, the Ezio saga shows their failures. We can't all be heroes.

It also makes sense for Connor to be a naive moron, I hate it but it's supposed to be that way cause of his upbringing. Wouldn't make much sense for him to be any other way.

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 06:05 AM
Best of

AC1 : Pretty much everything, when it came out as unpolished as it was it was all we had and it was good enough, the ideas were fresh and cool and the combat was a good balance of difficulty.

AC2 : The game that addressed every single problem in AC1 and then some, it's obvious why people think this is the best game, it's the one that blew away our expectations and hype and was everything it said it would be and more.

ACB : Wasn't too bad, Rome was pretty cool and they fixed the minor issues present in AC2 like terrible LoD textures, it was a fun if familiar ride.

ACR : While not like 2 it was still a good refinement on previous systems, the combat wasn't totally easy as at least spearmen required you to break their defense, Constantinople was a bit similar in some areas but still nice and had excellent texture quality. Bombs were cool too and I found them useful.

AC3 : Uh... The Homestead missions were amazing and had massive emotional impact, the Templar dialogue was the absolute best yet and tree climbing was cool

AC4 : It was cool to jump from your ship and swim in the ocean to an island, the exploration was nice if limited and the sea was beautiful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst of

AC1 : An ultimately unsatisfying experience that left the player wanting more out of it, it was cool but not cool enough, it was fun but not fun enough.

AC2 : It got a bit repetitive by Sequence 11 but that's it, the rest of the game is stellar and this is so minor SOOO minor when it's just one sequence among 13 other awesome sequences.

ACB : Repetitive, combat was way too easy, didn't really have a focus on assassinations anymore, felt pretty similar although still fun

ACR : The gold filter in Constantinople got old fast, Den Defense is irritating as is the notoriety glitches that remain in the game TO THIS DAY. Quite frankly it's inexcusable

AC3 : Over simplified combat, carelessly shoving all the parkour and running options into one button, over simplification of climbing making it duller than ever before and completely mindless, butchered stealth, terrible mission design and optional objectives, lousy texture work in some areas, worthless side activities.

AC4 : Glitchy combat, choppy combat animations, low variety of weapons and thus dull combat because of it, all islands were basically hallways with trees blocking your way making it seem un-organic and scripted, too much sailing, too little assassinating, too little islands with anything substantial to do on them
.

Oh come off it, AC4 had plenty of assassinations and they were all pretty much open-ended. It had way more assassinating than ACB and ACR and it was way better in the stealth department.

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 06:06 AM
It's kind of the point. The Borgia were mad and Ezio cared more about revenge than anything else.

It's fine for you to hate it but it's supposed to be that way.

Out of every story in AC is a showing of the progress and failures of each order, the Ezio saga shows their failures. We can't all be heroes.

It also makes sense for Connor to be a naive moron, I hate it but it's supposed to be that way cause of his upbringing. Wouldn't make much sense for him to be any other way.
The point was for the conflict of the story to be over-simplified and cartoonish?

What you're saying is that we should just suck it up when a story is tailored for 5 year olds just because it's the point...a story can perfectly show the corruption or whatever of anyone without necessarily being as bad as AC II and ACB...like the corruption of the Assassins by Al-mualim and Abbas...these 2 stories, while shorter, were heaps better than AC II's and ACB's supposed "corruption" stories.

The story of a man who was of both Templars and Assassins, betrayed his comrades to keep a tool of illusion but that's expanded upon...he wanted to end all conflict, unite people and bring peace...sure, he wanted to be in the middle of it...rule it all but at least he wasn't "MEEE MEEEE, POWER POWER FOR ME" like Rodrigo. Rodrigo had absolutely NO redeeming qualities. Abbas was a man consumed by hate and driven mad by what he perceived as lies...He was extremely loyal to the Assassins but years of hatred and wanting a chance at revenge drove him insane and made him seek revenge by any means necessary...he felt powerless his entire life...he had no choice in being an Assassin, his father was taken from so he sought power by whatever means and that's what led to the corruption. Rodrigo has NO story...no redeeming value...the corruption of the Templars made NO sense because it had no backstory...no introduction...it was abrupt, forced and non-sensical.

Shoving Connor into this would only serve to derail the topic, it'll be your fault if this becomes a Connor argument yet again...

roostersrule2
06-28-2014, 06:10 AM
M's hard on for hating AC2 is quite hilarious.

Best:

AC1: I loved the Atmosphere of this game, truly captured the darkness of the Crusades. Altair was a good lead and I loved the intrigue surrounding the modern day. Templars were great.
AC2: AC2's story was so compelling and it's cities were extremely captivating. The music and characters were superb and Ezio is my favourite AC protagonist yet. Things such as tombs, economy and additions to the core pillars of AC, improved AC tenfold.
ACB: A very refined version of AC2, has the best side missions and MP in the series. Combat, while incredibly easy was good because you weren't bogged down for 10 minutes fighting foe after foe. Modern day was the best in the series.
ACR: The best ending in AC by far, and the most emotional story. The prettiest game and the most cinematic game too. The city is the best in the series and Ezio was at his best in this game. Beautiful soundtrack and the tombs in this game were amazing, very Tomb Raider/Uncharted like.
AC3: The most complex story in AC, improved the pillars of AC. Animations are superb and the addition of weather was welcome. The best combat in the series and Naval was a great addition. The homestead was decent and the Templars were great. Haytham.
AC4: Great gameplay, good characters, massive world, crafting and hunting were made enjoyable and Naval was improved tenfold. Good MD story.

Worst:

AC1: Repetitive and very little side missions, the game had no replay value.
AC2: Lack of mission replay-ability and evil Templars.
ACB: Almost a copy and paste of AC2, the story was way too simple and the Templars were awful.
ACR: Den defence, from my experience it had more bugs then any other AC game and the trailer for an opening wasn't the best of ideas. Desmond's missions were ***.
AC3: Boring, bad mission design, terrible side-missions, broken story, terrible pacing, two prologues, no immersion, boring cities, too many things cut from the game and most of all a boring protagonist. Modern day was terrible, ending was worse.
AC4: Story was the worst in AC and the combat was also the worst in AC. Too many tailing missions, collectibles and the soundtrack wasn't bad but not on the levels of the previous games.

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 06:12 AM
M's hard on for hating AC2 is quite hilarious.Best:AC1: I loved the Atmosphere of this game, truly captured the darkness of the Crusades. Altair was a good lead and I loved the intrigue surrounding the modern day. Templars were great.AC2: AC2's story was so compelling and it's cities were extremely captivating. The music and characters were superb and Ezio is my favourite AC protagonist yet. Things such as tombs, economy and additions to the core pillars of AC, improved AC tenfold.ACB: A very refined version of AC2, has the best side missions and MP in the series. Combat, while incredibly easy was good because you weren't bogged down for 10 minutes fighting foe after foe. Modern day was the best in the series.ACR: The best ending in AC by far, and the most emotional story. The prettiest game and the most cinematic game too. The city is the best in the series and Ezio was at his best in this game. Beautiful soundtrack and the tombs in this game were amazing, very Tomb Raider/Uncharted like.AC3: The most complex story in AC, improved the pillars of AC. Animations are superb and the addition of weather was welcome. The best combat in the series and Naval was a great addition. The homestead was decent and the Templars were great. Haytham.AC4: Great gameplay, good characters, massive world, crafting and hunting were made enjoyable and Naval was improved tenfold. Good MD story.Worst:AC1: Repetitive and very little side missions, the game had no replay value.AC2: Lack of mission replay-ability and evil Templars. ACB: Almost a copy and paste of AC2, the story was way too simple and the Templars were awful.ACR: Den defence, from my experience it had more bugs then any other AC game and the trailer for an opening wasn't the best of ideas. Desmond's missions were ***., AC3: Boring, bad mission design, terrible side-missions, broken story, terrible pacing, two prologues, no immersion, boring cities, too many things cut from the game and most of all a boring protagonist. Modern day was terrible, ending was worse.AC4: Story was the worst in AC and the combat was also the worst in AC. Too many tailing missions, collectibles and the soundtrack wasn't bad but not on the levels of the previous games.
Your hard on for trying to balance my hate for AC II by hating on AC III is NOT hilarious but rather entertaining..."most of all a boring protagonist"

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 06:15 AM
Haha rooster you've said before you actually love Connor but now conveniently he's super boring... :rolleyes:

Farlander1991
06-28-2014, 06:19 AM
They're supposed to be insane ****** bags.

Every order becomes corrupted at some point, the Assassins during Al Mualim and Abbas, the Templars during the Borgia reign.

The problem is, that's not what the game depicted.

I mean, yes, you CAN say that the Order was corrupted, just like ACR retroactively did it (which is where the part you're quoting is coming from), but the game itself depicted the Order not as corrupt or changed from what it was, but as what it's supposed to be.

roostersrule2
06-28-2014, 06:51 AM
Your hard on for trying to balance my hate for AC II by hating on AC III is NOT hilarious but rather entertaining..."most of all a boring protagonist"No I stated what I didn't like about AC3, as you did with AC2. Difference was I actually said what I liked about AC3 as well. It's also because you highlighted things in AC2 that you didn't like but when other games had them, you didn't seem to care.

Such as AC2's pacing, sure in a couple of sequences the pacing was off but it was off for the whole of AC3 and the start of AC4 too, yet no mention. Or that buying weapons with increased stats didn't actually increase anything, yet this is in every game, even in AC1. Also armor increased your health, so it actually did progress you. You also talk about inconsistent AI in AC2 yet AC3's AI is the most inconsistent I've ever seen in a game and freedom of approach wasn't removed in AC2, there are still quite a few open missions in AC2, less then AC1 and AC4 but definitely more then the rest of the series. I could go on, but I couldn't be bothered.


Haha rooster you've said before you actually love Connor but now conveniently he's super boring... :rolleyes:I've said I like Connor, and I do. Though I still find him rather boring, and I still think he's the worst protagonist in the series.

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 07:25 AM
No I stated what I didn't like about AC3, as you did with AC2. Difference was I actually said what I liked about AC3 as well. It's also because you highlighted things in AC2 that you didn't like but when other games had them, you didn't seem to care.
I did say what I liked about AC II lol...

See, the thing is...the problems of AC II that i don't mention are either exclusive to AC II or BEGAN with AC II, so it's AC II's problem and hey, I don't see that applied to AC II either...like you say AC III had terrible side missions and terrible modern day....the same can be said for AC II but for some reason AC II gets a free pass.


Such as AC2's pacing, sure in a couple of sequences the pacing was off but it was off for the whole of AC3
see, here's where I don't agree...I don't agree with the fact that having 2 prologues is bad pacing...I didn't mind it, I didn't think it was necessarily a bad thing because i knew where it was coming from and why it was done. The 2 prologues worked well to establish back stories and characters, which like I said, did not necessarily break the game for me.


and the start of AC4 too, yet no mention.
because I don't think AC IV had bad pacing either.


Or that buying weapons with increased stats didn't actually increase anything, yet this is in every game, even in AC1.
No, actually AC I's weapons stats made a difference...speed and how many hits it takes to trigger a combo kill actually make a difference.


Also armor increased your health, so it actually did progress you.
It's an illusion, mate...try falling from a rooftop without armor and you'll be decreased to almost desynced, do the same from the same rooftop but with armor and it'll be the same result...it's an illusion of progression but it's made into a proportion...everything has a set amount of health squares being lost so it applies to the armor too...if you lose 2 squares with 4 squares of health, you'll lose 4 with 8 squares of health.


You also talk about inconsistent AI in AC2 yet AC3's AI is the most inconsistent I've ever seen in a game
Not to me it wasn't...it was psychic, yes but not inconsistent...I posted a video sometime ago arguing against the severity of the guard detection in AC III's rooftops, the results would surprise you.


and freedom of approach wasn't removed in AC2, there are still quite a few open missions in AC2, less then AC1
Less = removed...a philosophy abandoned in favor of another but do tell me, though...which missions were open in AC II.


but definitely more then the rest of the series. I could go on, but I couldn't be bothered.
I did mention the terrible mission design and cinematic direction of AC III...

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 07:28 AM
Oh come off it, AC4 had plenty of assassinations and they were all pretty much open-ended. It had way more assassinating than ACB and ACR and it was way better in the stealth department.

Better in stealth than 3 maybe, that's about it. I don't care if it had more than ACB and ACR, it has less than AC2 which has about 25 btw with all DLC on consoles and standard on the PC version.


The point was for the conflict of the story to be over-simplified and cartoonish?

What you're saying is that we should just suck it up when a story is tailored for 5 year olds just because it's the point...a story can perfectly show the corruption or whatever of anyone without necessarily being as bad as AC II and ACB...like the corruption of the Assassins by Al-mualim and Abbas...these 2 stories, while shorter, were heaps better than AC II's and ACB's supposed "corruption" stories.

The story of a man who was of both Templars and Assassins, betrayed his comrades to keep a tool of illusion but that's expanded upon...he wanted to end all conflict, unite people and bring peace...sure, he wanted to be in the middle of it...rule it all but at least he wasn't "MEEE MEEEE, POWER POWER FOR ME" like Rodrigo. Rodrigo had absolutely NO redeeming qualities. Abbas was a man consumed by hate and driven mad by what he perceived as lies...He was extremely loyal to the Assassins but years of hatred and wanting a chance at revenge drove him insane and made him seek revenge by any means necessary...he felt powerless his entire life...he had no choice in being an Assassin, his father was taken from so he sought power by whatever means and that's what led to the corruption. Rodrigo has NO story...no redeeming value...the corruption of the Templars made NO sense because it had no backstory...no introduction...it was abrupt, forced and non-sensical.

Shoving Connor into this would only serve to derail the topic, it'll be your fault if this becomes a Connor argument yet again...

I couldn't care less about opinion here, it makes sense based on the facts.

1 -> AC bases characters more on rumors and conspiracy theories rather than their historical counterparts

2 -> He was rumored to have done vile things to meet his goals

Btw you're comparing people from 1191 who were either extremely philosophical or extremely religious to the people of the Renaissance who by then had begun to take themselves into materialism, of COURSE their motivations are going to be less deep, most of them had no world view larger than their pockets or power.

It'd be like comparing a Colonial American to an American today, it can't be done, they had very different beliefs and life styles.

As for the Connor argument if someone has to jump to defend Connor at every turn that's their problem and their fault not mine.


The problem is, that's not what the game depicted.

I mean, yes, you CAN say that the Order was corrupted, just like ACR retroactively did it (which is where the part you're quoting is coming from), but the game itself depicted the Order not as corrupt or changed from what it was, but as what it's supposed to be.

Not if you view it in the context of the series which you should have done. The first game shows what the orders are supposed to be, the second game shows how they could be corrupted and AC3 is a return to upstanding Assassins and Templars.

LoyalACFan
06-28-2014, 07:32 AM
By the way, about the Ezio saga Templars... I'm just gonna leave this here.

"Templars looked at the Renaissance as a dark time for the Order: while other men progressed humanity's knowledge, the 15th century Templars led by the debauched Borgia did not care for such ideals, using the Order as a platform to gain power and influence. By the 17th century, the Templars began adjusting their philosophy. Instead of making personal bids for powers, the Templars sought to influence rather than control the leaders and intellectuals of the new age."

They're supposed to be insane ****** bags.

Every order becomes corrupted at some point, the Assassins during Al Mualim and Abbas, the Templars during the Borgia reign.

Agreed, AC2 villains were forgettable but I think we needed a game that showed what happens when Templar philosophy goes awry. Though one game was enough; Brotherhood took the cheesiness and ramped it up a notch with Cesare. I'm still waiting for the game that really shows what happens when Assassin ideology goes wrong as well (I guess you can make a case for Al Mualim or Abbas, but Al Mualim's corruption was never fully explored and Abbas didn't really corrupt the philosophy, he just disregarded it altogether). AC4 kind of touched on it with Edward's libertine interpretation of "everything is permitted" but since he wasn't an Assassin at that point it was just a concept that never really got off the ground. He was already plundering and looting at will, the Creed didn't stop him or justify him, it was just a random musing he had about it.

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 07:33 AM
@sesh

AC4 had 30 assassination contract missions alone. :rolleyes:

Add that with about 10 in the main campaign and the Templar hunts we're at 45. Tons of assassinating, and yes better stealth than AC1 and the Ezio trilogy. Plus, AC4 had the most open-ended assassinations in the series. You either failed to acknowledge that or are deluding yourself. The Assassin gameplay is strongest in AC4.

It had the most stealth missions, and the most freedom of choice.

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 07:37 AM
I couldn't care less about opinion here, it makes sense based on the facts.

1 -> AC bases characters more on rumors and conspiracy theories rather than their historical counterparts

2 -> He was rumored to have done vile things to meet his goals
I'm not against vile acts here, the Templars are antagonists and they have to be portrayed as such, every Templar did vile acts in every game but the conflict had a redeeming plot point to it...Templars being genuinely honorable, the Assassins being no better..etc..the series established a plot point in the conflict...that it is grey, grey conflicts are more interesting, they have a lot more layers than a B&W conflict, that's a fact..there's simply no reason or excuse why the Templars in AC II and ACB are mustache twirlingly, cartoonishly evil, rumors or not

Cesare Borgia was a brilliant military tactician admired by a lot of people...he was also a vile bastard, a war-mongering maniac and power hungry tyrant....Ubisoft took the entirety of the latter and left the entirety of the earlier...how is this, in any sense of the word, sensical? or makes sense based on facts? you want facts? here are facts..


Btw you're comparing people from 1191 who were either extremely philosophical or extremely religious to the people of the Renaissance who by then had begun to take themselves into materialism, of COURSE their motivations are going to be less deep, most of them had no world view larger than their pockets or power.
Well, if that's the case then as we moved forward and forward, the Templars would keep getting worse and worse but....that didn't happen AND the Templars have ALWAYS been materialistic..they were ALL Atheists...their order was religious from outside because it gave them access and money, nothing more


As for the Connor argument if someone has to jump to defend Connor at every turn that's their problem and their fault not mine.
Better to avoid the flame, mate than to throw more wood and say "hey, not my fault...naughty flame keeps growing and eats the wood"

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 07:40 AM
@sesh

AC4 had 30 assassination contract missions alone. :rolleyes:

Add that with about 10 in the main campaign and the Templar hunts we're at 45. Tons of assassinating, and yes better stealth than AC1 and the Ezio trilogy. Plus, AC4 had the most open-ended assassinations in the series. You either failed to acknowledge that or are deluding yourself. The Assassin gameplay is strongest in AC4.

It had the most stealth missions, and the most freedom of choice.
Agreed, the sentiment that AC II will always be the best is strong with this one..

roostersrule2
06-28-2014, 07:49 AM
I did say what I liked about AC II lol...Hardly, surely you also liked the Tombs, the variation of missions (even if you didn't like the mission structure), the customization, database entries etc.?


See, the thing is...the problems of AC II that i don't mention are either exclusive to AC II or BEGAN with AC II, so it's AC II's problem and hey, I don't see that applied to AC II either...like you say AC III had terrible side missions and terrible modern day....the same can be said for AC II but for some reason AC II gets a free pass.I wouldn't call AC2's modern day terrible, it was short, longer then AC1's though. However it gave an insight to what the Assassins were doing around the world, also gave you some fight scenes and gave the characters well, more character.


see, here's where I don't agree...I don't agree with the fact that having 2 prologues is bad pacing...I didn't mind it, I didn't think it was necessarily a bad thing because i knew where it was coming from and why it was done. The 2 prologues worked well to establish back stories and characters, which like I said, did not necessarily break the game for me.I never said the two prologues affected the pacing, I just thought it was bad in general.


No, actually AC I's weapons stats made a difference...speed and how many hits it takes to trigger a combo kill actually make a difference.Hardly, after you get the counter kill in AC1, combat stays the same. Which isn't a bad thing really, but if there is a difference it's minute at best.



It's an illusion, mate...try falling from a rooftop without armor and you'll be decreased to almost desynced, do the same from the same rooftop but with armor and it'll be the same result...it's an illusion of progression but it's made into a proportion...everything has a set amount of health squares being lost so it applies to the armor too...if you lose 2 squares with 4 squares of health, you'll lose 4 with 8 squares of health.I've never noticed this. If it is in the game it's daft as **** but as aforementioned I've never noticed it.



Not to me it wasn't...it was psychic, yes but not inconsistent...I posted a video sometime ago arguing against the severity of the guard detection in AC III's rooftops, the results would surprise you.I found the guards to be psychic and incredibly stupid. Some guards could see through walls to find you while other you could be standing 5m away and wouldn't notice you.



Less = removed...a philosophy abandoned in favor of another but do tell me, though...which missions were open in AC II.Less doesn't equal removed.

If you play AC2 enough (which you have haha), you'll notice different routes to take. Perhaps open was the wrong word, but there is often more then one way to do things. Just off the top of my head is the Uberto Alberti assassination. You can sneak along the rooftops or go through the crowd with the courtesans, I haven't played AC2 in a while so my memory is a little faded but there's more.

Jexx21
06-28-2014, 07:51 AM
this is pointless as we all have different opinions we think are the truth

the fact of the matter is, it's just a game and it doesn't matter if people like or dislike whatever because it's all subjective because games are art

my **** (was referring to the rooster) likes to eat corn

Farlander1991
06-28-2014, 07:53 AM
Not if you view it in the context of the series which you should have done. The first game shows what the orders are supposed to be, the second game shows how they could be corrupted and AC3 is a return to upstanding Assassins and Templars.

We're discussing the qualities of each game on its own, though. In the context of the series,thanks to ACR and AC4 Desmond has got a rich back story, went through a whole arc of accepting his destiny as an Assassin, and his last days were filled with doubts, thoughts about what he was doing, etc, but it doesn't mean that AC1, AC2, ACB and AC3 haven't handled his character and character development poorly.

And just because in the context of the series, ACR decided to throw in an explanation of why the Templars were what they were in AC2 also doesn't mean that AC2 hasn't handled the matter of a corrupted/changed Order poorly.

And if a person is introduced to the series via AC2, that person 100% won't get that the Order is not what it was or supposed to be via AC2 alone, even though it's AC2's job to convey that information as well.

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 08:09 AM
@sesh

AC4 had 30 assassination contract missions alone. :rolleyes:

Add that with about 10 in the main campaign and the Templar hunts we're at 45. Tons of assassinating, and yes better stealth than AC1 and the Ezio trilogy. Plus, AC4 had the most open-ended assassinations in the series. You either failed to acknowledge that or are deluding yourself. The Assassin gameplay is strongest in AC4.

It had the most stealth missions, and the most freedom of choice.

... AC2 had 25 STORY MISSIONS. Story mission>Assassin contracts. Better stealth? Please, it's just crossing through bushes, it's no better than wading through crowds, in fact it's lamer as the crowd stealth was more unique.

So I'm failed because your opinion conflicts mine? Get the **** out of here with that. I don't care what you THINK about AC4 I have my own thoughts and I'm not going to listen to anyone who disregards my thoughts and tries to force theirs upon me. Don't be ridiculous and AC1 has the most open ended assassinations PERIOD.

Don't bother responding to me again until you put yourself back in line, I don't wanna read **** like "nope AC4 is best lel" tell my why it's best, debate your point don't assert it, that doesn't work with me, prove it or stfu.


I'm not against vile acts here, the Templars are antagonists and they have to be portrayed as such, every Templar did vile acts in every game but the conflict had a redeeming plot point to it...Templars being genuinely honorable, the Assassins being no better..etc..the series established a plot point in the conflict...that it is grey, grey conflicts are more interesting, they have a lot more layers than a B&W conflict, that's a fact..there's simply no reason or excuse why the Templars in AC II and ACB are mustache twirlingly, cartoonishly evil, rumors or not

I agree about grey being more interesting but their motivations were just simplistic, not every game is going to be deep and philosophical, I missed that but hey it's not like it continued at least, they had their dark age. Maybe they could have included the fact that Spanish people were looked down upon in Italy, perhaps with a little of that it could have given it more depth but it really didn't bug me that much, I missed the philosophical stuff but I understood why they did it that way, we can debate all day whether or not their reasons for doing so are credible.



Cesare Borgia was a brilliant military tactician admired by a lot of people...he was also a vile bastard, a war-mongering maniac and power hungry tyrant....Ubisoft took the entirety of the latter and left the entirety of the earlier...how is this, in any sense of the word, sensical? or makes sense based on facts? you want facts? here are facts..

I know the facts, I said they based characters more on conspiracies and rumors.




Well, if that's the case then as we moved forward and forward, the Templars would keep getting worse and worse but....that didn't happen AND the Templars have ALWAYS been materialistic..they were ALL Atheists...their order was religious from outside because it gave them access and money, nothing more.

Not necessarily, the Templars became philosophical in AC3 again because they learned from their mistakes, the Assassins and Templars stand for the people separate from the masses, those that like in reality value more than just money and possessions. The Templars don't want possessions, they want influence in order to control. That requires power and that requires positions in the church and government.




Better to avoid the flame, mate than to throw more wood and say "hey, not my fault...naughty flame keeps growing and eats the wood"

It's a pixel character, I'm free to call him anything as he has no feelings, over zealous fans should keep to themselves instead of attempting to forcefully change opinions which are meaningless in the end.


We're discussing the qualities of each game on its own, though. In the context of the series,thanks to ACR and AC4 Desmond has got a rich back story, went through a whole arc of accepting his destiny as an Assassin, and his last days were filled with doubts, thoughts about what he was doing, etc, but it doesn't mean that AC1, AC2, ACB and AC3 haven't handled his character and character development poorly.

And just because in the context of the series, ACR decided to throw in an explanation of why the Templars were what they were in AC2 also doesn't mean that AC2 hasn't handled the matter of a corrupted/changed Order poorly.

And if a person is introduced to the series via AC2, that person 100% won't get that the Order is not what it was or supposed to be via AC2 alone, even though it's AC2's job to convey that information as well.

The explanation is in AC1, it's there for those who have eyes to see and brains to think.

If someone starts a series on game 2 and then complains that's entirely their problem, start from the first game to gain context and understanding or keep your opinions to yourself as you are not yet ready to unveil them as they are uninformed.

That would be like someone playing KH2 and then coming to complain about hard it is to follow. Shut up and play the first game to gain context instead of complaining about issues that could have been solved if you had just played the first game in the series first.

It's the same as taking a partial course on economy and then attempting to discuss the nuances of it as if you're an expert when you know damn well you're missing a crucial part of your knowledge.

LoyalACFan
06-28-2014, 08:19 AM
We're discussing the qualities of each game on its own, though. In the context of the series,thanks to ACR and AC4 Desmond has got a rich back story, went through a whole arc of accepting his destiny as an Assassin, and his last days were filled with doubts, thoughts about what he was doing, etc, but it doesn't mean that AC1, AC2, ACB and AC3 haven't handled his character and character development poorly.

And just because in the context of the series, ACR decided to throw in an explanation of why the Templars were what they were in AC2 also doesn't mean that AC2 hasn't handled the matter of a corrupted/changed Order poorly.

And if a person is introduced to the series via AC2, that person 100% won't get that the Order is not what it was or supposed to be via AC2 alone, even though it's AC2's job to convey that information as well.

Going to have to disagree with you here Farlander (which is a rare occurrence, let me assure you ;)). I'm not going to stick up for the Templars in AC2, because, as we've basically all agreed, they were paper-thin caricatures of the AC1 Templars, barring Rodrigo who I thought was fairly decent. AC2 did a poor job explaining what the Templar Order was about, but it was a sequel. I played AC1 before I played AC2, so I got enough of an idea that the AC2 Templar Order had been corrupted from its original form in the Borgia era. The game didn't need to go out of its way to explain that to me, nor do I think it should be obligated to do a recap of the history of both orders. As you say, we're debating the merits of each game individually without considering their place in the larger continuity; AC2 handled Templars poorly, but I don't think it should be held accountable for not explaining what a Templar is SUPPOSED to be to a new fan.

In the same way that I don't want each game to go on at length about how the protagonist is inducted into the Brotherhood, so too do I not want to see the ideal specifics of both orders rehashed in each game. It's old material, and TBH it's like playing the same tutorial over and over; if we aren't going to get past explaining the basic conflict between the two in every game, we're never going to be able to break new ground and see different perspectives. Each game can portray the Assassins and Templars in different ways, and TBH I think that'll be necessary to keep things fresh. We don't have to stick with the ideal Assassin and Templar archetypes in every game just for the sake of those who don't know what each group is supposed to be. Templars are allowed to be the outright bad guys (though hopefully handled much better than the cheesy AC2/B ones) as are Assassins.

I don't want to sound like some hipster elitist here, but come on, we're seven games into the series now. New players are always welcome to the fanbase of course, but at this point I think it should be obvious to anyone wanting to start getting into AC that they should play the old games first or do a little research about the continuity.

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 08:21 AM
Hardly, surely you also liked the Tombs, the variation of missions (even if you didn't like the mission structure), the customization, database entries etc.?
Oh wow, i actually intended to write about the Tombs and Glyphs but i somehow forgot..my bad.
Variation of missions...ehhhhh, variation how?
I talked about the customization
Really? database entries?


I wouldn't call AC2's modern day terrible, it was short, longer then AC1's though. However it gave an insight to what the Assassins were doing around the world, also gave you some fight scenes and gave the characters well, more character.
Actually, AC I's was longer...triggering all the conversations and reading all the emails accumulates to longer time...what an insight? it only said that the assassins are doing crap...we already knew that. Fight scenes that were clunky and hilariously weird lol sticks? Desmond had character in AC II?? the only modern character from AC II who had character was Shaun.


I never said the two prologues affected the pacing, I just thought it was bad in general.
well, then i disagree


Hardly, after you get the counter kill in AC1, combat stays the same. Which isn't a bad thing really, but if there is a difference it's minute at best.
It's still a difference.



I've never noticed this. If it is in the game it's daft as **** but as aforementioned I've never noticed it.
I never noticed it at first either but yes, it was daft



I found the guards to be psychic and incredibly stupid. Some guards could see through walls to find you while other you could be standing 5m away and wouldn't notice you.
Yeah, that's how the guards consistent...consistently psychic and over-detective.



Less doesn't equal removed.
kind of does when it's in less than half the missions.


If you play AC2 enough (which you have haha), you'll notice different routes to take. Perhaps open was the wrong word, but there is often more then one way to do things. Just off the top of my head is the Uberto Alberti assassination. You can sneak along the rooftops or go through the crowd with the courtesans, I haven't played AC2 in a while so my memory is a little faded but there's more.
ohohohoh I have...this is going to be my legacy...the dude who completed AC II hundreds of times but anyways..

I'll give the Alberti assassination that it had 2 ways of approach so lets analyze the rest..

Vieri: the approach is more or less the same, unless you count approaching from behind instead an alternative path but that's pretty much it...you're always forced into combat with him...but you can also throw a knife at him from far away.

Francesco Pazzi: Chase kill, just that

Salviatti: entrance to compound is only through the rooftops of the buildings to the west of it, combat or air assassination.

Maffei: small area of assassination so not much room for alternative paths and combat or silent assassination.

Baroncelli: Open market, no infiltration...route makes no use of the hiding posts around..fairly linear on kill too, combat or silent.

Stefano: Large area of infiltration but the presence of guards makes only one area accessible which is the rooftop, Stefano's route does not allow for air assassination so either assassination from bench or running up to him from haystack

Jacopo: press X to kill

Emilio: Combat or stealth by air assassination with only one VERY obvious path to infiltrate.

Carlo Grimaldi: Linear infiltration, linear approach and no route for target, forced combat and target stays in place...delayed press x to kill

Marco: Shoot or sneak behind ship and assassinate which is inconvenient not to mention the fact that the game explicitly tells you what to do, how to do it and when to do it...AKA pseudo optional objective.

Silvio and Dante: Chase and kill with a linear route

Ludivico Orsi: climb tower, kill...linear path up tower, no infiltration and one set target reaction.

Checco Orsi: chase and kill

Savonarola: Cinematic

Rodrigo: Linear infiltration, linear approach, forced combat and cinematic

Farlander1991
06-28-2014, 08:23 AM
The explanation is in AC1, it's there for those who have eyes to see and brains to think.

An if the player starts with AC1, then it's a 'WTF?!' moment when he gets to AC2.

Let's say we have a character. In Part 1 he has a higher goal even if his methods are questionable, an then in Part 2 he's suddenly a power-hungry maniac, without any even subtle indication why, that's just the way it is now. That's ********, not good storytelling. And just because in an add-on to Part 2 that wasn't supposed to exist in the first place until the very last minute there's a throwaway e-mail that says, 'oh yeah, this happened between Part 1 and 2, doesn't make it any better storytelling.

This is essentially what happened to the Templar Order in the AC series.


-----

@Loyal


The game didn't need to go out of its way to explain that to me, nor do I think it should be obligated to do a recap of the history of both orders. As you say, we're debating the merits of each game individually without considering their place in the larger continuity; AC2 handled Templars poorly, but I don't think it should be held accountable for not explaining what a Templar is SUPPOSED to be to a new fan.

I'm not saying it should start saying the whole history or anything. Just if there had been at least one reference to the AC1 Order or its goals, or at least one line of Templars arguing about what they're doing, or anything, that would be enough. Because this means that it's a planned thing rather than a detached decharacterized writing (like, if we've got, on another hero example, a mega powerful dude in one game who's SUDDENLY a meek cowardly fellow in another, that doesn't seem right, it feels like the writers just ****ed up), and everything makes sense. Because even if this was the writers' intention in AC2, it doesn't get through, AC2 paints the Templars as the very same Order we've battled with in AC1.

But as it is now, this kind of thing happened retroactively, which is all well and good (AC quite often retroactively fixes some of its ****ups in storytelling department), but it doesn't mean that what is fixed retroactively didn't mess it up in the first place.

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 08:26 AM
ohohohoh I have...this is going to be my legacy...the dude who completed AC II hundreds of times but anyways..

I'll give the Alberti assassination that it had 2 ways of approach so lets analyze the rest..

Vieri: the approach is more or less the same, unless you count approaching from behind instead an alternative path but that's pretty much it...you're always forced into combat with him...but you can also throw a knife at him from far away.

Francesco Pazzi: Chase kill, just that

Salviatti: entrance to compound is only through the rooftops of the buildings to the west of it, combat or air assassination.

Maffei: small area of assassination so not much room for alternative paths and combat or silent assassination.

Baroncelli: Open market, no infiltration...route makes no use of the hiding posts around..fairly linear on kill too, combat or silent.

Stefano: Large area of infiltration but the presence of guards makes only one area accessible which is the rooftop, Stefano's route does not allow for air assassination so either assassination from bench or running up to him from haystack

Jacopo: press X to kill

Emilio: Combat or stealth by air assassination with only one VERY obvious path to infiltrate.

Carlo Grimaldi: Linear infiltration, linear approach and no route for target, forced combat and target stays in place...delayed press x to kill

Marco: Shoot or sneak behind ship and assassinate which is inconvenient not to mention the fact that the game explicitly tells you what to do, how to do it and when to do it...AKA pseudo optional objective.

Silvio and Dante: Chase and kill with a linear route

Ludivico Orsi: climb tower, kill...linear path up tower, no infiltration and one set target reaction.

Checco Orsi: chase and kill

Savonarola: Cinematic

Rodrigo: Linear infiltration, linear approach, forced combat and cinematic

I only have a single point to make.

All the final assassinations are linear, Robert, Rodrigo, Cesare, Ahmet, Charles, and The Sage.

Not that I wouldn't like an open final assassination, only that they've all been like that so it shouldn't be used as a point against AC2.


An if the player starts with AC1, then it's a 'WTF?!' moment when he gets to AC2.

Let's say we have a character. In Part 1 he has a higher goal even if his methods are questionable, an then in Part 2 he's suddenly a power-hungry maniac, without any even subtle indication why, that's just the way it is now. That's ********, not good storytelling. And just because in an add-on to Part 2 that wasn't supposed to exist in the first place until the very last minute there's a throwaway e-mail that says, 'oh yeah, this happened between Part 1 and 2, doesn't make it any better storytelling.

This is essentially what happened to the Templar Order in the AC series.

Gamers can be an amusing bunch, we complain about hand holding and in obvious stuff that doesn't allow us to think or leave anything to the imagination and yet we also complain when they offer something that requires you to use your brain to connect the dots.

It's obvious to anyone who put in one ounce of thought when they played AC2 what happened to the Templars in AC2 IF they played AC1. Oh and you're talking about characters that are almost 400 years apart, what's your point? My ancestor could have been a racist incestuous rich *** hole, I don't have to be the same.

That's like saying a government has continued its exact same practices and beliefs since day one, which would be lies. Different people with different beliefs and morals have taken control and their character has bled into the establishment for better or for worse.

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 08:32 AM
@sesh

You claimed that stealth was not prevalent in AC4, yet there are 45 assassination missions - whether they are in the main story or not isn't relevant as they are still part of the overall game, plus these contracts can be just as good in terms of design than main ones. AC2 might have more overall, but that does not mean AC4 had too little assassinating just because it doesn't hold up to a previous game. In every sequence the majority of the missions were stealth based, in fact apart from the naval very few missions as I recall ever forced combat. AC1 has a total of nine open-ended missions, AC4 also has the same as Torres was the only target we killed going by the script. The point that AC4 has too little assassinating makes no sense at all - that's why I made that point.

The fact there's a lot of naval doesn't negate the fact the campaign missions are majorly stealth based, that the generous amount of assassination missions are open-ended and that Edward by all means behaves like an assassin during land gameplay. As for the naval, that is just a non-assassin activity that is fun and fleshed out. Every game since AC2 has had those. What does upgrading a villa and renovating Rome have to do with being an assassin? What does beating up cheating husbands and racing round the city have to do with being an assassin? What does collecting feathers for your dead brother or removing bras via QTE's have to do with being an assassin? Nothing, is the answer.

From the moment they abandoned complete assassin simulator, they adopted the fun historical sandbox. This all started with AC2. Now their goal was to choose a historical playground and to give the player fun activities to do within that time period that were relative. With AC4 they simply took an interesting time period and fleshed out a mechanic relevant to it, they made history their playground. Something they've been doing since AC2.

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 08:32 AM
I agree about grey being more interesting but their motivations were just simplistic, not every game is going to be deep and philosophical, I missed that but hey it's not like it continued at least, they had their dark age. Maybe they could have included the fact that Spanish people were looked down upon in Italy, perhaps with a little of that it could have given it more depth but it really didn't bug me that much, I missed the philosophical stuff but I understood why they did it that way, we can debate all day whether or not their reasons for doing so are credible.
And why shouldn't every game be deep and philosophical? why should I accept a less quality story just because? You want to accept it, sure fine...I wont, however, it was a step back in terms of story telling.


I know the facts, I said they based characters more on conspiracies and rumors.
Cesare being reduced to being an incompetent child has nothing to do with rumors and conspiracies, it only served to shove a historically important character like Cesare and give his qualities to the fictional protagonist Ezio.



Not necessarily, the Templars became philosophical in AC3 again because they learned from their mistakes, the Assassins and Templars stand for the people separate from the masses, those that like in reality value more than just money and possessions. The Templars don't want possessions, they want influence in order to control. That requires power and that requires positions in the church and government.
So why not say that the Templars became corrupt after the third crusade but SHOULD have learned the wrong of their ways in the Renaissance? your reasoning has a double standard...we moved closer in time and people became more materialistic, okay apply that to the rest of the series' templars and you say no...it doesn't work that way.



It's a pixel character, I'm free to call him anything as he has no feelings, over zealous fans should keep to themselves instead of attempting to forcefully change opinions which are meaningless in the end
My point stands, you know what can of worms you're opening and yet still continue to do what you're doing



If someone starts a series on game 2 and then complains that's entirely their problem, start from the first game to gain context and understanding or keep your opinions to yourself as you are not yet ready to unveil them as they are uninformed.

That would be like someone playing KH2 and then coming to complain about hard it is to follow. Shut up and play the first game to gain context instead of complaining about issues that could have been solved if you had just played the first game in the series first.

It's the same as taking a partial course on economy and then attempting to discuss the nuances of it as if you're an expert when you know damn well you're missing a crucial part of your knowledge.
I don't think you get Farlander's point. If AC II introduced a character but failed to give him any sort of progression or personality but a later game gives him that, it's still AC II's wrong...it's AC II's fault, it has nothing to do with keeping up. a game does a crappy job but the rest of the series amends that, the original sinner is still at fault for screwing it up...that's like saying "hey, I'm a thief....my kids are honorable people so i'm automatically not a thief anymore"

Jexx21
06-28-2014, 08:34 AM
if I was an assassin, but then I turned into a monkey, would the templars still want to kill me?

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 08:36 AM
All the final assassinations are linear, Robert, Rodrigo, Cesare, Ahmet, Charles, and The Sage.

Not that I wouldn't like an open final assassination, only that they've all been like that so it shouldn't be used as a point against AC2
The Sage was not linear...the ship battle alone provided a lot of ways to approach. You can swim to Roberts' ship, engage him in battle, sneak in from above, take him on in combat or kill him silently...that said, Roberts was not the final Assassination in AC IV, it was Torres and it was linear, yes...also, Al-mualim was the last Assassination not Robert and there was more than one way to kill Al-mualim...either cut the whole fight short and kill him with the hidden blade or counter and resort to using eagle vision to find him again, rinse and repeat.

So yeah, not all were entirely linear.

roostersrule2
06-28-2014, 08:40 AM
Oh wow, i actually intended to write about the Tombs and Glyphs but i somehow forgot..my bad.
Variation of missions...ehhhhh, variation how?
I talked about the customization
Really? database entries?AC2's missions were very diverse. They went from five mission types in AC1 to fifteen in AC2. You talked about how swords and armor didn't do crap, never about the dyes you could wear or the upgrading of Ezio. Database entries were a great addition to the series, anyone who denies this is a pleb.



Actually, AC I's was longer...triggering all the conversations and reading all the emails accumulates to longer time...what an insight? it only said that the assassins are doing crap...we already knew that. Fight scenes that were clunky and hilariously weird lol sticks? Desmond had character in AC II?? the only modern character from AC II who had character was Shaun.The sticks were rather dumb, but it was better then walking from the animus to your bed to "press any button to interact". It gave them all more character, except Desmond, but who cares it's Desmond, he only go character while he was in a coma and again when he was dead.


well, then i disagreeThen you smell.


Yeah, that's how the guards consistent...consistently psychic and over-detective.They were consistent at being inconsistent.


ohohohoh I have...this is going to be my legacy...the dude who completed AC II hundreds of times but anyways..

I'll give the Alberti assassination that it had 2 ways of approach so lets analyze the rest..Also when I said some of the missions were open, I never said it was exclusive to the Assassinations.

And if you hate AC2 so much why have you played it over 100 times, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Farlander1991
06-28-2014, 08:41 AM
Gamers can be an amusing bunch, we complain about hand holding and in obvious stuff that doesn't allow us to think or leave anything to the imagination and yet we also complain when they offer something that requires you to use your brain to connect the dots.

That's not the point, the point is with AC1 and AC2 there are no dots to connect. In a simple example, if a character changes between two sequences greatly that he becomes a polar opposite of himself, that's bad writing (which is what is the case with AC1 and AC2 is). But if there's like a photo of his sister with a black ribbon in the corner, then those are dots. AC2 doesn't have this kind of photo. Or anything.

If AC2 did everything right, then we can just do whatever the **** we want with each game and be like, 'yeah, use your imagination, things change', which is ******** when it comes to quality narrative. Quality narrative leaves hints and subtleties. This is what differs 'leaving things to imagination' from 'bad decharacterized writing'.

(EDIT: And I use characters a lot as an example, because Assassin and Templar Order are, essentially, closer to characters, being organizations that have survived throughout thousands of ages and all that, that outlived every social structure and will outlive many more, so you have to approach it accordingly)

Jexx21
06-28-2014, 08:42 AM
worse thing in all of Assassin's Creed was inarguably the minstrels that would run up to your dead body and sing at it after you accidentally missed the bale of hay you were trying to jump into

did that earlier today in san gimignano, right as I faceplanted on the ground 3 minstrels ran up to sing at my corpse

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 08:47 AM
AC2's missions were very diverse. They went from five mission types in AC1 to fifteen in AC2.
describe them for me..


You talked about how swords and armor didn't do crap, never about the dyes you could wear or the upgrading of Ezio.
The dyes were cosmetic and they looked ugly, Ezio never gets upgraded beyond armor and weapons, which I have stated.


Database entries were a great addition to the series, anyone who denies this is a pleb.
your face is a pleb



The sticks were rather dumb, but it was better then walking from the animus to your bed to "press any button to interact". It gave them all more character, except Desmond, but who cares it's Desmond, he only go character while he was in a coma and again when he was dead.
yeah, it was just another instance of the combat from the historical portion..nothing really innovative so really, at least I could interact with the bed...which had more character than the entire modern cast barring Shaun.


Then you smell.
of vanilla and roses


They were consistent at being inconsistent.
no, consistent at being psychic and and having a far way detection range.


Also when I said some of the missions were open, I never said it was exclusive to the Assassinations.
I was referring to Assassinations, though


And if you hate AC2 so much why have you played it over 100 times, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
because plot twist, i don't hate it haaaaaaaaa

roostersrule2
06-28-2014, 08:57 AM
describe them for me..no

Patrice said it though, and it Patrice is always right. (Except about wanting my company to give him freedom.)

BRING BACK PATRICE!!!!!!


The dyes were cosmetic and they looked ugly, Ezio never gets upgraded beyond armor and weapons, which I have stated.I know the dyes were cosmetic, some were good, some were bad. And wrong, the pouches and belts upgraded Ezio too.



your face is a plebno u


yeah, it was just another instance of the combat from the historical portion..nothing really innovative so really, at least I could interact with the bed...which had more character than the entire modern cast barring Shaun.Bed didn't even move, there was no interaction with the blanket, pillows had no character development. The bed in all it's glory, is easily the most overrated character in AC.



I was referring to Assassinations, thoughI wasn't.



because plot twist, i don't hate it haaaaaaaaaSo it's your favourite game of all time then.

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 08:58 AM
You claimed that stealth was not prevalent in AC4, yet there are 45 assassination missions - whether they are in the main story or not isn't relevant as they are still part of the overall game, plus these contracts can be just as good in terms of design than main ones. AC2 might have more overall, but that does not mean AC4 had too little assassinating just because it doesn't hold up to a previous game. In every sequence the majority of the missions were stealth based, in fact apart from the naval very few missions as I recall ever forced combat. AC1 has a total of nine open-ended missions, AC4 also has the same as Torres was the only target we killed going by the script. The point that AC4 has too little assassinating makes no sense at all - that's why I made that point.


It IS relevant whether or not they're in the main story. I'm not talking about fluff, I'm not talking about the potatoes on the side, I'm talking about the meat. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter, I won't change my mind on that particular issue.



The fact there's a lot of naval doesn't negate the fact the campaign missions are majorly stealth based, that the generous amount of assassination missions are open-ended and that Edward by all means behaves like an assassin during land gameplay. As for the naval, that is just a non-assassin activity that is fun and fleshed out. Every game since AC2 has had those. What does upgrading a villa and renovating Rome have to do with being an assassin? What does beating up cheating husbands and racing round the city have to do with being an assassin? What does collecting feathers for your dead brother or removing bras via QTE's have to do with being an assassin. Nothing, is the answer.

Oh yeah you mean like that mission where you crawl through bushes on a linear and obvious path through the Assassin based island? So fun. The navel IS NOT a side activity IT MUST be done, you have to sail everywhere and some missions requires that you participate in naval battles. So no it isn't comparable to the villa at ALL or renovating Rome, those were optional, you could ignore those 100% and beat the game no problem. So kindly get out of here with that.


From the moment they abandoned complete assassin simulator, they adopted the fun historical sandbox. This all started with AC2. Now their goal was to choose a historical playground and to give the player fun activities to do within that time period that were relative. With AC4 they simply took an interesting time period and fleshed out a mechanic relevant to it, they made history their playground. Something they've been doing since AC2.

Yes and the core game has suffered with their ridiculous feature pouring, it was all well thought out and enjoyable until ACR, then they just starting adding pointless, annoying, and un-enjoyable fluff to their games to artificially pad out their length.

Den defense in ACR

Hunting in AC3, pointless, crafting, pointless, money, pointless unless you REALLY wanna try every naval mission.

AC4 tried to rectify it at least by making money useful and thus many of their activities useful but anything that didn't involve large sums of money was just meh.




And why shouldn't every game be deep and philosophical? why should I accept a less quality story just because? You want to accept it, sure fine...I wont, however, it was a step back in terms of story telling.

Why can't they make a character that isn't philosophical or deep? Not everyone is, some men just want simple things and have simple motivations. I accept it because I also accept that the Templars don't always have to have deep motivations.



Cesare being reduced to being an incompetent child has nothing to do with rumors and conspiracies, it only served to shove a historically important character like Cesare and give his qualities to the fictional protagonist Ezio.

I disagree, one rumor for example states that he was the one to kill his brother Giovanni. He factually ordered to have Astorre drowned in the Tiber River. His own condottieri feared his cruelty.


So why not say that the Templars became corrupt after the third crusade but SHOULD have learned the wrong of their ways in the Renaissance? your reasoning has a double standard...we moved closer in time and people became more materialistic, okay apply that to the rest of the series' templars and you say no...it doesn't work that way.

You can't apply it to everyone cause every age is different, there's always some people that think differently from the norm and how they think always differs from what is common.




My point stands, you know what can of worms you're opening and yet still continue to do what you're doing

We have very different opinions on that matter, simple as that.



I don't think you get Farlander's point. If AC II introduced a character but failed to give him any sort of progression or personality but a later game gives him that, it's still AC II's wrong...it's AC II's fault, it has nothing to do with keeping up. a game does a crappy job but the rest of the series amends that, the original sinner is still at fault for screwing it up...that's like saying "hey, I'm a thief....my kids are honorable people so i'm automatically not a thief anymore"

Why must everyone progress? There's this silly idea out in the world now that everything must be complex and progress endlessly to be interesting. Some people don't learn.

Did Haytham change? No he didn't, he died with the exact same beliefs he had lived with, he doesn't have much progression either. It doesn't make him uninteresting or bad, that's just how he is, he has great conviction in his beliefs and he held fast to them even in death.

Not everyone learns and progresses, some people are stubborn, much like certain old people who refuse to give up on their hatred of gays or other races.

You don't need to feel like simplicity is automatically the entertainment for the stupid, it's not, people are diverse, some are simple, others complex, one is not inherently better than the other, both types of people have their role to play.


That's not the point, the point is with AC1 and AC2 there are no dots to connect. In a simple example, if a character changes between two sequences greatly that he becomes a polar opposite of himself, that's bad writing (which is what is the case with AC1 and AC2 is). But if there's like a photo of his sister with a black ribbon in the corner, then those are dots. AC2 doesn't have this kind of photo. Or anything.

Dot 1 -> Templars in AC1 are atheistic and this leads them to philosophical motivations

Dot 2 -> AC2 is based in the Renaissance period, people here have more wealth and live better quality lives

Dot 3 -> Templars in here seem kind of plain evil

Dot 4 -> It's likely this new society has caused their corruption, they want more wealth and more power because those people live the best lives.


If AC2 did everything right, then we can just do whatever the **** we want with each game and be like, 'yeah, use your imagination, things change', which is ******** when it comes to quality narrative. Quality narrative leaves hints and subtleties. This is what differs 'leaving things to imagination' from 'bad decharacterized writing'.

See above, you seem to be under the ridiculous impression that I'm excusing it as quality writing or something that I like when I'm merely stating that it makes sense.


(EDIT: And I use characters a lot as an example, because Assassin and Templar Order are, essentially, closer to characters, being organizations that have survived throughout thousands of ages and all that, that outlived every social structure and will outlive many more, so you have to approach it accordingly)

But you can't do that, the orders are very different beasts when centuries apart from one another, just like people who live in the same country but live in different time periods.

I as an American cannot simply be lumped together with Americans in the colonial era, we simply don't match up. Just like Templars in any given era may not match up.

Jexx21
06-28-2014, 08:59 AM
patrice can bite balls

Farlander1991
06-28-2014, 08:59 AM
Speaking of stealth in games.
I did this just for the main campaigns (and I mentioned this recently alreaddy), gonna do it for games as a whole when I have the time, but there was a thread where I've calculated how much of main campaign has stealth as a viable approach. So basically situations that allow or require stealth or where stealth might make sense (so for example, even though in a follow an ally mission you might not get into open combat scenario, but it's not exactly a place where stealth is viable either). I mean, it's just approximate and by no means perfect (especially considering that a 2-min stealth mission has the same value as an 8-min stealth mission, or smth, and a mission where it's 10 min combat and 1 min stealth still adds to stealth the same amount as a mission where there's 9 min stealth and 1 min combat), but I would say it still shows some interesting info. The results are:

The results, percentage-wise, are as follows:
AC1 - 60% (out of 61 missions)
AC2 - 44% (out of 85 missions, including Bonfire and Forli DLCs which are numbered sequences and therefore part of the main campaign)
ACB - 39% (out of 48 missions)
ACR - 40% (out of 52 missions)
AC3 - 43% (out of 44 missions)
AC4 - 56% (out of 43 missions)

And I must say, that the fact that Assassin's Creed II has got twice as many missions as AC3, but the same stealth viability percentage, does not speak in favour of ACII's main campaign when it comes to stealth :p (and without the Bonfire DLC which is almost stealth missions only, the results would've been even lower). However ACII does have 30 assassination contracts I think, and there are many more stealth possibilities than in campaign alone, so I want to try and calculate approximately viability for whole games.


Why must everyone progress?

... because the point we were making is totally that everything and everyone must progress. (Hint: it wasn't)

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 09:04 AM
no

Patrice said it though, and it Patrice is always right. (Except about wanting my company to give him freedom.)

BRING BACK PATRICE!!!!!!
Patrice is Batman


I know the dyes were cosmetic, some were good, some were bad. And wrong, the pouches and belts upgraded Ezio too.
That was in AC I too...except in AC II, you can now choose when to get them...yaaaaay



no u
there IS a u, silly


Bed didn't even move, there was no interaction with the blanket, pillows had no character development. The bed in all it's glory, is easily the most overrated character in AC.
sure, but its undeniable charm and wit at keeping Desmond on it really helped it become endearing, it's a quality that's as important, if not more important, than the development of pillows and blankets, you're biased.



I wasn't.
yeah, well no one cares about you



So it's your favourite game of all time then.
noyes

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 09:11 AM
Why can't they make a character that isn't philosophical or deep? Not everyone is, some men just want simple things and have simple motivations. I accept it because I also accept that the Templars don't always have to have deep motivations.
Because something was established, a plot point was created...the conflict is grey...the 2 sides of the conflict are not B&W, they're grey and grey. It's not about deep motivations, it's about the grey area of the conflict which is NOT about motivation, like I said numerous times..


I disagree, one rumor for example states that he was the one to kill his brother Giovanni. He factually ordered to have Astorre drowned in the Tiber River. His own condottieri feared his cruelty.
How do you disagree?? Cesare WAS an adept military general who's reduced to being nothing but a crying child while Ezio takes ALL of his accolades and characteristics...heck, even the book that Machiavelli wrote was changed to be about Ezio...MOST the Templars were cruel, that's not my problem...it's how the conflict is portrayed


You can't apply it to everyone cause every age is different, there's always some people that think differently from the norm and how they think always differs from what is common.
First you say that Assassins and Templars are above the masses, so the norms don't apply to them but now you say that norms apply and that people think differently...you're very inconsistent


We have very different opinions on that matter, simple as that.
Doesn't change that my point still stands


Why must everyone progress? There's this silly idea out in the world now that everything must be complex and progress endlessly to be interesting. Some people don't learn.

Did Haytham change? No he didn't, he died with the exact same beliefs he had lived with, he doesn't have much progression either. It doesn't make him uninteresting or bad, that's just how he is, he has great conviction in his beliefs and he held fast to them even in death.

Not everyone learns and progresses, some people are stubborn, much like certain old people who refuse to give up on their hatred of gays or other races.

You don't need to feel like simplicity is automatically the entertainment for the stupid, it's not, people are diverse, some are simple, others complex, one is not inherently better than the other, both types of people have their role to play.
Llike farlander said...it wasnt either of our point...I was giving an example.

Haytham did change, he became more impulsive and less merciful when he started killing all those people unnecessarily with Connor.

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 09:13 AM
@sesh

The meat of AC2's assassination missions were crap as they were mostly linear and smile as M has pointed out, and you pointed out one example out of all the stealth based missions - of which there are also more than in AC2. And if we're referring to the 'meat' AC4 has the second most assassination missions in the bloody campaign. It's ridiculous to claim there is too little assassinating, and side missions count to the overall game whether you think they do or not. If part of a game contains something, it is prevalent whether it's in the campaign is there or a side mission and in AC4's case just added to an already high presence of assassinating.

roostersrule2
06-28-2014, 09:14 AM
And I must say, that the fact that Assassin's Creed II has got twice as many missions as AC3, but the same stealth viability percentage, does not speak in favour of ACII's main campaign when it comes to stealth .How would this not speak in favour of AC2? The amount of missions shouldn't matter it should be about the percentage.


Patrice is BatmanNo I am.


That was in AC I too...except in AC II, you can now choose when to get them...yaaaaayWhich is exactly what customization is.


sure, but its undeniable charm and wit at keeping Desmond on it really helped it become endearing, it's a quality that's as important, if not more important, than the development of pillows and blankets, you're biased.The bed while perhaps AC's most flagship character is no more then the person who lays on it. Who has no character. Though it did explore the creed in more depth then ever.


yeah, well no one cares about youI'm telling.

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 09:14 AM
... because the point we were making is totally that everything and everyone must progress. (Hint: it wasn't)

That was directed at M's re-phrasing of your point so calm your tits.

He deems Rodrigo a screw up because of no progression, I stated that progression doesn't happen to everyone.

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 09:18 AM
The bed while perhaps AC's most flagship character is no more then the person who lays on it. Who has no character. Though it did explore the creed in more depth then ever.

Pillow is new, every sheet is knitted.

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 09:19 AM
He deems Rodrigo a screw up because of no progression, I stated that progression doesn't happen to everyone.
No I didn't lol, where did you get that from?

roostersrule2
06-28-2014, 09:22 AM
Pillow is new, every sheet is knitted.My god that's deep.

I feel like I'm swimming in the Mariana.

Farlander1991
06-28-2014, 09:37 AM
But you can't do that, the orders are very different beasts when centuries apart from one another, just like people who live in the same country but live in different time periods.

I as an American cannot simply be lumped together with Americans in the colonial era, we simply don't match up. Just like Templars in any given era may not match up.

But who says anything about lumping them up together? Heck, I don't even talk about changing the AC2 Templars. It's understandable that things get distorted and changed and sometimes corrupted over time, heck, the Assassin Order is very much not the same in the different AC games and even with the same Creed they still follow it or view differently, but there's enough things to acknowledge that. That's all I'm saying is important, really.

Because if I write an AC game where Templars are humanitarians who detest positions of power and control and help the poor, without any kind of acknowledgment, it will look (and be) bad writing. And 'use imagination' or 'connect the dots' shouldn't be an excuse. But a hint there and there, and there we go. Templars were already really rich by the time of the Third Crusades an had lots of influence and power (and gained even more after the Crusades), so losing all that power might make them more power-hungry as a whole, but it's not handled well (especially considering that almost all Templars in AC2 are already in considerable positions of power, being part of powerful families and holding powerful positions, so really they'll almost in the same state of wealth/power as the AC1 Templars were, but act differently anyway), and just an off-hand passing mention would alleviate all problems. And if the Templars were in a much less position of wealth/power, then we wouldn't need an off-hand passing mention really, because not having any of that in the first place would speak for itself

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 10:08 AM
No I didn't lol, where did you get that from?

From your post which apparently I interpreted wrong.


But who says anything about lumping them up together? Heck, I don't even talk about changing the AC2 Templars. It's understandable that things get distorted and changed and sometimes corrupted over time, heck, the Assassin Order is very much not the same in the different AC games and even with the same Creed they still follow it or view differently, but there's enough things to acknowledge that. That's all I'm saying is important, really.

Because if I write an AC game where Templars are humanitarians who detest positions of power and control and help the poor, without any kind of acknowledgment, it will look (and be) bad writing. And 'use imagination' or 'connect the dots' shouldn't be an excuse. But a hint there and there, and there we go. Templars were already really rich by the time of the Third Crusades an had lots of influence and power (and gained even more after the Crusades), so losing all that power might make them more power-hungry as a whole, but it's not handled well (especially considering that almost all Templars in AC2 are already in considerable positions of power, being part of powerful families and holding powerful positions, so really they'll almost in the same state of wealth/power as the AC1 Templars were, but act differently anyway), and just an off-hand passing mention would alleviate all problems. And if the Templars were in a much less position of wealth/power, then we wouldn't need an off-hand passing mention really, because not having any of that in the first place would speak for itself

The difference was the morals and belief system, Crusader era Templars were very devoted to the cause, control for peace which made a lot of sense in a time of war. The Renaissance era Templars were in a time of relative peace so they had more time to focus on other things, unfortunately that and the societies preferential treatment of nobles caused them to care only about power.

I never said it was handled well, I only said it made sense.

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 10:10 AM
It made sense yeah but it wasn't entertaining.

At all.

pacmanate
06-28-2014, 01:43 PM
I don't really see how Unity can't be on last gen the more I think about it... minus the size of the city maybe.

steveeire
06-28-2014, 02:24 PM
I was under the impression that they couldn't get the game mechanics to work on last gen.

cawatrooper9
06-28-2014, 04:51 PM
Best
AC1: Getting my first actually stealthy kill (Garnier)

AC2: My first double aerial assassination (in the first Assassin's tomb)

ACB: Using my first Assassin recruit

ACR: The caverns under Galata Tower (such an epic and tense sequence!)

ACIII: Being confused that I was playing as Haytham. It was a good twist for new players that didn't know Connor was in the game and would later be surprised by his appearance, and a good way to confuse players who were expecting Connor.

ACL: The "twist" ending. It was predictable, but satisfying, and fits well the Abstergo censorship theme that the games seem to be following now.

ACIV: The mission when you finally hunt down Black Bart. That epic battle between Templars, Assassins, pirates, English, and Spanish- all in the middle of a storm. My ship wasn't very leveled up at that point in the game, so it took me a while to beat, but it was amazing.

Freedom Cry: Saving my first plantation without losing a single slave.

Worst

AC1: Getting stuck in the second Damascus assassination. I didn't realize that I needed to synchronize more to unlock a new district (I got tired of synchronizing pretty quickly).

AC2: Havin to hunt down the codex pages. It's not so bad now, but the first time I played I didn't realize that the game had a fast travel system :P

ACB: The first DaVinci mission. It took me forever to beat.

ACR: Sneaking in Topkapi Palace after killing Tarik

AC3: Paul Revere. 'Nuff said.

ACL: I had such low expectations for this game that I was actually really impressed when I played it. I guess my worst moment was getting lost as the Lady and not being able to climb buildings.

ACIV: Having a lot of difficulty on that early mission where you had to loot metal from military ships.

Freedom Cry: Screwing up a plantation and getting slaves killed. SO MUCH WHITE GUILT.



So, I have to ask, and know that of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion: How the heck did Manuel Palaiologos kick Rodrigo Borgia's ***?

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-28-2014, 05:33 PM
AC3: Paul Revere. 'Nuff said.


OMG How can I forget about him?!? Definitely a pain!!!! I didn't want to remember him either lol

pacmanate
06-28-2014, 05:57 PM
OMG How can I forget about him?!? Definitely a pain!!!! I didn't want to remember him either lol

Excellent! We are right on course!

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-28-2014, 06:05 PM
Excellent! We are right on course!

Gaaahhhh ! My head! X___X;;;

cawatrooper9
06-28-2014, 07:18 PM
OMG How can I forget about him?!? Definitely a pain!!!! I didn't want to remember him either lol

If you're familiar with Longfellow's poem, you might enjoy this (not my own work, credit to Daniel Golding < http://blogs.crikey.com.au/game-on/2012/11/05/paul-revere%E2%80%99s-midnight-ride-as-told-by-assassin%E2%80%99s-creed-iii/ >

Listen my children and you shall hear:
Of the midnight ride of the assassin Connor Kenway
(and his lesser known accomplice, Paul Revere)
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

Kenway was to ride that night and learn,
That his friend Revere would be on his horse’s rear,
Giving GPS directions in the manner of turn-by-turn
And warning should the redcoats come near.

Yet the poor dialogue revealed Ubisoft had forgot;
That no reason for this midnight ride was in the plot,
And Kenway would ride with Paul Revere
For naught but ingrained obligation and fear,
That the setting of Assassin’s Creed III would not be clear.

And so our riders went swiftly through the night
With Revere giving directions towards the good fight,
When suddenly, without sure prediction,
It seemed a bug emerged with strong affliction
Revere was stuck helplessly in a dialogue cycle;
“Yes! This is exactly where we need to be!”
“Yes! This is exactly where we need to be!”
“Yes! This is exactly where we need to be!”
“Yes! This is exactly where we need to be!”

Our valiant heroes thought all was well
When Revere finally broke from his cry,
But their fain hearts began at once to sigh
When their horse stopped as if frozen to the spot,
It was like the valiant steed had met his own hell,
And found an invisible wall far too high,
To navigate, another bug to add to the lot.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;
Stuck to the spot with his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,—
A cry of “Yes! This is exactly where we need to be!”, right here,
The invisible wall, to gallop though stuck to the floor,
And words that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne of bugs and poor design at last,
The game was broken, stuck tight and fast,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The Xbox was reset, so as never to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the buggy and broken midnight message of Paul Revere.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-28-2014, 08:25 PM
Painfull true and hilarious lol

A lovely poem nonetheless :p

GunnerGalactico
06-28-2014, 08:34 PM
BEST

AC1- Interesting plot, good protagonist, setting and good combat system. It is the only AC game that implemented social stealth the best.

AC2- Exciting protagonist :) , beautiful setting, good story, there were lots of fun side quests and activities. First AC game to have a day/night cycle. In my opinion. this game exceeded my expectations. It addressed all the issues from AC1 and set the bar for future AC titles.

ACB- Okay story, it has even more exciting side quests and activities, first game to introduce Assassin Recruits.

ACR- Best setting by far, good story, improved combat system. I really enjoyed exploring Cappadocia.

AC3- Great protagonist, good story, setting, one of the best combat system in any AC game, great side missions, first game to introduce naval missions and weather system.

AC4- Good story and protagonist, took everything from AC3 and made it better and more improved, best side quests and activities in any AC game and good modern day sequences and improved stealth

WORST

AC1- The main missions got repetitive and boring and lack of side missions and activities

AC2- Colour filters

ACB- Felt like AC2 in Rome with Assassin recruits at times, the plot got boring along the way, cartoonish main villain

ACR- Den defence was the most annoying thing ever, mediocre ending

AC3- Too many mistakes in my opinion. Terrible mission design, boring side activities, poor storytelling and character progression arc, shoehorning characters into key events, too many deleted scenes and dialogue, too many bugs and glitches and finally... some of the textures in the game were awful

AC4- Weak combat system, some bugs and glitches, the plot started to grow monotonous.

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 08:38 PM
You thought Revelations had a mediocre ending?

Do you have feels?

GunnerGalactico
06-28-2014, 08:52 PM
You thought Revelations had a mediocre ending?

Do you have feels?

Not talking about Ezio's end speech and visiting the library... I meant the sequence after fighting Ahmet and recuing Sophia. Don't know what the heck that was to this day. :nonchalance:

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 08:53 PM
Not talking about Ezio's end speech and visiting the library... I meant the sequence after fighting Ahmet and recuing Sophia. Don't know what the heck that was to this day. :nonchalance:

Oh the set piece - yeah that was a dark moment for the Assassin's Creed series indeed.

cawatrooper9
06-28-2014, 08:53 PM
You thought Revelations had a mediocre ending?

Do you have feels?

I love when Ezio walks into the chamber, lighting the torches, only to have Altair mirror his actions in the past. Then at last, we're treated to Ezio finding Altair's body. The Assassin's reunited at last!
Then, Ezio addresses Desmond directly, which is just absolutely epic...
And it should have ended there.

Going from such a poignant moment to such a cartoonish portrayal of Jupiter is just a crime. The flashback to the First Civ was pretty cool, but Jupiter's silly voice alone was enough to completely ruin the momentum from the previous scenes for me. It was such a shame.

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 09:36 PM
Because something was established, a plot point was created...the conflict is grey...the 2 sides of the conflict are not B&W, they're grey and grey. It's not about deep motivations, it's about the grey area of the conflict which is NOT about motivation, like I said numerous times..

Not everyone is always going to be grey, Thomas Hickey wasn't grey, he only did it for money just like Rodrigo only did it for power. Sometimes there simply isn't a grey. Nothing was established, an organization WILL change throughout time, that's a given, you can't establish a set of behavior for its individual members either as that expects a uniformity that humans don't possess.


How do you disagree?? Cesare WAS an adept military general who's reduced to being nothing but a crying child while Ezio takes ALL of his accolades and characteristics...heck, even the book that Machiavelli wrote was changed to be about Ezio...MOST the Templars were cruel, that's not my problem...it's how the conflict is portrayed

I disagreed with the part where he isn't based on conspiracies or rumors or the like, they took his supposed evil deeds and exaggerated that side of him.


First you say that Assassins and Templars are above the masses, so the norms don't apply to them but now you say that norms apply and that people think differently...you're very inconsistent

People are inconsistent, Templars are MOSTLY consistent but there's always a few who want to do something for their own ends, obviously if a leader of an organization is black and white then it will attract members who want the same. Rodrigo being the leader attracted people like him.

There's always going to be a few Thomas Hickeys or people like the Orsi brothers, Rodrigo, or early Ezio.



Doesn't change that my point still stands

As does mine.



Llike farlander said...it wasnt either of our point...I was giving an example.

Haytham did change, he became more impulsive and less merciful when he started killing all those people unnecessarily with Connor.

Progress=/=Change

He didn't change either, he had already intended to kill Connor, he merely gave him a chance to see he was wrong, Connor held to his beliefs and so Haytham returned to plan A. He didn't change at all. He didn't need to change, he was good as he was.


@sesh

The meat of AC2's assassination missions were crap as they were mostly linear and smile as M has pointed out, and you pointed out one example out of all the stealth based missions - of which there are also more than in AC2. And if we're referring to the 'meat' AC4 has the second most assassination missions in the bloody campaign. It's ridiculous to claim there is too little assassinating, and side missions count to the overall game whether you think they do or not. If part of a game contains something, it is prevalent whether it's in the campaign is there or a side mission and in AC4's case just added to an already high presence of assassinating.

I don't care how many times you say side content counts, it doesn't, I don't have to do side content AND it's NOT AS FLESHED OUT. Period.

Second of all, I agreed with many of his points, they restricted many paths in AC2 but you still got to stealthily take your target out sometimes. AC4 is hardly better in most cases, you have more branches of paths but there are still paths, it's just a bunch of obvious bush paths up to just about everything.

Running across bushes is not good stealth to me, nor is it unique, the crowd stealth in previous games was better and here it's replaced by bushes... It may be quantitatively more stealth but it so lame in most cases that it doesn't hold up enough for me to consider it better.

Now enough, you won't change my opinion and I'm not aiming to change yours. I don't like AC4's stealth and that's that.

cawatrooper9
06-28-2014, 09:49 PM
I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say that stalking zones have replaced crowd stealth.
I mean, we still have crowd stealth. Now we just have both.

Shahkulu101
06-28-2014, 09:49 PM
@sesh

It wasn't just bushes, though. You're oversimplifying it because that's the only way you can make it sound in any way worse than AC2. You can lean against walls and whistle to attract, there's also doorways you can hide in. The Lauren's Prins assassination mission had an interior where you could stealthily infiltrate through the windows and hide in said doorways. The areas were often larger and more open, unlike AC2 where you were mostly led along a path. Sure you hide in bushes, but you still have to time your kills and when to exit. A sniper may be blocking your path, so you have to find a way around to kill him off. AC4 had a lot of assassinating, and it was done better than in any other game in my opinion. Saying that, it was still very mediocre.

I just wanted to say that's why I prefer AC4's stealth - and want to say again that there was NOT too little assassinating. In fact the amount of assassinations and the the focus on stealth was one of AC4's biggest pro's for me.

Right we're done here if you're going to get so heated. It's just I think AC4 gets a lot of flak for being not 'assassiny' enough when the stealth and assassination missions are both large in quantity and not terribly worse than any other game.

Sesheenku
06-28-2014, 09:54 PM
@sesh

It wasn't just bushes, though. You're oversimplifying it because that's the only way you can make it sound in any way worse than AC2. You can lean against walls and whistle to attract, there's also doorways you can hide in. The Lauren's Prins assassination mission had an interior where you could stealthily infiltrate through the windows and hide in said doorways. The areas were often larger and more open, unlike AC2 where you were mostly led along a path. Sure you hide in bushes, but you still have to time your kills and when to exit. A sniper may be blocking your path, so you have to find a way around to kill him off. AC4 had a lot of assassinating, and it was done better than in any other game in my opinion. Saying that, it was still very mediocre.

I just wanted to say that's why I prefer AC4's stealth - and want to say again that there was too little assassinating. In fact the amount of assassinations and the the focus on stealth was one of AC4's biggest pro's for me.

That's fine if you prefer it, I don't prefer either of them, AC4 left a much more sour taste in my mouth though cause I was expecting more.

Doors were just for hiding like haystacks were though I'm talking about mobile stealth, which is crowd or bushes.

Assassin_M
06-28-2014, 11:31 PM
Not everyone is always going to be grey, Thomas Hickey wasn't grey, he only did it for money just like Rodrigo only did it for power. Sometimes there simply isn't a grey. Nothing was established, an organization WILL change throughout time, that's a given, you can't establish a set of behavior for its individual members either as that expects a uniformity that humans don't possess.
You still don't get my point and this is starting to frustrate me, i don't know if it's a problem with your comprehension skills or what, I didn't say that the individuals should be grey, i'm talking about the conflict and how it was portrayed. Hickey WAS grey...his ambitions and motivations were simple, like Rodrigo but it was explored, it had layers added to it. Hickey was not just another bum who wanted money, his character explored the dilemma of principle, the pursuit of a bigger meaning in the world. He didn't care about any of that, it didn't bother him...He viewed the Assassins and Templars with their Creeds and principles to be nothing more than fanatics chasing butterflies...He believed that this life is all that was, it's pleasures is all that should experienced without wasting time to look for the bigger picture.
That's exploration, that's how you give a character depth with simple motivations and ambitions, that's how you give an antagonist a grey area...it's how you explore the motivations given to the antagonist, Rodrigo? nothing was explored...nothing at all. Period--his motivations were as simple as Hickey's but my point arises with the fact Rodrigo's ambitions and motivations were not explored...his side of the conflict was not given any layers, he was an empty vessel, a 2D mustache twirling villain with nothing else going for him.


I disagreed with the part where he isn't based on conspiracies or rumors or the like, they took his supposed evil deeds and exaggerated that side of him.
His evil deeds were not rumors nor conspiracies, they're historical facts and I didn't say that Cesare was not based on conspiracies and such, I was saying that applying your logic of basing antagonists on conspiracy and rumor was wrong since it does not work with Cesare because his evil deeds were fact and his military merit, intelligence and accolades were instead given to Ezio.


People are inconsistent, Templars are MOSTLY consistent but there's always a few who want to do something for their own ends, obviously if a leader of an organization is black and white then it will attract members who want the same. Rodrigo being the leader attracted people like him.
This has nothing to do with what i'm saying, what are you even on about?? you're trying to sound and deep philosophical when i told you that your arguments and logic are inconsistent, first you say one thing then you backtrack and say another, you apply double standards to everything and everyone and you shove every argument away with a neat little philosophical sentence that has nothing to do with the discussion.


There's always going to be a few Thomas Hickeys or people like the Orsi brothers, Rodrigo, or early Ezio.
I didnt mind that, please read my posts and words before replying. The Templars in AC I were ALL D-bags, they killed in broad daylight, they were brutal and merciless..it's not my problem, my problem lies in the fact that there is no exploration to the Templars of AC II's ambitions or motivations or actions, please understand what i'm trying to say, read carefully and don't misinterpret what i'm saying, it's getting really annoying to keep typing heaps and heaps of posts to have you not understand any of it.


As does mine.
Sure, it's a pretty childish but sure


Progress=/=Change
Uhhhh yes it does...it's moving from point A to point B, a forward movement to a destination...it's a change of place, a progression...you're not in the same place anymore.


He didn't change either, he had already intended to kill Connor, he merely gave him a chance to see he was wrong, Connor held to his beliefs and so Haytham returned to plan A. He didn't change at all. He didn't need to change, he was good as he was.
I explained how he changed, observe Haytham in the beginning of the story and then in the end, he's a lot more cynical, impulsive and ruthless--the book fills the gaps on this. Haytham never actually intended to kill Connor, what are you talking about?? Haytham always wanted to reconcile with Connor, if he REALLY wanted to kill, he wouldn't have left his journal to him, otherwise it'd have been awkward "*writes last journal as a gift from father to son for Connor* *kills Connor* oh....wait...I didn't want to do that" and what does intending to kill Connor, which is wrong, have to do with him changing anyway??

Locopells
06-29-2014, 12:41 AM
Oh the set piece - yeah that was a dark moment for the Assassin's Creed series indeed.

I dunno, I bust out laughing at the sheer OTT...

LoyalACFan
06-29-2014, 12:44 AM
Not talking about Ezio's end speech and visiting the library... I meant the sequence after fighting Ahmet and recuing Sophia. Don't know what the heck that was to this day. :nonchalance:

The carriage chase was the single worst moment in AC history, bar none.

WendysBrioche
06-29-2014, 01:34 AM
It also makes sense for Connor to be a naive moron, I hate it but it's supposed to be that way cause of his upbringing. Wouldn't make much sense for him to be any other way.

While it doesn't matter to me now, I woul'dve much prefered a more intelligent version of him. He's supposed to be this bi-lingual, cultured, and adaptable character for the fast changing times his story takes place in. For a game that meant to make the Templar's more intelligent again from the "mindless brutes" of AC 2- AC R, I'm quoting the devs on their promises for AC 3 before it came out, a protagonist who is quick, sharp, and decisive could've been much more suitable.

They could've written the story for Haythem to stick around for a while, or given him a mentor well aversed in the politics at the time. Haythem was intelligent, there's no reason his son couldn't be equally intelligent. A character who inherited Haythem's intelligence and his mother's compassion (forgot her name) would've made for a great protagonist.

But instead we got "CHARLES LEEEE". It's whatever. I'm over it now, and AC 3's unfortunately my least favorite in the series for all the cheesiness and forced vulgarity to make it "a rated Mature" game. Just silly.

I think I spelled Haytham wrong. :p

TO_M
06-29-2014, 01:40 AM
AC:4's assassination missions were a definite improvement over the ones in AC2/ACB/ACR/AC3, I'm not sure on the exact amounts per game but AC:4 had more "open-ended" assassination missions in which the player could decide what kind of approach to use.

Although I have to say that Ubisoft never really capitalizes on this and usually only implement 1 fairly obvious path for stealth and don't allow any creativity with items available and/or game mechanics.

Assassin_M
06-29-2014, 02:10 AM
While it doesn't matter to me now, I woul'dve much prefered a more intelligent version of him. He's supposed to be this bi-lingual, cultured, and adaptable character for the fast changing times his story takes place in. For a game that meant to make the Templar's more intelligent again from the "mindless brutes" of AC 2- AC R, I'm quoting the devs on their promises for AC 3 before it came out, a protagonist who is quick, sharp, and decisive could've been much more suitable.

They could've written the story for Haythem to stick around for a while, or given him a mentor well aversed in the politics at the time. Haythem was intelligent, there's no reason his son couldn't be equally intelligent. A character who inherited Haythem's intelligence and his mother's compassion (forgot her name) would've made for a great protagonist.

But instead we got "CHARLES LEEEE". It's whatever. I'm over it now, and AC 3's unfortunately my least favorite in the series for all the cheesiness and forced vulgarity to make it "a rated Mature" game. Just silly.

I think I spelled Haytham wrong. :p
typical over exaggeration about the whole Charles Lee thing. naive idealism =/= lack of intelligence, by that logic, all the Assassins are idiots because Connor personifies the Assassin principle--which is hope in humanity. Connor always had hope in everyone, hope that everything will change in the end for the better, that's what the Assassin ideology is rooted in contrasting the cynicism of the Templars that humanity can never reach unity, coexistence and peace without a guiding hand.

Connor is everything you described, he's quick, sharp and decisive. He was bi-lingual by the age of 5 and a captain of his own ship by 19. He ran the financial matters of the Homestead and brought it back to prominence, planned infiltrations and managed to outsmart the Templars at every turn and brought them down by himself. I don't think an idiot could accomplish all that. Haytham is not smarter than Connor, he's more Cynical, nothing more...Cynicism is sometimes misinterpreted as intelligence while idealism and hope are portrayed as idiocy which is rather wrong.

and i wouldn't be talking about vulgarity and cheesiness if AC II and Ezio are my favorite game and protagonist...just don't

LoyalACFan
06-29-2014, 02:43 AM
typical over exaggeration about the whole Charles Lee thing. naive idealism =/= lack of intelligence, by that logic, all the Assassins are idiots because Connor personifies the Assassin principle--which is hope in humanity. Connor always had hope in everyone, hope that everything will change in the end for the better, that's what the Assassin ideology is rooted in contrasting the cynicism of the Templars that humanity can never reach unity, coexistence and peace without a guiding hand.

Connor is everything you described, he's quick, sharp and decisive. He was bi-lingual by the age of 5 and a captain of his own ship by 19. He ran the financial matters of the Homestead and brought it back to prominence, planned infiltrations and managed to outsmart the Templars at every turn and brought them down by himself. I don't think an idiot could accomplish all that. Haytham is not smarter than Connor, he's more Cynical, nothing more...Cynicism is sometimes misinterpreted as intelligence while idealism and hope are portrayed as idiocy which is rather wrong.

and i wouldn't be talking about vulgarity and cheesiness if AC II and Ezio are my favorite game and protagonist...just don't

I don't think Connor's naivete made him look stupid; it just kind of clashed with the way he was portrayed in the beginning. He was a kid who went through some of the most horrific things imaginable and grew into a jaded, worldly teenager who wanted to push back the colonists so they couldn't do any more damage. That made sense. Then somehow he became naive again in his 20s o_O I could have understood him being a little idealistic when he was first exposed to the big city, since it was so different from anything he had ever experienced, but IMO it didn't wear off nearly fast enough.

Assassin_M
06-29-2014, 02:49 AM
I don't think Connor's naivete made him look stupid; it just kind of clashed with the way he was portrayed in the beginning. He was a kid who went through some of the most horrific things imaginable and grew into a jaded, worldly teenager who wanted to push back the colonists so they couldn't do any more damage. That made sense. Then somehow he became naive again in his 20s o_O I could have understood him being a little idealistic when he was first exposed to the big city, since it was so different from anything he had ever experienced, but IMO it didn't wear off nearly fast enough.
That's another thing i think people failed to notice. Connor wanted to repel the colonists as a teen, yes because of what they did to his village, Juno comes in and shows him the Colonists who supposedly did it (Templars), Connor goes to Achilles and is told that said Colonists are called Templars and they're bad people who want to take over the world...templars burned his village, templars are bad--then afterwards he meets other colonists like Sam Adams, he walks the streets of their cities and the whole experience is endearing to him...so not all Colonists are bad, just the ones who burned my village..his change of heart makes sense if you put all the events that happened to him as a teen in sequence...his whole wariness of the white man comes from the burning of his village, gets told that the white men who supposedly did it are called Templars, meets other white men who are good people and help him out...the hand shake between him and Adams at the end of the Boston massacre is what finalizes his change of heart.

It was pretty obvious to me

LoyalACFan
06-29-2014, 03:07 AM
That's another thing i think people failed to notice. Connor wanted to repel the colonists as a teen, yes because of what they did to his village, Juno comes in and shows him the Colonists who supposedly did it (Templars), Connor goes to Achilles and is told that said Colonists are called Templars and they're bad people who want to take over the world...templars burned his village, templars are bad--then afterwards he meets other colonists like Sam Adams, he walks the streets of their cities and the whole experience is endearing to him...so not all Colonists are bad, just the ones who burned my village..his change of heart makes sense if you put all the events that happened to him as a teen in sequence...his whole wariness of the white man comes from the burning of his village, gets told that the white men who supposedly did it are called Templars, meets other white men who are good people and help him out...the hand shake between him and Adams at the end of the Boston massacre is what finalizes his change of heart.

It was pretty obvious to me

True enough about the handshake. As I said, I can totally understand him being charmed by Boston in the beginning, but I think at some point that charm should have worn off. I think he realized soon enough that he was being manipulated; remember how angry he was with Adams before the Tea Party? I had a hard time believing that the once-wary teen could so wholeheartedly embrace the colonists that he could forgive the fact that they were using him (which he seemed to figure out before the Revolution even started).

rprkjj
06-29-2014, 03:17 AM
About AC3's 2 prologues. They completely destroy replay value. If your sole reason for playing AC3 is story and you don't care about a good chunk of the missions being nothing but walk-and-talks, tales/eavedrops, or simply walking from one cutscene to the next, then 2 prologue are fine.

AC1 - I liked the setting and thought Al Mualim and Altairs chats were neat, as were the white room speeches. Open assassinations as well. I also like the combat, after getting used to the combo killing, I actually liked it better than AC3's.

AC2 - Larger variety of ways to kill people, cool outfit and armors, assassin tombs, richer story and a more likeable protagonist, vastly better freerunning, and assassination contracts.

ACB - Borgia towers, war machines, modern day.

ACR - Awesome story, better Altair voice, one of the series better endings.

AC3 - Setting, great animations, cool outfit, unique protagonist.

AC4 - Fun stealth, giant open world, best protagonist, most open missions in the series, large variety of side missions. Also best economic and upgrade systems so far.

AC1 - Little replay value, Altairs voice, slow freerunning, repetitive side missions, boring collectibles.

AC2 - Drags on a bit, some throwaway side characters, weird textures.

ACB - Samey, Romes a bit dull, boring brotherhood system.

ACR - Tower defense, hookblade, modern day, missed opportunity for Altair, carriage missions.

AC3 - Boring and watered down side missions, 5 hour long tutorial, shoehorning into every event, psychic AI, terrible mission design, rooftop guards, wide streets, empty frontier, worst optional objectives in the series, boring and overly complex economy, weapons and upgrades are irrelevant, hunting is boring.

AC4 - Sandbars, boarding got a bit repetitive, blowpipe was overpowered, boring modern day.

Assassin_M
06-29-2014, 03:28 AM
True enough about the handshake. As I said, I can totally understand him being charmed by Boston in the beginning, but I think at some point that charm should have worn off. I think he realized soon enough that he was being manipulated; remember how angry he was with Adams before the Tea Party? I had a hard time believing that the once-wary teen could so wholeheartedly embrace the colonists that he could forgive the fact that they were using him (which he seemed to figure out before the Revolution even started).
He does realize it, like I said he's not an idiot but that's again his hopeful idealism, from his sarcastic remark towards Adams' hypocrisy to his stern enforcement of explanations to what they're doing. Connor doubts, thinks and argues with himself about the Colonists...he argues with Achilles about it..it's a huge struggling point for Connor throughout sequences 6 through 9, it's what made the whole inner conflict worthwhile imo.

He never whole-heartedly embraced the colonists but his mentality of wanting to push ALL the white men away changed, he reconciled his idealism with the Assassins principle of co-existence and hope for a better future, it's the same way with Haytham...he's always sarcastic and stern with the guy even when they're supposed to be working together, that's how Connor is...he can put aside his personal feelings for the better good but WILL let you know that he thinks you're a **** and the moment he senses manipulation, he'd halt you right there and demand one tell him what this whole thing is about but in the end, he'll always remain hopeful that you're not actually lying to him.

rprkjj
06-29-2014, 03:38 AM
He does realize it, like I said he's not an idiot but that's again his hopeful idealism, from his sarcastic remark towards Adams' hypocrisy to his stern enforcement of explanations to what they're doing. Connor doubts, thinks and argues with himself about the Colonists...he argues with Achilles about it..it's a huge struggling point for Connor throughout sequences 6 through 9, it's what made the whole inner conflict worthwhile imo.

He never whole-heartedly embraced the colonists but his mentality of wanting to push ALL the white men away changed, he reconciled his idealism with the Assassins principle of co-existence and hope for a better future, it's the same way with Haytham...he's always sarcastic and stern with the guy even when they're supposed to be working together, that's how Connor is...he can put aside his personal feelings for the better good but WILL let you know that he thinks you're a **** and the moment he senses manipulation, he'd halt you right there and demand one tell him what this whole thing is about but in the end, he'll always remain hopeful that you're not actually lying to him.

I don't think naivety and being hopeful are the same thing, but I think Connor is hopeful because he's naive.

Assassin_M
06-29-2014, 03:41 AM
I don't think naivety and being hopeful are the same thing, but I think Connor is hopeful because he's naive.
Oh no, they're not..it's like you said...He thinks he can solve all the world's problems at once and have his happy ending...

LoyalACFan
06-29-2014, 03:49 AM
He does realize it, like I said he's not an idiot but that's again his hopeful idealism, from his sarcastic remark towards Adams' hypocrisy to his stern enforcement of explanations to what they're doing. Connor doubts, thinks and argues with himself about the Colonists...he argues with Achilles about it..it's a huge struggling point for Connor throughout sequences 6 through 9, it's what made the whole inner conflict worthwhile imo.

He never whole-heartedly embraced the colonists but his mentality of wanting to push ALL the white men away changed, he reconciled his idealism with the Assassins principle of co-existence and hope for a better future, it's the same way with Haytham...he's always sarcastic and stern with the guy even when they're supposed to be working together, that's how Connor is...he can put aside his personal feelings for the better good but WILL let you know that he thinks you're a **** and the moment he sense manipulation, he'd halt you right there and demand one tell him what this whole thing is about.

But that's what I'm saying; he DOES realize when he's being manipulated. He IS smart. That's why it just seems unfitting to me that he was so naive. You're correct in saying that idealism =/= lack of intelligence, but similarly, naivete =/= optimism. Connor is an optimist in that he always hopes that any situation can be resolved to the benefit of all, but there is still room for pragmatism in that philosophy. Connor's character seemed oddly disjointed to me in that on one side he had a strong goal and was intensely determined to achieve it, but on the other, for some reason he insisted on limiting himself to people he knew were holding him back.

I-Like-Pie45
06-29-2014, 03:51 AM
Meow wonder what happen to Mr. Beer

Meow mean, he play decent-size role in early seq and one of few hist figure that dont feel too force but after forced Dec scene Mr. Beer disappear from story with no mention of him ever again

Not even scene of Connor telling Mr. Beer to **** off like he did with Dollar Bill Man

Wolfmeister1010
06-29-2014, 04:13 AM
I will join


BEST

AC1: Combat- Looking back, was definitely the best for me. High level enemies were unpredictable and difficult, great pacing and sound effects.

AC2: Villa- Call me a peasant, but the renovation of the villa and town was amazing. If you watch and look closely, you can see the small gradual changes that occur throughout the renovation such as puddles receding, vines gradually shriveling away, hay being cleaned up, flags being put up, more lights appearing in windows, the sky clearing up, ect. Honorable mention: Glyphs and tomb missions

ACB: Leonardo War Machine missions- Loved the war machine missions. Great stealthy fun, although the tank missions freaking annoyed me beyond belief.

ACR: Cappadocia- Loved it. Everything about it. Even more than Istanbul. I hated that weird yellow mist filter.

AC3: Winter: LOVED the snow and how it added to the gameplay and environment.

AC4: Stealth: Finally well done. Honorable mention: Edward's sexy pistol animations/freeaiming. I appreciate the little things, and his little spins and maneuvers while shooting was awesome, and I don't care what anyone else says, free aiming was an awesome addition. Added some actual skill to the shooting system.


WORST

AC1: Saving Citizens: Annoying as hell, and their little "thank you" speeches at the end last forever and it forces the camera to look at them until they are done.

AC2: Combat: Absolutely dreadful.

ACB: Lack of many assassinations. Dishonorable mention: ****ing tank mission

ACR: Tower Defense- Obviously. Dishonorable mention: hook blade- all it did was make climbing more frustrating when Ezio would sometime just decide to not do the double jump combo thing. Like, he would jump up to the next level of the building with his hook, and instead of doing the second jump, he would just stop. HATE. HATE.

AC3: Having to walk around the entire map to unfog. OCD person's nightmare. Just an insult to injury how the markings on the map are barely visible and it is impossible to tell which parts are unfogged.

AC4: Eavesdropping/tailing: Just became a giant middle finger to the players. Dishonorable mention: throwing knives: The one "stealth" weapon that brings back haunting AC3 memories by for some reason alerting EVERY GUARD EVERYWHERE in the area immediately to your presence when you kill someone with it, even if their buddies are across the roof facing the other direction or behind a wall.

WendysBrioche
06-29-2014, 04:42 AM
typical over exaggeration about the whole Charles Lee thing. naive idealism =/= lack of intelligence, by that logic, all the Assassins are idiots because Connor personifies the Assassin principle--which is hope in humanity. Connor always had hope in everyone, hope that everything will change in the end for the better, that's what the Assassin ideology is rooted in contrasting the cynicism of the Templars that humanity can never reach unity, coexistence and peace without a guiding hand.

Connor is everything you described, he's quick, sharp and decisive. He was bi-lingual by the age of 5 and a captain of his own ship by 19. He ran the financial matters of the Homestead and brought it back to prominence, planned infiltrations and managed to outsmart the Templars at every turn and brought them down by himself. I don't think an idiot could accomplish all that. Haytham is not smarter than Connor, he's more Cynical, nothing more...Cynicism is sometimes misinterpreted as intelligence while idealism and hope are portrayed as idiocy which is rather wrong.

and i wouldn't be talking about vulgarity and cheesiness if AC II and Ezio are my favorite game and protagonist...just don't

I didn't say he wasn't bi-lingual, if you read carefully. I was merely criticizing the simplicity of his dialogue. It's blatantly cheesy, and his behavior was at times outwardly quarrelsome and bestial, inappropriately so for someone who achieved all of the things you described. His dialogue was straightforward, and bluntly spoken. In terms of the colonists, he didn't speak with the fluency his father did.

And Haytham was smarter, at the least more cultured, than Conner was. There were numerous cutscenes per their relationship where Connor would condemn Haytham for his allegiance to the Templars, only to be chastised for his actions as an Assassin and shown for a fool, stubborn and cynical- if not more so than his father.

But you're absolutely right when and I agree in that Connor's aptitude was more in the way of strategy, infiltration, physical finesse and proficiency, and even with a propensity enough for cultivating the agrarian society of the homestead to the pinnacle of the small town's success, ripe with business and trade. But he should've been able to speak the role, not just play it.

Because of these traits in his dialogue, character, and personality, he didn't satisfy me as a character.

I would of appreciated him more if he could speak with the officiousness of politicians and intellectuals at the time, but they opted for a character who doesn't bother himself with that nonsense. I also would've preferred if the characters representing the political elite to the common folk themselves, spoke a little more reminiscent of the way people spoke back then. I loved how AC 1, 2, and B put snippets of crusader Germanic and Italian into the game. But it was simplified to a level of a 2nd grade documentary on the American Revolution; Benjamin Franklin talked like a 50's school teacher.

Assassin_M
06-29-2014, 07:02 AM
I didn't say he wasn't bi-lingual, if you read carefully. I was merely criticizing the simplicity of his dialogue. It's blatantly cheesy, and his behavior was at times outwardly quarrelsome and bestial, inappropriately so for someone who achieved all of the things you described. His dialogue was straightforward, and bluntly spoken. In terms of the colonists, he didn't speak with the fluency his father did.
I didn't say that you said he wasn't bilingual, I was arguing against your point of him being unintelligent that he was bilingual by 5. please explain to me how it was any more cheesy than Ezio's. How do you even define cheesy?? what is cheesy? his straight forwardness or what?

Quarrelsome and bestial are two of the last things i'd describe Connor's attitude, was he imposing and intense? sure, he was among strangers who weren't exactly the most helpful but he was always polite. I never really understood the complaint about Connor being a jerk or bestial...the guy was a teddy bear. You may not like it and you have all my respect for that but calling him bestial and quarrelsome is just plain wrong.


And Haytham was smarter, at the least more cultured, than Conner was. There were numerous cutscenes per their relationship where Connor would condemn Haytham for his allegiance to the Templars, only to be chastised for his actions as an Assassin and shown for a fool, stubborn and cynical- if not more so than his father.
Boy are you superficial...manner of speech is of NO indication about intelligence...at all. Haytham was raised in London among nobility, he lived a pampered life with a lavish household and proper education, this is probably not helped by the fact that Haytham's accent is EXTREMELY posh and that gives off more of a noble exterior.

and you completely lose any merit when you describe Connor as cynical.


But you're absolutely right when and I agree in that Connor's aptitude was more in the way of strategy, infiltration, physical finesse and proficiency, and even with a propensity enough for cultivating the agrarian society of the homestead to the pinnacle of the small town's success, ripe with business and trade. But he should've been able to speak the role, not just play it.
Most of the time, Connor's voice and manner of speech are polite and calm so yeah

Jexx21
06-29-2014, 08:47 AM
did anyone notice how wendysbrioche started to shift into writing his sentences like haytham speaks in his latest post?

r u tryn 2 sound smarticle or sumthin

RinoTheBouncer
06-29-2014, 09:53 AM
Well the endings of ACII and and AC:R were absolutely phenomenal. Those are my personal favorites. AC:B ending, as well. I also love the part in AC:B where Ezio and the Assassins say “Insieme per la vittoria, vittoria agli assassini”. I love the part where Ezio gives a speech to the Assassin after Yusuf’s death, when he says “show them what it means to cross the Assassins”. To me AC:R is full of Oscary worthy moments. I can’t even pick from the Ezio saga, it’s heart-wreckingly beautiful whether in modern day or historical. Other than that, Connor’s mother’s death, Connor’s fight with Haytham, Desmond’s speech with Minerva at the end.

However, my least favorite part is the ending itself of ACIII, the way it was directed and how everything unfolded after “It’s done, Minerva. The decision’s made” is just badly made. I don’t like it and that’s not because a hero died, but because this hero’s story ended in such a cheaply made, badly directed ending.

JustPlainQuirky
06-29-2014, 03:40 PM
did anyone notice how wendysbrioche started to shift into writing his sentences like haytham speaks in his latest post?

r u tryn 2 sound smarticle or sumthin

God dang it now I read the paragraph in Haytham's voice.

WendysBrioche
06-29-2014, 08:30 PM
I didn't say that you said he wasn't bilingual, I was arguing against your point of him being unintelligent that he was bilingual by 5. please explain to me how it was any more cheesy than Ezio's. How do you even define cheesy?? what is cheesy? his straight forwardness or what?

Quarrelsome and bestial are two of the last things i'd describe Connor's attitude, was he imposing and intense? sure, he was among strangers who weren't exactly the most helpful but he was always polite. I never really understood the complaint about Connor being a jerk or bestial...the guy was a teddy bear. You may not like it and you have all my respect for that but calling him bestial and quarrelsome is just plain wrong.


Boy are you superficial...manner of speech is of NO indication about intelligence...at all. Haytham was raised in London among nobility, he lived a pampered life with a lavish household and proper education, this is probably not helped by the fact that Haytham's accent is EXTREMELY posh and that gives off more of a noble exterior.

and you completely lose any merit when you describe Connor as cynical.


Most of the time, Connor's voice and manner of speech are polite and calm so yeah

I think Connor should've been smart enough to communicate in a way reciprocating those he spoke too. Being able to speak in a manner that befits all types, and classes of people does indicate some degree of intelligence. Connor just kinda spoke in the same, monotonous tone, and was rather resilient. And I am in no way superficial for wanting that from Connor. Manner of speech= a willingness to communicate in a way that satisfies those you wish to hold dealings with. Connor was pretty cynical, and convinced, probably rightly so, that all the colonists' political elite were stuck in their ways, and he was at first, resistant to trust them.

Cheesiness- Ezio was good cheesy. AC 3 was bad cheesy, imo. Not going to explore the reasons why I think that, that can go on forever. One person's trash is another person's treasure. :p

As for cynical, ya I believe Connor was cynical in his refusal to acknowledge any good in the actions of the Templars. He would show up to Haytham hard headed and tempestuous and Haytham equally so. They didn't get along so well, probably cause they were both so sure of themselves.

But that's all I got to say about Connor. He just didn't appeal to me so ya. I don't want to criticize anyone for what they do or do not like so feel free to post what you think. I'd rather not spur on any arguments over what we like tho. I'm not good at that. XD

Farlander1991
06-29-2014, 08:45 PM
Being able to speak in a manner that befits all types, and classes of people does indicate some degree of intelligence.

This is an insanely arbitrary comparison. Do you know how many genius people there are and have been that have either no social skills or are really bad at them? Yes, manner of speech and intelligence can be connected, but unchangeable manner of speech does not mean lack of intelligence. Plus you're totally not taking into account personal and cultural influences (the cultural part plays a big role in Connor's more monotone voices, btw).

Assassin_M
06-29-2014, 08:59 PM
I think Connor should've been smart enough to communicate in a way reciprocating those he spoke too. Being able to speak in a manner that befits all types, and classes of people does indicate some degree of intelligence. Connor just kinda spoke in the same, monotonous tone, and was rather resilient. And I am in no way superficial for wanting that from Connor. Manner of speech= a willingness to communicate in a way that satisfies those you wish to hold dealings with. Connor was pretty cynical, and convinced, probably rightly so, that all the colonists' political elite were stuck in their ways, and he was at first, resistant to trust them.
Again, social skills are of NO relation to level of intelligence, or rather, they're not mutually exclusive--someone can be a genius and not have sufficient social skills as Ezio for example.

and Connor did that, I don't see how he spoke to or treated everyone the same way. If you'd notice, he'd speak in a friendlier manner with people he acknowledged to be friends, sterner manner with people he was wary of, he'd stand in respect when in the presence of someone of authority like GW, he'd use an honorific to address La Fayatte and GW, his manner of speech was always formal with those two. Also of note is his speech with women, he'd be very polite with them.

He allowed only certain people to touch him freely, while if others did the same, he'd let them know that he's uncomfortable with it....more than once if necessary. Hand shakes were a pretty big deal for him too, if anything...Connor was the only protagonist who treated a lot of the subtle communication ques greatly and gave everyone he encountered a sufficient amount of communication ques as he saw fit...he didn't shake Adams' hand until he trusted him fully and his tone changed with him by the end of the Boston massacre from hostile to friendly. Tone has nothing to do with manner of speech with different classes and such, Haytham spoke in the same tone with everyone and so did Ezio...whether or not he knew them, considered them close friends, respected them...etc. He always spoke in the same manner to everyone, which is not bad at all.


Cheesiness- Ezio was good cheesy. AC 3 was bad cheesy, imo. Not going to explore the reasons why I think that, that can go on forever. One person's trash is another person's treasure. :p
Why not?? i'd like to hear you explore the difference between good and bad cheesy


As for cynical, ya I believe Connor was cynical in his refusal to acknowledge any good in the actions of the Templars. He would show up to Haytham hard headed and tempestuous and Haytham equally so. They didn't get along so well, probably cause they were both so sure of themselves.
Really?? what are the good actions the Templars did? He was under the impression that they burned his village, he saw the massacre they started in Boston, he saw Williamson almost kill the chiefs of his tribe, he saw the massacre Pitcairn led in Lexington and Concord, he saw the underground criminal dealings of Hickey, he saw the Templar commanders in the British army force people into deployment, he saw Templars spreading the small pox disease in NY to keep the public in check, he saw Templar bought merchants enforce high prices among many other delirious acts...so tell me...after all this...what good were the Templars doing that Connor so unfairly ignored??


But that's all I got to say about Connor. He just didn't appeal to me so ya. I don't want to criticize anyone for what they do or do not like so feel free to post what you think. I'd rather not spur on any arguments over what we like tho.
but a forum is for discussion...an argument is a discussion...why doesn't anyone want to argue in a place for discussion? it's a form of getting to know each other

WendysBrioche
06-29-2014, 09:04 PM
This is an insanely arbitrary comparison. Do you know how many genius people there are and have been that have either no social skills or are really bad at them? Yes, manner of speech and intelligence can be connected, but unchangeable manner of speech does not mean lack of intelligence. Plus you're totally not taking into account personal and cultural influences (the cultural part plays a big role in Connor's more monotone voices, btw).

Well, to begin with, I was criticizing his dialogue. When I said he had the iq of a rabbit I was referring mainly to the Charles Leeee line.

As for savants, clearly intelligence manifests in many different forms. Those people who are geniuses in some departments are exactly that, but if they have aspergers (like me), they're socially ******ed.

What I meant as far as what I preferred from Connor, is that yes, he obviously is influenced by the culture he was brought up in. But I'd rather he were a cultural lingual genius that can ADAPT to new cultures, as if he were born in them himself, as well as maintain the roots from which he originated. That's the kind of character I would've liked from AC 3.


Again, social skills are of NO relation to level of intelligence, or rather, they're not mutually exclusive--someone can be a genius and not have sufficient social skills as Ezio for example.

Like I said to Farlander, there are different forms of intelligence. The ability to communicate fluently and cohesively is one of them. While there are many geniuses who lack in the way of socializing, they are not geniuses also in the spheres of communication. And I thought Ezio had great social skills? He was a Florentine noble and everyone loved him. Feel free to tell me how you thought he wasn't that's interesting.


Why not?? i'd like to hear you explore the difference between good and bad cheesy
It's a matter of personal preference.


Really?? what are the good actions the Templars did? He was under the impression that they burned his village, he saw the massacre they started in Boston, he saw Williamson almost kill the chiefs of his tribe, he saw the massacre Pitcairn led in Lexington and Concord, he saw the underground criminal dealings of Hickey, he saw the Templar commanders in the British army force people into deployment, he saw Templars spreading the small pox disease in NY to keep the public in check, he saw Templar bought merchants enforce high prices among many other delirious acts...so tell me...after all this...what good were the Templars doing that Connor so unfairly ignored??

If I recall, I believe Pitcairn was trying to call a truce or something, something to prevent the catastrophe. Haytham discussed it in this scene: @3:12:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KwMargGJnU


but a forum is for discussion...an argument is a discussion...why doesn't anyone want to argue in a place for discussion? it's a form of getting to know each other
Eh... not so well I think. Too much hostility breeds bad temperament.

Farlander1991
06-29-2014, 09:09 PM
he'd stand in respect when in the presence of someone of authority like GW, he'd use an honorific to address La Fayatte and GW, his manner of speech was always formal with those two. Also of note is his speech with women, he'd be very polite with them.

He allowed only certain people to touch him freely, while if others did the same, he'd let them know that he's uncomfortable with it....

My two favourite Connor ques/moments is how he stands with fingers crossed if speaking to somebody he respects or looks up to (this is a very, very, VERY minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but it's so neat anyway :D ), and the other one is when Haytham adjusted Connor's clothers he got from the mercenary, my first reaction was 'OMFG CONNOR LET HAYTHAM TOUCH HIM!!!!!!'

steveeire
06-29-2014, 09:13 PM
The lowest point in AC so far is that ride you take with Paul revere riding b****

Assassin_M
06-29-2014, 09:17 PM
My two favourite Connor ques/moments is how he stands with fingers crossed if speaking to somebody he respects or looks up to (this is a very, very, VERY minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but it's so neat anyway :D ), and the other one is when Haytham adjusted Connor's clothers he got from the mercenary, my first reaction was 'OMFG CONNOR LET HAYTHAM TOUCH HIM!!!!!!'
yes, i really appreciated that little detail and they stayed consistent with it too, it wasn't just for one scene or two, he also stood this way with women.

Haha, that was my same reaction, i felt like this relationship had some very subtle progression ques such this one, one of the many reasons I enjoyed their time together...people keep saying that Haytham is what makes this sequence cool but hey, i don't see anyone too keen on replaying the earlier sequences with just Haytham...it's the interaction and chemistry between Connor and Haytham that made sequences 8 and 9


The lowest point in AC so far is that ride you take with Paul revere riding b****
Agreed.

GunnerGalactico
06-29-2014, 09:25 PM
My two favourite Connor ques/moments is how he stands with fingers crossed if speaking to somebody he respects or looks up to (this is a very, very, VERY minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but it's so neat anyway :D ), and the other one is when Haytham adjusted Connor's clothers he got from the mercenary, my first reaction was 'OMFG CONNOR LET HAYTHAM TOUCH HIM!!!!!!'

I also noticed Connor's subtle gestures, my favourite one was when he was clasping his hands while talking to Washington and when his hands were fidgety while he knocked on the door to warn the blue coats during the Paul Revere sequence. :)

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-29-2014, 09:25 PM
My two favourite Connor ques/moments is how he stands with fingers crossed if speaking to somebody he respects or looks up to (this is a very, very, VERY minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but it's so neat anyway :D ), and the other one is when Haytham adjusted Connor's clothers he got from the mercenary, my first reaction was 'OMFG CONNOR LET HAYTHAM TOUCH HIM!!!!!!'

You're not the first, I was like this too XD

Finger crossed? Not ringing a bell for some reason.. when did he do that?


The lowest point in AC so far is that ride you take with Paul revere riding b****

^THIS!

WendysBrioche
06-29-2014, 09:25 PM
The lowest point in AC so far is that ride you take with Paul revere riding b****
I thought that was funny, like wtf!??!??? XD

JustPlainQuirky
06-29-2014, 09:27 PM
Connor letting someone touch him is the equivilant to a passionate hug. :rolleyes:

Ureh
06-29-2014, 09:31 PM
and Connor did that, I don't see how he spoke to or treated everyone the same way. If you'd notice, he'd speak in a friendlier manner with people he acknowledged to be friends, sterner manner with people he was wary of, he'd stand in respect when in the presence of someone of authority like GW, he'd use an honorific to address La Fayatte and GW, his manner of speech was always formal with those two. Also of note is his speech with women, he'd be very polite with them.

I really love that Connor's disposition was the opposite in the Benedict Arnold missions. Don't think he ever called GW by name or title in those cutscenes. :p

"How dare you call on me after Monmoth."
"Fine. But never call on me again."
"You reap what you sow." *no eye contact and leaves abruptly*

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-29-2014, 09:34 PM
I really love that Connor's disposition was the opposite in the Benedict Arnold missions. Don't think he ever called GW by name or title in those cutscenes. :p

"How dare you call on me after Monmoth."
"Fine. But never call on me again."
"You reap what you sow." *no eye contact and leaves abruptly*

OMG I love those lines... He had every right to say them too. Sounded so badass ^_^;;

I-Like-Pie45
06-29-2014, 09:39 PM
OMG I love those lines... He had every right to say them too. Sounded so badass ^_^;;

no he doesnt

what gw did to his people was for the greater good

coonnr just butthurt bleedin heart liberal

"Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country and philanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. … But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another … Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?" - a true American

roostersrule2
06-29-2014, 09:48 PM
The ACB mission where you're dressed up as Luigi and you have to carry the box is on par with Paul Revere's midnight ****stain.


"I hope they let us go inside".


If I ever hear that again I'm killing myself.

Farlander1991
06-29-2014, 09:56 PM
The ACB mission where you're dressed up as Luigi and you have to carry the box is on par with Paul Revere's midnight ****stain.


"I hope they let us go inside".


If I ever hear that again I'm killing myself.

Now we are making good time! Where are we going? We're on track. I hope they let us go inside. Do you think he's forgotten where he's going? We're on track.

Kirokill
06-29-2014, 10:03 PM
Biana, I swear if they done something to Bianca!
Bartolomeo got me good with that one.

and

Then I should be, Yusuf Tazim da Istanbul!

steveeire
06-29-2014, 10:06 PM
The ACB mission where you're dressed up as Luigi and you have to carry the box is on par with Paul Revere's midnight ****stain.


"I hope they let us go inside".


If I ever hear that again I'm killing myself.

lol no nothing is bad as Paul Revere's midnight ride, but in second place would be Ezio's movie blockbuster moment from ACR.

rprkjj
06-29-2014, 10:07 PM
no he doesnt

what gw did to his people was for the greater good

coonnr just butthurt bleedin heart liberal

"Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country and philanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?" - a true American

Who actually said that?

Also, while I somewhat agree, there's no excuse for the colonists treatment of the natives. Colonists wanted a civilization separate from the European monarchies, and the natives were in their way. America wouldn't be quite what it is now without slavery or the displacement of natives, so I am weary of an alternate history where the colonists had treated other cultures and races humanely. Mainly because I really don't know where America would be now.

Every great civilization had a price for their prosperity, it's impossible to tell where other places like China, Egypt, and Britain would be without the British Raj and colonies, Egyptian enslavement of Jews, or the Chinese use of slaves. Now that the foundations have been built, and comparatively little work is needed to build upon it now, in the most developed countries in the world we have the luxury of worrying about equality and human rights.

GreySkellig
06-29-2014, 10:10 PM
Most of my list is...weirdly particular.


Best

AC1: (Disclaimer--I wasn't really into gaming back in 2007, and I watched a friend play AC1 rather than play it myself.) In retrospect a lot of what I loved (and still like) about AC1 was just the originality of all of it. That said, the real standout for me in comparison to the other AC games is the characterization of the Templars--a level of nuance not seen again until AC3.

AC2: My official entry into the series. My best memory is probably the first time I scaled Il Duomo...Gameplay-wise, however, the stealth section in San Gimignano has stuck in my memory. There was a sense of tension what with the sneak attack that wasn't found in some of the other sequences.

ACB: This is going to sound kind of stupid, given how much for the Borgia towers were, and how many great landmarks Rome had to scale (I was constantly trying to parachute from one to another), but the thing I remember enjoying for an inordinately long time was the weapon-throwing mechanic. It was totally broken, but under the right conditions you could lock onto someone, wait for them to ride waaay out of normal throwing range, and whip a freaking longsword at them over like 100 yards. It was hilarious watching a guard ragdoll off his horse at the very edge of draw distance. Also inspired some unusual crowd reactions.

ACR: There were a lot of elements that got refined here, but my two favorite elements were the speed of navigation (what with the hookblade's accelerated climbing and ziplines) and exploring Cappodocia. It took me forever to get around to doing the storyline in that location because I didn't want to leave.

AC3: I loved the bow--though detection was iffy, under ideal circumstances it was the best stealth ranged weapon in the series thus far...less point-and click than knives/crossbow, less overpowered than the blowgun. Small blades also got some love. Naval sections were brilliant, especially in terms of detail and camera angles. Single best moment: Noticing that they'd gotten the 1770s motifs right on Boston tombstones. There's a really specific chronology to tombstone engraving, and they nailed it.

AC4: TBH. my favorite moments in AC4 were all exploring remote villages and islands. I was on a permanent quest for a home base actually situated in the open world, and that led me to explore every bit of the map with a fine-toothed comb. (Incidentally, Salt Key Bank was a killer location, but being situated in the north half of the map was a bummer.)

--------------------------------------------------

Worst

AC1: It's been said a million times, but that game is really repetitive. So much so that after watching a friend play it, I had no desire to do so myself, and waited for AC2.

AC2: The Italian accents were universally abysmal, but "It's-a-me, Mario" really bothered me for whatever reason. There should not be Mario Bros. easter eggs in AC games.

ACB: Ezio's robes looked totally ridiculous. Couples with his massive arsenal, it was the most gaudy and impractical looking getup in the series. I literally never felt sneaky, even when I was undetected.

ACR: Outside of the brilliant Ezio/Altair moments, the story was really lackluster. I never really invested in any of the secondary characters (Yusuf, Sofia, the whole royal family) in the slightest. And probably the worst opening act of any AC. That carriage chase lasted forever and kept (somehow) getting worse.

AC3: Bad pacing I can handle. Glitches I can surmount. Heck, I even smiled through the ludicrously hard Homestead recruitment (before they streamlined it)...but what killed me about this game was the total letdown of its promising setting and characters. It just never quite meshed, despite having what seemed like the right elements. In terms of a definingly weird moment though, everything that happened in Boston after the Boston Massacre felt strange. From the cleaver-rampage to the bizarreness of the tea party...as a historian, there were some jarringly odd missions.

AC4: Every time I got yanked back to "play as an iPad". The lack of small blades and the assassination-breaking berserk dart. The fact that the Jackdaw carried such an insane number of guns for a brig--and that it was more powerful than the man 'o war by the time I reached it. Load screens in harbors--especially at Great Inagua. I wanted a base where I could spot a ship, jump aboard the Jackdaw, and pursue it. The load screen guaranteed I never voluntarily visited Great Inagua, which was generally a pointless location.

Locopells
06-30-2014, 01:36 AM
Biana, I swear if they done something to Bianca!
Bartolomeo got me good with that one.

'Biana, Ezio, Ezio - Biana.'

'Charmed...'

KenTWOu
06-30-2014, 03:11 PM
For me the best moment of entire AC franchise is this one - Assassin's Creed Revelations - Sequence 9: Altair's death, Ezio speaks to Desmond that he is a conduit for a message, he has an ability to share his stories through centuries, he wants to stop this, etc... The most epic moment in the series. Top notch writing IMHO.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpBkYZvWxg4

pacmanate
06-30-2014, 06:24 PM
Oh my God! Yes! The voice acting!

Some of it by the extras are horrible!

"I hope they let us go inside" from ACB

"Nuh, NUghghhg, nuhghg" - Bandits in the Tavern fights when you throw them on the floor in AC4. HORRIBLE voice acting, absolutely DISGUSTING work. How it even made the game is beyond me.



Nuh, NGUHGGHG, nughgh ashjgmg

purplekurple
06-30-2014, 11:15 PM
Oh my God! Yes! The voice acting!

Some of it by the extras are horrible!

"I hope they let us go inside" from ACB

"Nuh, NUghghhg, nuhghg" - Bandits in the Tavern fights when you throw them on the floor in AC4. HORRIBLE voice acting, absolutely DISGUSTING work. How it even made the game is beyond me.



Nuh, NGUHGGHG, nughgh ashjgmg

Maybe it is a really intense fist fight.

pacmanate
06-30-2014, 11:48 PM
Maybe it is a really intense fist fight.

Im talking about when the bandit gets thrown on the floor at the start

wvstolzing
06-30-2014, 11:54 PM
Nuh, NGUHGGHG, nughgh ashjgmg

Are you sure they aren't saying "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah-nagl ftaghn"?

I mean, they're sailors after all; perhaps they've seen some maddening non-Euclidian geometry in a lost city, etc. etc.

Ureh
07-01-2014, 12:25 AM
"The hookblade has two parts, you see. The hook and the blade. An elegant design."

Not sure what to make of this line but I always think of this line when ACR comes up. I guess there wasn't a better way to describe the hookblade.

But Ezio's minstrel songs were pretty darn good.

"Cesare, oh Cesare, he was one of great depravity, believed himself immortal, till he had a date with gravity."
"Oh Lucrezia could not sate her appetite for lovers, but I suspect that she could do with two or three more brothers."
"The was once a man named Duccio, a man of lecherous taste, wherever he would show himself, my fist would find his face."
"I'm a tactless minstrel, I will sing for coin. If you see me on the street, please kick me in the groin."

Kirokill
07-01-2014, 12:35 AM
"The hookblade has two parts, you see. The hook and the blade. An elegant design."

Not sure what to make of this line but I always think of this line when ACR comes up. I guess there wasn't a better way to describe the hookblade.

It's funny.
It's like saying: to make salty water, you need salt, and water.

SixKeys
07-01-2014, 12:57 AM
The line was actually there because some people saw the initial artwork that only showed the hook being used (ziplines, climbing) and started panicking that it was going to completely replace the classic blade. I remember all the comments on YouTube and Facebook going "OMG pleez bring the hidden blade back, I don't want no stupid hook!!1". So the devs had to make clear that the hookblade literally included both a hook and a blade. People think it's a stupid line now, but it was included for a reason.

wvstolzing
07-01-2014, 01:07 AM
The line was actually there because some people saw the initial artwork that only showed the hook being used (ziplines, climbing) and started panicking that it was going to completely replace the classic blade. I remember all the comments on YouTube and Facebook going "OMG pleez bring the hidden blade back, I don't want no stupid hook!!1". So the devs had to make clear that the hookblade literally included both a hook and a blade. People think it's a stupid line now, but it was included for a reason.

But the hookblade couldn't be *used* as a blade----or could it? So the 'hook' did end up replacing *one* of the blades.

Kirokill
07-01-2014, 01:09 AM
But the hookblade couldn't be *used* as a blade----or could it? So the 'hook' did end up replacing *one* of the blades.

You could double assassinate with the hook blade, but the length of it is ridiculous!

Jexx21
07-01-2014, 01:09 AM
uh, yes, you use the hookblade to double assassinate all the time. The hook part is pushed back.

wvstolzing
07-01-2014, 01:12 AM
You could double assassinate with the hook blade, but the length of it is ridiculous!


uh, yes, you use the hookblade to double assassinate all the time. The hook part is pushed back.

Totally forgot about that ... sorry.

Or maybe I couldn't do it, for whatever reason.

purplekurple
07-01-2014, 03:35 AM
Are you sure they aren't saying "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah-nagl ftaghn"?

I mean, they're sailors after all; perhaps they've seen some maddening non-Euclidian geometry in a lost city, etc. etc.

Damn, Cthulhu is now in the Caribbean.

wvstolzing
07-01-2014, 01:03 PM
Damn, Cthulhu is now in the Caribbean.

Yeah, joking aside, Lovecraft *is* related----in a very oblique way----to some of the themes in Assassin's Creed.

Check this book out: http://tinyurl.com/mhb5egt -- it's a really interesting survey of how present-day crackpot theories about lost civilizations, alien 'engineers' of humankind, etc., found inspiration in the classical horror fiction of the pulp era, most notably in Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, et al.

Strangely enough, these authors took themes from late 19th - early 20th C. crackpot theories (theosophy, spiritualism, etc.) about Atlantis, trans-dimensional civilizations, ancient aliens, humankind as an engineering project, and so on, and made creative use of them in their fiction; but then, after World War II, a new wave of frauds turned to their fictional work for raw material for further crackpot theories.

pacmanate
07-01-2014, 01:06 PM
uh, yes, you use the hookblade to double assassinate all the time. The hook part is pushed back.

Except in game the hook was permanently out, looked so dumb.

LoyalACFan
07-01-2014, 03:30 PM
Oh my God! Yes! The voice acting!

Some of it by the extras are horrible!

"I hope they let us go inside" from ACB

"Nuh, NUghghhg, nuhghg" - Bandits in the Tavern fights when you throw them on the floor in AC4. HORRIBLE voice acting, absolutely DISGUSTING work. How it even made the game is beyond me.



Nuh, NGUHGGHG, nughgh ashjgmg

To be fair, I think that would be more the fault of the sound editors rather than the voice actors. They weren't doing mo-cap in that scene (I don't think) so they were just told to grunt and mumble with very little context. Hard to match that up with the character onscreen if you have no idea what it's going to look like.

AC3/4 had some spotty sound mixing in general.

pacmanate
07-01-2014, 06:03 PM
To be fair, I think that would be more the fault of the sound editors rather than the voice actors. They weren't doing mo-cap in that scene (I don't think) so they were just told to grunt and mumble with very little context. Hard to match that up with the character onscreen if you have no idea what it's going to look like.

AC3/4 had some spotty sound mixing in general.

That "mumble" even if out of context, is horrible. I don't see how that crap VA can fit in anywhere.

Ureh
07-01-2014, 09:01 PM
Except in game the hook was permanently out, looked so dumb.

Not for some of the finishing moves, it seems. I was just playing ACR, Ezio impaled a guard with his right blade (the hookblade arm) and there was no hook. Either it receded or vanished during that animation.

pacmanate
07-01-2014, 09:08 PM
Not for some of the finishing moves, it seems. I was just playing ACR, Ezio impaled a guard with his right blade (the hookblade arm) and there was no hook. Either it receded or vanished during that animation.

Weird, never seen that before. I played it 2 weeks ago and just didnt like that slices to the throat still had the hook part.

Farlander1991
07-01-2014, 09:12 PM
There are definitely times when the hook is not out on the hookblade, but it's not consistent. Probably more of a glitchy thing though rather than a not implemented one, since I had a few times stuff like hook not appearing for parkour if zip-line/do smth while escaping combat mode (Ezio floating a few inches away on a zip-line with his hidden blade out was really funny and memorable), so it goes both ways.

steveeire
07-01-2014, 09:24 PM
I always presumed there where two parts to the hookblade.


The hook and the blade.

Kirokill
07-01-2014, 09:52 PM
I thought, the hook from the tip, was the blade.
Something like this picture, it isn't official and the blade is a bit shorter.
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/071/7/3/hook_blade_prop_prototype_by_ammnra-d4sl7al.jpg

Jexx21
07-01-2014, 09:56 PM
the hook can be used as a weapon as well, like when ezio jabs it into a guard's jaw and pulls him. But the hook part can be pushed back down to the bottom of the blade when the blade is needed for stabby stabby.

steveeire
07-02-2014, 12:39 PM
I thought, the hook from the tip, was the blade.
Something like this picture, it isn't official and the blade is a bit shorter.
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/071/7/3/hook_blade_prop_prototype_by_ammnra-d4sl7al.jpg

This is how I always thought it worked.

GunnerGalactico
07-02-2014, 02:27 PM
I thought, the hook from the tip, was the blade.
Something like this picture, it isn't official and the blade is a bit shorter.
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/071/7/3/hook_blade_prop_prototype_by_ammnra-d4sl7al.jpg

Not my most favourite weapon integrated with the hidden blade, but I did enjoy vaulting over the guards and throwing them :p

Those designs look cool though.

Hans684
07-02-2014, 02:40 PM
I thought, the hook from the tip, was the blade.
Something like this picture, it isn't official and the blade is a bit shorter.
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/071/7/3/hook_blade_prop_prototype_by_ammnra-d4sl7al.jpg

Here are two official photos of the Hookblade.
http://mygengo-talk.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/hookblade.jpg
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111117035307/assassinscreed/images/8/82/HookBlade_Concept_Art.JPG

pacmanate
07-03-2014, 11:42 AM
I never understood hook and run. Was the most stupid thing. You dont need a hook to roll over someone

Sesheenku
07-04-2014, 09:18 AM
I never understood hook and run. Was the most stupid thing. You dont need a hook to roll over someone

It's all just to excuse the simple fact that they didn't think of this feature before.

Kirokill
07-04-2014, 02:24 PM
Thanks for the photos, Hans.
Not the way I expected, till I read this thread.

Hans684
07-04-2014, 08:16 PM
Thanks for the photos, Hans.

Your welcome.


Not the way I expected, till I read this thread.

The forums is as unpredictable as The Joker.