PDA

View Full Version : Will Assassins Creed Unity bring the series back to life?



Dan77777777777
07-11-2014, 11:37 AM
SPOILER ALERT if you haven't played all of the games yet.

Please give this thread a chance if you are weary of AC, I think it hits on some issues. There are some people that love every assassins creed game so far, then there are those that have grown weary of the series. I happen to be in line with the second group. First off, let me say that I love AC in general. I think compared to a lot of games each entry is good. The reason why I'm so critical of the series is because I feel like these games could have been way better. I've been playing back through all the games, so I'm being reminded of my frustration with the direction of the series. So with that said, I want to give the reasons why I care about AC, why I've grown weary of the series, and why I think Unity could possibly bring me to like the games again.

The first AC game had me hooked not long into the game. The story was unique with the modern day crossovers, and the conspiracy of the Templar order along with the secret war with the Assassins was interesting. The gameplay was fresh. Combat seemed fluid for its time, yet it was challenging enough to give it depth. Free-running on rooftops after from the guards after an assassination was a completely new experience. I loved how the general concept for assassinations is that you had to gather info about the target, and that would be how you would lead up to the assassination. The unique cities that you traveled to really made the game feel real. Yes, the game did get repetitive, but it was completely new. By the time I was done with all of the assassinations, I was ready to be done, but leading up to that moment it was great. Then at the end of the game, your combat skills are put to the test at the Battle of Arsuf and against Al Mualim and those he controlled. The story wasn't the best, but I think it was good for a first game. It's where you learned about the different philosophies of the Assassins and the Templars, and the modern day story fills you with tons of thought about what is really going on.

Then AC 2 was released, and with it came a polished experience for AC in general. The story was more fascinating, and you got to see Ezio grow as an assassin as he was unraveling a Templar conspiracy on his quest for revenge. It was a good step up from AC1. However, the story and its missions had its cheesy moments. The mission with Leonardo's flying machine with guards ready to short fire arrows at you made it feel more like an arcade game. I wish the two year sequence where Ezio is trained by Mario felt more prolonged. Not in a sense of real time, but a cutscene or something shows his progressive training over time. It's like, "Here, swing a sword for a minute, now your ready to fight." Simply put, AC2's story takes place over 20 years, but they way its told makes it feel like it has only been a year or two. Also the combat felt sluggish compared to the first one. AI weren't as relentless. I also wish there were more robe-wearing assassins as well. The first game made you feel like you were apart of something similar to the Jedi order or something. The game overall was a big step-up however.

Then comes the dark days of Brotherhood and Revelations. At least to me this is where AC started to fall apart. I remember at the end of the E3 demo for brotherhood, it shows Ezio and other assassins climbing the Colosseum getting ready to take the fight to the Templars' turf. Instead, the game has you build up the brotherhood, which is fine. However, it doesn't feel like you have built up the brotherhood. You do repetitive missions to gain recruits, and 30 seconds later they are ready to be an assassin. I didn't like that. I wish there could have been some cutscene showing the progression of time as Ezio and Machiavelli train the recruits, along with some missions. Then you start to strike at the Templars. Brotherhood's story had very little focus. It was too sporadic for me. You never grow to hate the few targets you take down, and most of the game is filled with tutorial missions and uninteresting side missions. I wish the game would've focused for the first 25 percent of the game building the brotherhood. Then the rest is taking down the Borgia. One thing is that Ubisoft tries to cram in so many historical events that story feels sporadic because it has too much to cover. The focus of the story should have been about building the assassins in Rome, then taking down the Borgia to get the Apple.

Revelations was simply a money grab. The story was short and not interesting at all, even though it had the chance to be if it could have focused more on the Masyaf keys instead of being mostly tutorial missions then an uninteresting story about the throne. Yes, Ubisoft likes using a lot of history, but they let it define the story too much. I wish those events had more of a background, so then if you are a history buff like me, you can give your nods to those moments while still having a good story. When it comes to gameplay for these two, they were practically the same. The added kill streak made it feel more fluid than the sluggish combat from 2, but it didn't take long to realize how cheap and easy it was. Stealth didn't improve at all. It felt clumsy for the most part. The general focus for AC had diminished too. Instead of learning about your target through missions, you simply did random missions that took you on a kid's sized roller coaster to the assassination. I hated feeling like I was on rails. I wish that you had to gather your own info in unique ways or missions that you discover. Heck, it would be cool if you could even send your recruits out to get info while you're scouting as well.
I wish the games after would have really gone all out on those things, in a way that wouldn't be repetitive of course. However the games became filled with sporadic (I'll use that word a lot) stories, gameplay that focused on pushing one button repeatedly, and stealth that focused on hay bails randomly spread all over in convenient places while you wait for guards to walk in a pattern.

So then came AC3, and I had high hopes for that game. The idea of fighting in the revolution pumped me up, the combat looked fresh in the demo's, and the overall advertisement made me feel like the series is coming back to life. However, the mission structure is the same, even if animations on Connor looked different. The story was just as sporadic. I understand that since the game is in that time period that it would only be fitting to use many historical events, but the game was advertised that you were fighting in the revolution. Instead we get a clumsy mission riding with Paul Revere (that could have been a good mission) and only about three battles. One of them you ride a horse and command the troops since the guy in charge decided to let the random dude (connor) lead his men, another one you go around and simply assassinate a dude in a mission on rails, and the last one you shoot a cannon for five minutes while british troops blindly walk forward as they're being plastered by a cannon that isn't far from a gatlin gun that shoots cannons. The story just wasn't good. It is SPORADIC, RANDOM, AND CHEESY. The tea party mission should've been Connor doing things behind the scenes while colonials dump the tea, instead Connor is slaying redcoats on the boats. It was corny. You never have much to do with Achilles the mentor. Haytham was the only well produced character. The advertisement leading up made you think you were going to develop a relationship with Washington. A commercial showed Connor give him a nod as they went into battle right before he throws his tomahawk at someone, that would've been a cool feature. Instead Washington is barely in the game. Whenever Connor discovers that Washington had to attack his tribe because they were assisting the British, the moment had no real effect because we barely talk do anything with Washington. Also there were too many key moments of the revolution that weren't in it. Saratoga, the surprise Christmas attack at Trenton, the actual battle of Yorktown, and Benedict Arnold (which was to my disappointment exclusive DLC for ps3). They could have also have you do things behind the scenes in Britain and replace either New York and Boston since in the game they both feel the same. Basic thing is I was expecting a game that took you into the revolution, instead it was filled with missions that make Revere's ride a joke and breaking out of the prison in New York. It wasn't what was advertised. The story had no focus, and in the end Connor's only purpose was the find a stupid necklace and bury it. The story would have been way better if Connor didn't exist (although I applaud Ubisoft used a native American for the hero) and they had Haytham as a Templar/part of the British military that changes sides after a betrayal at the beginning after he learns the Templars' true colors. On top of that the combat had no depth and the stealth was still goofy and clumsy. AC3 was a huge disappointment.

And now here came AC4 with what seemed to be a completely new thing to the AC franchise. I was excited yet skeptical after AC3 let me down. The concept was good, but it still resembled the past games too much. Combat was identical to AC3 of course, and the stealth was still it's goofy self. I knew it would be that way though so I wasn't expecting anything from AC4 in that department. I was excited about its setting. I liked the idea of traveling around the seas to explore locations. But it was still repetitive after a while. Boarding ships became a routine and the only ships out there for the most part were the guards. Most places of exploration were uninhabited islands were treasure chests that we've been looting since AC2. Nobody cares about hunting in AC. However, I was most disappointed with the story. It was the most sporadic one to date. I knew what was going on and I understood why, but it just didn't string together. It was corny. It had no focus. Between the theme of pirating, the assassin/templar fight, the establishment of Nassau, and the Sage, the story didn't know which direction it was going. Random things simply happened. You don't really get a crew for your ship that you know personally except Adewale. He happened to be just as uninteresting as Connor. Whenever Blackbeard dies, and it stages that moment where you are supposed to be devastated like when Dom in Gears of War dies, there is no real feeling. The story being so jumpy never gives you a chance to bond with that character. You never really bond with Anne Bonny either and out of nowhere she becomes first mate. Yes, the story was about getting the sage so Edward can get into the observatory, but if you took that story alone without the other random things, unnecessary things that filled the story, then you would realize how short and bad it is. You're not even an assassin until the end of the game after Edward has a sudden change of heart that seems unconvincing.

As far as the present day story goes for all the games after AC1, they focused too much on giving you more questions than answers every game that it was hard to understand what was going on exactly. I'm glad there are hardcore fans that are out there who are dedicated enough to explain it for everyone, otherwise I would be lost. Ubisoft lead you up with Desmond for him to become an assassin, then they kill him. And he barely does anything. The only thing that has been resolved in the story is that the Sun didn't kill everyone. The Assassin/Templar story hasn't progressed too much. Maybe there shouldn't be a big focus on the modern day like AC4 did, I don't know.

So here I am with my rant coming to a close. I had no clue it would be this long, and I'm sure it will either be overlooked or criticized. Basic thing is that I want the next AC game to revitalize the franchise. I want to feel like an Assassin that belongs to the brotherhood in a secret war between the Templars and Assassins instead of a an Indian warrior or pirate who doesn't . I want to scout out my main targets before I make my move, but I want those kinds of missions to be filled with variety, yet something that isn't so cheesy. I want the stealth to be believable instead of random haystacks everywhere or bushes that in reality you couldn't simply glide through. I want combat to be fluid yet filled with depth. I want to really feel like a badass instead of watching Edward be a badass as I simply push one button. I want a story that is smart and has a main focus, and filled with characters that you truly hate or care about. I want the modern day conflict to move forward. I hope unity turns you back into an assassin instead of someone who goes around doing a bunch of favors for random people. A blade in the crowd, a strike from the shadows, or a diversion set up for the kill that the player set up on their own plan is the premise that I want Assassins Creed to become. It was on track with the first game but slowly it became a pirate game somehow.

Ubisoft is saying all the right things about Unity. They talk about brand new combat and stealth that will be more realistic. But I fear the Co-op is its biggest emphasis. I do look forward to co-op. Yes you can play with your friends. But will it be the same kind of missions as the past?
I understand that some of my opinions are different from others, but I feel they reflect what made AC great in the first place.
Congrats if you made it to the end of this. I really wanted to vent after playing through all of the games altogether again. And I hope I didn't break any forum rules, I don't get on here often.

king-hailz
07-11-2014, 12:22 PM
OMG YOU NEED PARAGRAPHS!!!!!!

Anyway... I agree with you on the series not being as good as it once was....

For me, AC1 was amazing, it had a unique story that had an AWESOME back story. However AC2 was just spectacular in every way... those 'cheesy parts' your talking of actually added something new to the franchise... and Brotherhood and revelations werent that bad... i mean brotherhood was ok it had great gameplay amd an alroght story... revelations didnt have the best gameplay but i thought the story was amazing!!!

AC3 is where it really went downhill... i mean AC3 gave the series a bad name for a lot of people... But im not gonna get into that since everyone probably knows.

AC4 was a fresb addition to the franchise that fixed many of the wounds given by AC3... i think Unity will be great and definetely a fresh start...

BUT my hopes arent that high... i think some people are getting overly excited about it... which could ruin the game for them... i think as a rating

AC1- 8/10
AC2- 10/10
ACB- 8/10
ACR- 9/10
AC3- 7/10
AC4- 9/10
ACU- 8.5/10 (maybe even a 9) but i dont think I will give it more than that...

Dan77777777777
07-11-2014, 12:40 PM
Thanks for pointing out the paragraph issue. It really looks better now.

I think for the most part I'm simply burnt out, so I'm hoping Unity is really as fresh as it says it is. They are all great games, and if played each individual one without playing any games prior to it, I would be impressed with all of them minus the story lines in some of them. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't released every year. But if you play one every year and you are nit-picky like me, its hard not to grow weary and point out the flaws. Obviously the flaws are a result of these games being pushed out every year. Imagine if brotherhood and revelations weren't made and AC3 came out three years after AC2, a lot of people probably wouldn't have the opinions they have about the games.

My fear is that after Unity every AC game after will be just like it for the next couple of years. I want that feeling I had when I played AC1 for the first time. I doubt it could happen again.

Jexx21
07-11-2014, 04:34 PM
AC1- 8/10, story: 7/10
AC2- 9/10, story: 7/10
ACB- 9.5/10, story: 6.5/10 (although the side characters were a lot better in ACB than AC2)
ACR- 8.5/10, story: 8.5/10
AC3- 8.5/10, story: 9.5/10
AC4- 9/10, story: 9/10

pacmanate
07-11-2014, 04:46 PM
I do not understand how any AC game is a 9.

Sesheenku
07-11-2014, 08:18 PM
OMG YOU NEED PARAGRAPHS!!!!!!

Anyway... I agree with you on the series not being as good as it once was....

For me, AC1 was amazing, it had a unique story that had an AWESOME back story. However AC2 was just spectacular in every way... those 'cheesy parts' your talking of actually added something new to the franchise... and Brotherhood and revelations werent that bad... i mean brotherhood was ok it had great gameplay amd an alroght story... revelations didnt have the best gameplay but i thought the story was amazing!!!

AC3 is where it really went downhill... i mean AC3 gave the series a bad name for a lot of people... But im not gonna get into that since everyone probably knows.

AC4 was a fresb addition to the franchise that fixed many of the wounds given by AC3... i think Unity will be great and definetely a fresh start...

BUT my hopes arent that high... i think some people are getting overly excited about it... which could ruin the game for them... i think as a rating

AC1- 8/10
AC2- 10/10
ACB- 8/10
ACR- 9/10
AC3- 7/10
AC4- 9/10
ACU- 8.5/10 (maybe even a 9) but i dont think I will give it more than that...

Let's all rate games that aren't completed and that we haven't played!

Kingdom Hearts 3! 6/10 for taking so long! Final Fantasy XV 3/10 for the same reason! Yeah. Take that Square Enix. My weightless rating based on nothing will show you a thing or two!

Also OP I agree for the most part, I don't like 3 and 4 especially.

Assassin_M
07-11-2014, 09:28 PM
While I do agree that AC is being burned out--even in me as a fan--I disagree with a lot of your post. I disagree with the story not being the best in AC I, Brotherhood and Revelations, your contradiction about AC III and about a bit AC IV in general.

lets talk about AC II. You say that you disliked Edward being an Assassin in the last 10 minutes of the game, so did Ezio but I see no mention of that. you said that Connor should have been fighting in the background of the revolution but then go on and say that you were disappointed that not more events were present and that GW and Connor were not friends, how is this??

over-all, I agree with the terrible direction of mission design in AC III, everything else you said about AC I, the unfocused nature of AC IV's story and that AC II stepped up a lot from AC I.

Dan77777777777
07-11-2014, 10:58 PM
I think you misunderstood me a bit. In AC2, after some events early in the game in Tuscany, Ezio tells Mario that he is ready to carry own his father's work. Giovanni was an assassin. Even though Ezio technically wasn't an assassin, he was well aware early on about the ideals of the assassins and the templar/assassin conflict. Edward only wanted to get to the observatory to get what he wanted. Yes, he changes along the way, but honestly it seemed like he changed all of the sudden towards the end. Edward didn't care about the assassin's motives until the end. Ezio's story was quite a bit different in that respect.

As far as Connor and GW are concerned, I wanted him to still be in the background, but more associated with GW. Did you see the way they advertised Connor and GW's realtionship before release? They are riding side by side as troops are following on an image in GameInformer. In a commercial Connor signals GW to bring in the troops after he takes down someone. The big reason I would want that is so that when GW is about to raid Connor's territory, there is real depth in the situation because a relationship has been formed.

The historical events could still be present with Connor working in the background. I don't understand how that contradicts. Connor's main focus would be eliminating the Templars pulling the strings in the events anyways. For example, Saratoga was a huge victory for the colonials because it inspired the French to help the colonials. That was a huge event that was left out. The mission could have depicted Connor doing something to give the colonials the advantage. Of course it would have something to do with the Templars.

The is also the surprise attack at Trenton. It was one of the famous battles and it couldn't have been any better as a mission for the game. Also it involves GW's famous crossing of the Delaware. There could have been a mission with Connor helping the colonials to escape as well as meeting up with GW to insure that the Hessians are taken by surprise with some sort of infiltration mission. And of course the Benedict Arnold thing would only be ps3 exclusive.

As for you saying that AC1's story was the best, I can honestly agree with you. I personally think it was the best story, but there are so many others who would say the opposite. So I tried to dodge bullets on things like that.

Assassin_M
07-11-2014, 11:12 PM
I think you misunderstood me a bit. In AC2, after some events early in the game in Tuscany, Ezio tells Mario that he is ready to carry own his father's work. Giovanni was an assassin. Even though Ezio technically wasn't an assassin, he was well aware early on about the ideals of the assassins and the templar/assassin conflict. Edward only wanted to get to the observatory to get what he wanted. Yes, he changes along the way, but honestly it seemed like he changed all of the sudden towards the end. Edward didn't care about the assassin's motives until the end. Ezio's story was quite a bit different in that respect.
Ezio and Edward were both told of the Assassin and Templar ideals by people who were dear to them and they happened to be Assassins. Ezio referred to the Codex pages when he talked about his father's work not really anything relating to the Assassin Order.
Ezio didn't really care either, he never even believed any of the stories about the pieces of Eden or the codex pages but he just went along with it. Ezio only cared about revenge just as much as Edward cared only about the observatory, money and fame.
I'll give you that Edward's change can feel abrupt.


As far as Connor and GW are concerned, I wanted him to still be in the background, but more associated with GW. Did you see the way they advertised Connor and GW's realtionship before release? They are riding side by side as troops are following on an image in GameInformer. In a commercial Connor signals GW to bring in the troops after he takes down someone. The big reason I would want that is so that when GW is about to raid Connor's territory, there is real depth in the situation because a relationship has been formed.
how can he still be in the background if the relationship was to be like the one in trailer?? He was basically a patriot under the general's command in that commercial. The devs stated numerous times that the commercials and trailers are not completely representative of the story of the game.
for me, the depth of the situation was more about Connor's help for the Patriots in help rather than just for GW.


The historical events could still be present with Connor working in the background. I don't understand how that contradicts. Connor's main focus would be eliminating the Templars pulling the strings in the events anyways. For example, Saratoga was a huge victory for the colonials because it inspired the French to help the colonials. That was a huge event that was left out. The mission could have depicted Connor doing something to give the colonials the advantage. Of course it would have something to do with the Templars. The is also the surprise attack at Trenton. It was one of the famous battles and it couldn't have been any better as a mission for the game. Also it involves GW's famous crossing of the Delaware. There could have been a mission with Connor helping the colonials to escape as well as meeting up with GW to insure that the Hessians are taken by surprise with some sort of infiltration mission. And of course the Benedict Arnold thing would only be ps3 exclusive.

and Connor WAS in the background pulling strings, him not being present for the exact event does not mean he didnt influence it, that's what I meant by contradiction in your post. Connor sent his recruits to Trenton AND he was cutting Templar networks in Boston and NY so in a sense, he WAS working in the background of all of this.



As for you saying that AC1's story was the best, I can honestly agree with you. I personally think it was the best story, but there are so many others who would say the opposite. So I tried to dodge bullets on things like that.
You shouldn't be afraid to say your opinion no matter how little support it gets:)

Megas_Doux
07-11-2014, 11:22 PM
Meh!!!!!

At least Edward knows who the assassins are, Ezio does not have ANY idea until 1488, when he was 29 years old! In fact, Ezio NEVER mentions why, other than revenge of course, the templars have to die.

I will go as far as saying than Edward's speech to Torres shows better understanding of why the templars are dangerous than anything said by Ezio in AC II....

Dan77777777777
07-12-2014, 01:22 AM
I don't know, Ezio just seemed like an assassin by nature. I guess knowing that Edward is out for greed makes him seem less like an assassin then. Of course Ezio has two other games where he is an assassin so I guess that changes the way I perceive Ezio a bit.

As far as AC3 goes with the GW discussion, I never saw where the developers said that the trailers didn't reflect what the game would be. It seems like all the other games weren't like that. In the trailers Connor is acting on his own. He puts a note on a redcoats back while the fighting ensues. In another trailer he charges despite what the rest of the military is doing. Washington looks inspired by Connors bravery in the trailer. It's more of a mutual respect kind of thing rather than Connor being a patriot under command of GW. It's the same idea of how Ezio helps Bartolomeo defeat the French. He wasn't a foot soldier. He was a freelance but he had the same goal. I'm talking about Connor being behind the scenes in battles. Not necessarily 24/7. He can still interact with GW but when it comes time for action he is doing his own thing.

Maybe you and I have a different perception of behind the scenes. Also, wouldn't it be more fun to actually have Connor at Trenton instead of sending recruits. After all those things are only there to level up your assassins.

For the record I completely understand why you would think I'm contradicting myself after going back through my post. But I think it's just how the wording is presented. I had a whole book for a post so that probably didn't help.

ze_topazio
07-12-2014, 02:05 AM
Moral of the story: don't believe in the trailers because they are carefully designed to trick you in to buying the games.

roostersrule2
07-12-2014, 02:07 AM
The only reason Ezio is touted as more of an Assassin is because Edward was a pirate first and foremost. Tbh though I didn't realise Ezio wasn't an Assassin until the Assassins introduced themselves and even then I thought they were Assassins anyway. I didn't think that with Edward though, I wasn't supposed to either but because I didn't then probably most others didn't.

On topic though I agree with your assessment of the series but not your critiques of some of the individual games. If I had to rate the games:

AC1
Story: 7/10
Gameplay: 6/10
Immersion: 9/10
Content: 4/10
Overall: 7/10

AC2
Story: 9/10
Gameplay: 9/10
Immersion: 10/10
Content: 8/10
Overall: 10/10

ACB
Story: 6/10
Gameplay: 9/10
Immersion: 8/10
Content: 10/10
Overall: 8/10

ACR
Story: 9/10
Gameplay: 8/10
Immersion: 9/10
Content: 6/10
Overall: 9/10

AC3
Story: 9/10
Gameplay: 7/10
Immersion: 5/10
Content: 7/10
Overall: 7/10

AC4:
Story: 6/10
Gameplay: 9/10
Immersion: 8/10
Content: 9/10
Overall: 9/10

What I hope for ACU
Story: 9/10
Gameplay: 9.5/10
Immersion: 10/10
Content: 9/10
Overall: 9.5/10

JustPlainQuirky
07-12-2014, 02:19 AM
But...Yves....you should love ALL your games! :rolleyes:

Dan77777777777
07-12-2014, 03:07 AM
That's what I really have a problem with. I'm skeptical now, but when three was advertised I was really excited. It's hard not to be. I understand you shouldn't trust the commercials and trailers but still, those are the only ways of knowing what the game will be like before it's released. It's the point of advertisement in the eyes of the consumer. The game should be as good as it's made out to be. The whole point of this post was to say that I'm tired of the games not being what they are advertised to be. The only reason I keep playing them is out of hope that the next one will be good.

Jexx21
07-12-2014, 03:13 AM
actually Black Flag was pretty much exactly what it was advertised to be

I have trust in them because they haven't made a bad game in the series so far. And if you only play the games in hope that the next one will be good that's not a good reason to play games. You should always be playing games to enjoy them and to focus on the aspects of the game that you enjoy in order to have fun/an enjoyable time.

rickprog
07-12-2014, 03:13 AM
I do believe ACU will be some sort of revival for the series. Not that the last games were horrible or anything, but:

1) It's the first time the three main pillars of the game are getting some mayor upgrades.
2) I believe the setting is phenomenal and having elements like seamless navigation, an almost fully 1:1 scale, up to 5000 NPCs on screen and many more will truly help develop ambientation.

From there it's just a matter of how well Arno's story is told. I admit my hopes are really high, but just by having those two points I stated I know I will be pleased with the final result.

roostersrule2
07-12-2014, 03:16 AM
But...Yves....you should love ALL your games! :rolleyes:Well tbh AC3 is my favourite game of all time cause it gave me lots of monies.

Dan77777777777
07-12-2014, 07:05 AM
You're right. I let my personality get in the way of enjoyment a lot of times. Let me reiterate as I said earlier that all of them are good. It's just I feel like they could have been way better with some minor changes to gameplay elements and the stories. I'm nit-picky on a lot of things so I can't say that my opinion can be valued too well one some things. I simply think each game had good foundations that didn't really carry out as I hoped. I'm a cynic by nature.

Dan77777777777
07-12-2014, 07:07 AM
I'd rank them this way

1. AC1 9.5/10 Completely new/ interesting story
2. AC2 9/10 Polished experience and cities were mind blowing/ another good story
3. AC3 8/10 New combat but it eventually felt the same as previous entries/ story wasn't as focused as the first two
4. AC4 7.5/10 It revitalized things enough to make me want to play it/ story just sucked imo
5. Revelations 7/10 It gave more depth to the brotherhood with recruit missions/ closure about Altair's story was nice but overall the story wasn't the best
6. Brotherhood 6.5/10 the new killstreak made combat a button masher/ I can't decide with AC4's story is this one is the worst

I'm sure a lot of people would never agree with me on this, but after playing through all of them again recently that's how I see it.

Assassin_M
07-12-2014, 07:09 AM
You're right. I let my personality get in the way of enjoyment a lot of times. Let me reiterate as I said earlier that all of them are good. It's just I feel like they could have been way better with some minor changes to gameplay elements and the stories. I'm nit-picky on a lot of things so I can't say that my opinion can be valued too well one some things. I simply think each game had good foundations that didn't really carry out as I hoped. I'm a cynic by nature.
It's okay to be a nitpicker, just like it's okay to not be one. your opinion is valued greatly by everyone since you put it across eloquently and respectfully, just because some of us disagree with you doesn't mean that you're wrong or should change your view--we're just exchanging ideas and views, it's what a forum is about:D

Dan77777777777
07-12-2014, 08:03 AM
It's okay to be a nitpicker, just like it's okay to not be one. your opinion is valued greatly by everyone since you put it across eloquently and respectfully, just because some of us disagree with you doesn't mean that you're wrong or should change your view--we're just exchanging ideas and views, it's what a forum is about:D

Thanks! I'm new to using forums so this helps.

HDinHB
07-12-2014, 09:20 AM
It's okay to be a nitpicker, just like it's okay to not be one. your opinion is valued greatly by everyone since you put it across eloquently and respectfully, just because some of us disagree with you doesn't mean that you're wrong or should change your view--we're just exchanging ideas and views, it's what a forum is about:D

This post should be a sticky.

Fatal-Feit
07-12-2014, 11:32 AM
Since we're playing the rating game, here's mine.

AC:1
Story - 8
Gameplay - 6
Immersion - 6
Content - 7
Opinion - 7

AC:2
Story - 7
Gameplay - 7
Immersion - 7
Content - 8
Opinion - 8

AC:B
Story - 6
Gameplay - 7
Immersion - 7
Content - 8
Opinion - 6

AC:R
Story - 8
Gameplay - 8
Immersion - 7
Content - 8
Opinion - 8

AC:3
Story - 10
Gameplay - 8
Immersion - 8
Content - 7
Opinion - 7

AC:IV
Story - 9
Gameplay - 9
Immersion - 9
Content - 9
Opinion - 9

Dan77777777777
07-13-2014, 08:17 AM
This post should be a sticky.

What does that mean? As you can already see I'm a noob.

Assassin_M
07-13-2014, 08:41 AM
What does that mean? As you can already see I'm a noob.
Don't call yourself a noob, you just don't know...like anybody else who's new to anything:)

a sticky is when you save something (thread, topic, post..etc) at the top of the forum so that it doesn't get lost in the clutter of new topics being created for all to see

Dan77777777777
07-13-2014, 09:27 AM
Don't call yourself a noob, you just don't know...like anybody else who's new to anything:)

a sticky is when you save something (thread, topic, post..etc) at the top of the forum so that it doesn't get lost in the clutter of new topics being created for all to see

Is that something that moderators do?

LoyalACFan
07-13-2014, 09:41 AM
Is that something that moderators do?

Yeah, it's usually only for official announcements and stuff though.

Anyway, OT, I don't think the series needs to be "brought back to life" as you put it. Sure, it's seen ups and downs, but there's never been a truly awful AC game. IMO AC4's story is easily the best and Edward is the most well-rounded protagonist, so I can't agree with your assessment of that game's story, but I think Unity doesn't need to drastically overhaul everything and do a major tonal shift to distance itself from its predecessors (I think that's where we got into trouble with AC3) it just needs to update the things that are broken. Stealth and combat, primarily, and from what I've seen so far they've done a pretty good job of doing that. The only questions now are whether or not it plays as good as it looks, and whether or not they can keep the story good and fresh.

DiazVice1999
07-13-2014, 12:46 PM
For me:

AC1: 8/10
AC2: 10/10
ACB: 10/10
ACR: 9/10
AC3: 7/10
AC4: 8/10

I just hope Unity is like Brotherhood or AC2 ,both awesome games :)