PDA

View Full Version : Assassins Creed Unity Concerns about New Coop Video



Dan77777777777
09-27-2014, 05:07 AM
If you have seen the new trailer detailing coop skills in Unity, then are you worried that the single player experience will be limited by it? It talked about how you can "specialize" in different things that you could already do in the game. For example, it mentioned how one could specialize in parkour and arial attacks while another specializes in combat. I know that the trailer mentioned at the end that you could master new skills after mastering one, but I don't want my first play through of the game to feel limited. There's times in assassins creed that I want to be stealthy, then there are times I want to fight everyone. There are times I want to use a gun, and times I want to use a hidden blade. I want to have options and I don't want to have to play through the game 3 times until I have that versatility. Any thoughts? I hope I'm misinterpreting what the video was saying.

D.I.D.
09-27-2014, 05:11 AM
In other videos, they've explained that you can beat the game without the use of any customisation benefits, and you'll never be in a position where being on the "wrong" branch of customisation will prevent you from being able to complete the level.

It seems as though the advantages will just make certain things much easier, as opposed to making possible an otherwise impossible task.

Dan77777777777
09-27-2014, 05:15 AM
So for example, let's say I focused on stealth like the video said, would I still be able to do like air assassinations, use guns, or anything else in a different field?

D.I.D.
09-27-2014, 05:21 AM
Yes, all of that. It's not clear what exactly makes each branch work better for the player aside from the Health one.

It's crossed my mind that maybe we'll end up using specialisations against our favourite way of playing. For instance, if you're a really good stealth player, why give yourself assistance with that? Perhaps it will make more sense to build up stats on a side of the gameplay that you're not so keen on using, since the game is bound to throw all kinds of situations at you during its run.

Dan77777777777
09-27-2014, 06:31 AM
Alright that makes things sound better. I like the idea of building your own identity, but I didn't want it to be at the expense of gameplay.

VestigialLlama4
09-27-2014, 06:38 AM
The cutscenes are incredibly bothering to me.

Let's start with the accents, the lack of French accents and converting it into posh English upper-class accents really shows its weakness with Napoleon. He's speaking like a plummy Sandhurst Military graduate. You read biographies of Napoleon and one of the things that comes through over-and-over again from people who met him and spoke with him is the fact that he spoke French with a thick Corsican accent and never lost that accent in his entire life. Napoleon used to get teased as a kid for that accent, even getting racist remarks directed at him. It's a major part of who he was and why his rise to power was as shocking. Napoleon only got his career started because of the Revolution's insistence on meritocracy. Ideally they should have him speak with an Italian-sounding accent maybe get Roger Craig Smith to do it.

Then we have Danton, who when he opens his mouth speaks in a squeaky voice, in real-life he had a deep, booming voice. Here he sounds really whiny. Then there's the fact that he goes to the guillotine dressed in his full render when the real-life guy, like ALL guillotine prisoners, would be wearing white, have his hair cut just below the neck and no one prisoner, political, royal, social, aristocratic would get special treatment and favour.

And don't get me started on Robespierre standing on the street cooling his heels as Danton shouts at him. That didn't happen, ever. Robespierre's appearance likewise is based on a factually dubious facial reconstruction of his face that was debunked by scholars but Ubisoft went with that anyway. And he doesn't have his sea-green eyes or dark green glasses.

I mean these are tiny details but it shows an incredible lack of care and attention by these guys. I am thinking a usual slapdash approach to history a la III is in order. The main problem with Revolutionary settings is that you have to take a political standpoint and the French Revolution is still highly contested territory even today so Ubisoft's approach won't work, they'd be better off at taking big events like the Renaissance where it's more a cultural thing than political thing.

naumaan
09-27-2014, 07:05 AM
The cutscenes are incredibly bothering to me.

Let's start with the accents, the lack of French accents and converting it into posh English upper-class accents really shows its weakness with Napoleon. He's speaking like a plummy Sandhurst Military graduate. You read biographies of Napoleon and one of the things that comes through over-and-over again from people who met him and spoke with him is the fact that he spoke French with a thick Corsican accent and never lost that accent in his entire life. Napoleon used to get teased as a kid for that accent, even getting racist remarks directed at him. It's a major part of who he was and why his rise to power was as shocking. Napoleon only got his career started because of the Revolution's insistence on meritocracy. Ideally they should have him speak with an Italian-sounding accent maybe get Roger Craig Smith to do it.

Then we have Danton, who when he opens his mouth speaks in a squeaky voice, in real-life he had a deep, booming voice. Here he sounds really whiny. Then there's the fact that he goes to the guillotine dressed in his full render when the real-life guy, like ALL guillotine prisoners, would be wearing white, have his hair cut just below the neck and no one prisoner, political, royal, social, aristocratic would get special treatment and favour.

And don't get me started on Robespierre standing on the street cooling his heels as Danton shouts at him. That didn't happen, ever. Robespierre's appearance likewise is based on a factually dubious facial reconstruction of his face that was debunked by scholars but Ubisoft went with that anyway. And he doesn't have his sea-green eyes or dark green glasses.

I mean these are tiny details but it shows an incredible lack of care and attention by these guys. I am thinking a usual slapdash approach to history a la III is in order. The main problem with Revolutionary settings is that you have to take a political standpoint and the French Revolution is still highly contested territory even today so Ubisoft's approach won't work, they'd be better off at taking big events like the Renaissance where it's more a cultural thing than political thing.

that was way more interesting post than other posts, thanks for that, when ac3 came out, there were some comments like this too,

i am not gonna oppose any of what you said as I am not aware of the real history as it was, i m gonna be exposed to it in the game for the first time, but still the question i m gonna ask is, how would you know what happened, were you there? .. surely you have read it all or listened to the story from someone or it is been taugh in the way, well it would be alright but the mere fact of including assassins and templars and giving the history a new look is not in the books and the stories.

History is a playground for artist which we never got exposed to, they can write it in whatever way they want, whereas in renaissance, the history mentioned was 3 centuries earlier than what is shown in ac3 and acu ... well there can be mis interpretations, but you gotta give them a break, you cant expect a company to show everything right .. after all you are still not going to miss the game anyways ..

VestigialLlama4
09-27-2014, 08:48 AM
that was way more interesting post than other posts, thanks for that, when ac3 came out, there were some comments like this too,

i am not gonna oppose any of what you said as I am not aware of the real history as it was, i m gonna be exposed to it in the game for the first time, but still the question i m gonna ask is, how would you know what happened, were you there? .. surely you have read it all or listened to the story from someone or it is been taugh in the way, well it would be alright but the mere fact of including assassins and templars and giving the history a new look is not in the books and the stories.

History is a playground for artist which we never got exposed to, they can write it in whatever way they want, whereas in renaissance, the history mentioned was 3 centuries earlier than what is shown in ac3 and acu ... well there can be mis interpretations, but you gotta give them a break, you cant expect a company to show everything right .. after all you are still not going to miss the game anyways ..

Okay, I wasn't actually in France in the 1790s but neither were Ubisoft. They have to rely on the same sources of documentation that is widely used, and the consensus formed from reading several pieces of information matches these details and is widely accessible as such. It's pretty much the only way we all have access to History.

I get all the bits about Artistic License but see, I didn't mind Ezio beating Pope Alexander to a fistfight it was great fun, because I respected the fact that the Sistine Chapel does not have Michelangelo's Sistine Fresco on the Ceiling. Likewise they showed Leonardo as this young handsome man and not the popular image from the bearded, bald old-guy from the drawing. It was this kind of earlier series tradition of getting details right that irritated me when they showed the absence of the same here, I mean these kind of things would add texture.