PDA

View Full Version : Why do players hate Modern-Day/Animus sections?



RyanMcleod
11-11-2014, 10:55 PM
The modern day story is what connects the series - so why do players hate it?

I was disappointed that it took a major backseat in BF, and supposedly its almost non-existent in Unity from what reviews id read thus far (hence why i will not be purchasing unity)

Ubisoft have removed these sections due to player feedback, but WHY do people dislike the modern era? Do they dislike narrative and conxtext?

Interested on peoples thoughts

LoyalACFan
11-11-2014, 11:18 PM
Because in the past, it's led to nothing but disappointment? Because the modern gameplay has always been awful? Because they've strung us along for seven years with no resolution in sight and we're all losing interest?

A disjointed meta-story does not "context" make. There's no need to have a modern story for the historical story to be meaningful, unless your entire definition of "meaningful" is just "how it ties into the sequel." Desmond's dead, we now have no compelling reason to continue on with the "Abstergo" plot anymore (not that I ever found Desmond particularly compelling). The developers really can't win with the modern plot anymore; tons of people hate it so they can't invest too much time and money into making it, but they can't axe it completely because many of the most loyal, long-term fans (like you) would be devastated. So we're stuck with this weird, halfassed modern day that neither the MD fans or haters like.

king-hailz
11-11-2014, 11:35 PM
The why don't they make it good! Why not spend a little extra time on something that will stop the divided views. Why not create a great modern day story that is fun to play!

This will undivide the views and make everyone like every aspect of the game!

It's so fu*king simple!

Nuartey
11-11-2014, 11:37 PM
The modern day story is what connects the series - so why do players hate it?

I was disappointed that it took a major backseat in BF, and supposedly its almost non-existent in Unity from what reviews id read thus far (hence why i will not be purchasing unity)

Ubisoft have removed these sections due to player feedback, but WHY do people dislike the modern era? Do they dislike narrative and conxtext?

Interested on peoples thoughts

I loved the modern day sequences, not for the game play but for the story but it became sparse just as it started to get interesting! Desmond killing Lucy left me salivating for more and they never really dealt with it. Then they killed off Desmond which destroyed the overarching narrative completely. I always thought that the very last game we would be playing as Desmond in a modern day setting but it was not to be. With his death, Ubisoft wrote themselves into a corner so now Juno is just hanging about waiting for more artefacts to make her become whole again. They should find a way to bring Desmond and Lucy back.

LoyalACFan
11-11-2014, 11:44 PM
The why don't they make it good! Why not spend a little extra time on something that will stop the divided views. Why not create a great modern day story that is fun to play!

This will undivide the views and make everyone like every aspect of the game!

It's so fu*king simple!

No, it's not "so f**king simple," champ. Because A.) making it "good" is extremely subjective when a lot of people want the game to be purely historical, and B.) it takes a lot of time and money to create all-new assets for both the historical and modern segments. What you're asking for is essentially making two games in one, and one of the two is only going to be appreciated by a small sliver of the fanbase. It just isn't worth the investment.

Fatal-Feit
11-11-2014, 11:48 PM
Because in the past, it's led to nothing but disappointment? Because the modern gameplay has always been awful? Because they've strung us along for seven years with no resolution in sight and we're all losing interest?

A disjointed meta-story does not "context" make. There's no need to have a modern story for the historical story to be meaningful, unless your entire definition of "meaningful" is just "how it ties into the sequel." Desmond's dead, we now have no compelling reason to continue on with the "Abstergo" plot anymore (not that I ever found Desmond particularly compelling). The developers really can't win with the modern plot anymore; tons of people hate it so they can't invest too much time and money into making it, but they can't axe it completely because many of the most loyal, long-term fans (like you) would be devastated. So we're stuck with this weird, halfassed modern day that neither the MD fans or haters like.

^ This.

Although, I like the MD now.

Namikaze_17
11-12-2014, 12:08 AM
I never hated MD...

Even now I'm more tolerant of it. I just laugh at the hate/dislike it gets from some members here like Initiates. :rolleyes:

But it could be better...like really better.

Rugterwyper32
11-12-2014, 12:10 AM
Frankly? It hasn't ever really been all that important to me. I jumped into the series because of the historical part, but I frankly found modern day interesting in the original because I saw something clever there: It was a nice framing device! The HUD actually made sense to have around, not being able to go to some places was better than the system I knew from Oblivion at the time of "You cannot go further than here, turn back", and it introduced some intriguing mysteries, so I found that enjoyable enough to deal with it no problem. Then came AC2 and decided "Hey, what if we go even more sci-fi!" and added that last scene. I pinpointed the exact moment, right there, that I knew modern day could only turn into a disaster. We all know how that went. AC4 however took a route I more or less enjoyed: It was minimalistic again yet it had enough mystery to make it compelling and worth going through. Not only was it more enjoyable than anything since AC1, it actually kept my interest and my only problem was that TWCB were still around. Frankly, I feel modern day does better by feeling as if you're stuck in the middle of something much bigger and you can only have an idea as to what's going on because you can see what happened in the past. The "Destiny child" stuff with Desmond frankly got on my nerves the moment it was introduced. But even then, it's frankly not all that important to me, I've always been more interested in seeing how the assassin-templar war has developed through various time periods and locations rather than "The world is gonna end in 2012 let's stop it!" and now "An angry god-like being is roaming free and templars are trying to take over the world still"! Modern day could've just not existed from the get-go and I'd still be playing this series.

Beyond that, making a proper modern day situation would be pretty much a different game altogether (and the closest we've gotten so far is a few mediocre missions) and even if you put a resolution to the TWCB stuff, it's pretty clear the Assassin-Templar war won't stop and they'll be hunting POEs for no reason other than they can try and finish off each other with them until the end of time. I'd say it'd be great if they could do away with it, but it's something so iconic to the series that they're kinda stuck with it.

Codarsnacht
11-12-2014, 12:19 AM
I've always loved MD since the original AC but with recent games, Ubisoft are doing a great job of making it unlikeable. It's clear they don't know where they're going with it. There is absolutely no flow, no direction, no meaning. That's what gets me most - there's absolutely no reason as to why it should exist anymore. They've stripped it back way past its function.

There was a time when I was more than excited when a sequence ended - it meant a slice of juicy MD was coming up. For a while, I played for MD. That was back during Brotherhood and then during AC3 and AC4. Now, though, I'm learning to enjoy the Animus session more because in AC4 i started to learn that MD is on its way out, though I hope I'm wrong. I hope with the next AC they can find a way to tie it together again. I hope. But I don't think that'll ever happen.

EDIT:

How I think Ubisoft can fix MD:
Get rid of the attempt at "breaking the 4th wall" or whatever they're calling the "player as the protagonist" thing. It's not working. It's never going to work. Well, maybe it WOULD work if the "me"'s are actually one "me." I completely understand WHY we are the protagonist - in the animus we are someone else, and since MD is supposed to be set right now, it makes sense that WE are the protagonist. But it doesn't work when we are an abstergo emplyee. I am not an abstergo employee and never will be. By doing that, they are contradicting everything they want MD to be. If they want us to be us, then let us be us - as we are in Unity I believe. However, it still doesn't work when the work we're doing as ourselves amounts to nothing. If that makes any sense?

Overall, I think a 3rd person protagonist needs to return. Desperately. Ubisoft are digging too deep into the current mess that is MD and they need to back-track to the original formula. It is the safest option, and the option, I feel, that will most work.

ShoryukenMan
11-12-2014, 01:12 AM
I've always liked the MD. It's actually the part I was always looking forward to the most.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-12-2014, 01:18 AM
I appreciate them because they give you an itch to go back.
I dont think ac would be as addictive without them.
They are a commercial break..thats why people hate them..
Id much rather just get cutscenes.. but i like the forced slow down

Dev_Anj
11-12-2014, 01:32 AM
The modern day has always been a framing device, and nothing more than that. Thing is, it's been going out of control with every game. In AC 1, you just had to walk between your bed and machine, and occasionally read some emails. In AC 2, they put in a escape sequence that had nothing much in terms of storytelling, followed by an interlude which was just freerunning in one modern environment, followed by another escape sequence in the end. AC: B had one long platforming sequence which again, just had a lot of casual talk, a sequence that went through a modern day town with nothing to do, another long platforming sequence in the end. AC: R had just some talks from the outside world, and some puzzle missions I never played, but which I heard were too simplistic. AC: 3 had some freerunning sections with no storytelling, and three main sequences, one being a platforming sequence, one being a stealth sequence that was incredibly scripted and had goofy indicators and guards fighting like 18th century soldiers, and the last being a combat sequence with more guards fighting like soldiers from other time periods. AC 4 has you wandering around and checking computers, with some sequences taking you to other places.

In short, the modern day was never really an important part of the game. It was just a framing device that got more and more convoluted when they tried to expand it to a story, and still give good reasons for the characters to enter the machine. It'd be better if they revamp the modern day totally or drop it.

PedroAntonio2
11-12-2014, 01:55 AM
For me Modern-Day sections were always better than the Animus' storyline. It's a shame Ubisoft screwed everything up just to please casual gamers.

Dev_Anj
11-12-2014, 02:08 AM
It's a shame Ubisoft screwed everything up just to please casual gamers.

Or you mean people who don't like to sit through missions with paper thin storytelling and characters in small modern day environments, with gameplay identical to that of the historical sections.

Thing is, I used to have some interest in the modern day story of AC. Back in AC 1, I was reading the emails and thought that there'd be more to the story and maybe the conspiracy that got Desmond into the organization as a prisoner would be deeper. But from AC 2 onwards, they decided to ignore making any story out of that, and instead they started using the machine as a "training" exercise, which was laughable considering how the previous subject had gone insane by being in the machine for too long. In the end, it was again changed to being about some sort of otherworldly connection which was never explained, and finding some MC Guffins to save the world from a Templar satellite launch, but also apparently a solar flare. After that, I stopped paying much attention as it was apparent that they were teasing stuff with no way to actually explain it well. That's not even talking about how the writing in Ubisoft games is flawed.

PedroAntonio2
11-12-2014, 02:17 AM
This is Ubisoft fault for making this sections boring, because the story always had potential...the modern day sections should be like Splinter Cell, with Stealth missions where you need to infiltrate a enemy's base to locate a target or intel, it would be way better than just getting out of the machine to talk with some other Assassin.

D.I.D.
11-12-2014, 02:27 AM
I don't dislike the idea of the modern era. It was quite intriguing at first. However, they introduced two ends to it: the present day, and its links to the precursor race. Both were made bad in various ways.

The modern side made early promises to tie these mysterious ancient beings to paranormal myths of our time (the "Philadelphia experiment", etc), and presented an alternative present in which their present day wasn't quite like ours. They had a deadly disaster in Africa causing massive amounts of death, armed warfare on the streets outside Abstergo, the verge of international crisis. This was then walked back and forgotten, and we got something even more intriguing to me: a strong narrative connection between the fiction and real world politicians and events. This was politically controversial, and again the company got jitters and shelved it. The Abstergo/Ubisoft joke in AC4 was a nice attempt to reframe the modern day yet again, but it was hard for people to warm to a replacement theme to a replacement theme. There's also no continuity in characters that we had been told were important - Rebecca and Shaun have been radically redesigned twice in two games. There are too many things that are no longer recognisable.

Then there's the precursor race. Again, an interesting concept at first, especially when the connection was made that the gods of ancient Rome might be legends born of their echoing messages, and maybe the gods of other cultures too. Again, this was never explored further. Instead we have this very stereotypical advanced creator race, who wear weird robes and improbably tall hats for some reason, and glow and talk in riddles. The backstory we were eventually given flies in the face of the geological record and the history of evolution, and didn't earn it by giving us anything brilliant as a fiction to replace those things. We got a flashback to a First Civ city, which was the most clichéd sci-fi city populated by the most clichéd utopian society wearing the most clichéd Star Trek clothes. It looked like a Ron L. Hubbard shopping mall.

There were so many interesting possibilities floating around at one time. I'd wondered if perhaps the story would be one where human history is a loop - we become technologically advanced, we build robots, then we build organic robots just like us, then our technology becomes so advanced that it runs itself and we don't know how it works, then society goes out of control, and just as we see a calamity coming we realise we're unable to do anything about it, and leave messages for the survivors to hear in the future. But there's nothing like that - it's just that Juno wants to rule a world for some reason even though it's populated by creatures she despises, and.. that's it.

The main reason to not enjoy the modern day story is that it simply never pays off, and it becomes more clear that it's intended that it never pays off. How do you get people to care about that? For a comic book style of saga that's going to go on forever, you need the comics industry's techniques - for example, Paul Levitz's "Levitz Paradigm", where a story is scheduled with overlapping chunks of story like bricks in a wall. You get a plot that never ends, but it contains many plot endings within it.

pirate1802
11-12-2014, 09:05 AM
It's a shame Ubisoft screwed everything up just to please casual gamers.

So people become casuals for not liking the modern day? Good to know!


This is Ubisoft fault for making this sections boring, because the story always had potential...

Sorry, no.. this is an old play. We have a saying here in our lands, that a dancer who doesn't know how to dance; blames the floor for his misfortunes. You're doing the exact thing. There are stories which are boring due to the writer's fault, and then there are stories that even jesus himself couldn't liven up. Modern day crapfest is the later one.


the modern day sections should be like Splinter Cell, with Stealth missions where you need to infiltrate a enemy's base to locate a target or intel, it would be way better than just getting out of the machine to talk with some other Assassin.

In other words, just like other 9000 modern stealth games out there. Okay, let's indulge this a bit more, since I see a lot of people saying it's so easy!!!! without having any idea. Do you realize how much work would that involve? Do you realize the AI, combat, virtually everything would need to be different? Because.. and please don't tell me you were one of those people who liked AC3's 'MD'.. watching modern security guards fight with techniques of an eighteenth-century soldier is hilariously tear-inducing.

there are problems which are caused by Ubisoft's annualization, and there are problems that are inherently there. One of them is when people want the framing device to become a self-sustaining story in its own rights, to rival the actual story.

@ OP: Modern day is just a framing device. Like an old man retelling a story, or the hero experiencing a flashback or reading someone's diary: a way to frame/start/end the story. It's a good one, I'd admit that, but it's just that. And like all framing devices, it's natural to feel like it's a filler and want to get into the actual story (in AC's case, the historical part), so there you are. The problem is this framing device became too complex for its own good and now people want it to be a self-contained story in itself. Now that Ubisoft is sweeping it back towards what it was originally intended (just a framing device), naturally, people are angry.

CoachAssassin
11-12-2014, 09:10 AM
Because it requires time and thought to understand. Only real ac fans will enjoy MD, not saying there aren't real AC fans that don't enjoy MD. For most casual gamers/ gamers that are going to buy Unity just because it's a major release and they can kill with a sword instead of ragekilling on a FPS, it's too complicated. They don't enjoy the storyline, they enjoy the missions where you can be an epic assassin and do epic assassin stuff. MD is something thats completely irrelevant gameplay wise, which is why most people would rather skip it. Hell, give them a useable character who can freeroam a city and hack into **** and kill cops and they will actually accept modern day (Watch_Dogs) >_>.

pirate1802
11-12-2014, 09:43 AM
Or... maybe they do care about the storyline, but the one inside the animus and not outside? It's funny how when MD'ers talk about story they pretend that it's the only storyline that exists within an AC game. Someone doesn't like MD? Oh he must be someone who doesn't enjoy stories in videogames. Nevermind that he might be invested in Ezio, Altair etc's stories. Also this trick of identifying people who dislike MD as the more 'new' entrants of the franchise doesn't work, once you realize there have been people on these very forums who've been following AC since AC1 and still dislike the MD, me being one of them. But then, me wight not be 'real' fans afterall. :rolleyes:

Btw, modern day doesn't require any significant amount of time or effort to understand. It is filled with oft-used tropes and cliches that anyone even vaguely familiar with modern movies/literature would immediately recognize.

CoachAssassin
11-12-2014, 09:49 AM
Or... maybe they do care about the storyline, but the one inside the animus and not outside? It's funny how when MD'ers talk about story they pretend that it's the only storyline that exists within an AC game. Someone doesn't like MD? Oh he must be someone who doesn't enjoy stories in videogames. Nevermind that he might be invested in Ezio, Altair etc's stories. Also this trick of identifying people who dislike MD as the more 'new' entrants of the franchise doesn't work, once you realize there have been people on these very forums who've been following AC since AC1 and still dislike the MD, me being one of them. But then, me wight not be 'real' fans afterall. :rolleyes:

Btw, modern day doesn't require any significant amount of time or effort to understand. It is filled with oft-used tropes and cliches that anyone even vaguely familiar with modern movies/literature would immediately recognize.

If you would have taken the time to read my comment you could have read that I'm saying there are real AC fans that do not enjoy MD. I'm in the middle of it actually, I enjoy both equally. But what you are saying is kinda ********, MD requires significant amounts of time or effort for a new player to understand and fully get. There's way too much information being thrown around. To someone who didn't know Daniel Cross, the whole AC3 ending thing was less interesting. Someone who didn't know who Otso Berg was had less value with AC Rogues MD etc etc. MD up to Rogue, has had some serious story consequences, but it seems that the MD haters/casuals have finally won.

pirate1802
11-12-2014, 10:06 AM
You said 'only' real fans like MD but then added that doesn't mean that those who don't like it aren't real fans. Dafuq does that even mean? Only real horses eat grass but I'm not saying who doesn't eat grass aren't horses :) (even if what I said just before imply just that) ?

regarding the Daniel Cross situation, you are confusing the lack of availability vs lack of effort. Many people didn't get Cross's part because many didn't know about the comics. Once they would come to know, you think it'd require a shakespearian grasp on language to understand Cross's part? Nope! A ten year old can understand it, if he has the comics. Same with the other so-called details (like Berg etc.) Effort vs availability. MD doesn't need a herculean effort to understand, like I said, its basic premise is quite simple. It's just that it is very fragmented, intentionally. And so people miss some points, occasionally, which might make it look like the person wasn't 'smart' enough to understand the Mycenaean maze that is MD apparently, but the truth is quite different.

SpiritMuse
11-12-2014, 11:10 AM
I think the biggest problem with MD is that it isn't advertised, or even really mentioned by Ubi outside of the games. So you have all these people coming in to AC expecting a cool historical stealth assassin game getting suddenly blindsided by all this other weird stuff that doesn't necessarily interest or make sense to them.

Personally I found it a pleasant surprise, but I can imagine people might not.

andrew_m50
11-12-2014, 11:12 AM
Without MD the original AC concept would be meaningless.
What is MD's purpose? The templars' claim for highly advanced artifacts, to know more about First Civ, to create their DNA, the new world order, etc.

Without the above mentioned keypoints what would AC be? Nothing more than simple historical games without connections. Historical games with 2 organizations which wouldn't have secrets, purposes.

pirate1802
11-12-2014, 11:18 AM
Without MD the original AC concept would be meaningless.

Nope.


What is MD's purpose? The templars' claim for highly advanced artifacts, to know more about First Civ, to create their DNA, etc.

Or to provide bookends for the historical story :)


Without the above mentioned keypoints what would AC be? Nothing more than simple historical games without connections. Historical games with 2 organizations which wouldn't have secrets, purposes.

Lol why? templars have been trying these tricks for ages, not just modern times. And there's nothing simple about a historical game. Try counting the last five historical games you played that was not a strategy game or not an AC. It is perfectly possible to have an intriguing ACesque historical story without shoehorning modern day segments in.

andrew_m50
11-12-2014, 11:52 AM
Lol why? templars have been trying these tricks for ages, not just modern times. And there's nothing simple about a historical game. Try counting the last five historical games you played that was not a strategy game or not an AC. It is perfectly possible to have an intriguing ACesque historical story without shoehorning modern day segments in.

But we are talking about AC.

How did Al Mualim want to gain power in AC1? With a Piece of Eden.
How could Rodrigo Borgia be a pope and try to access the Vatican Vault? With a (actually 2) PoE.
What was Haytham's purpose? To gain access to the Grand Temple...with a PoE.
What was Laureano's aim? To know what their enemies do...with the help of the Observatory..and a PoE.

I don't know what Unity's story is about because I haven't played it yet, but I know that there is the Sword of Eden. I think it will be important for the french templars and assasins as well.

You can see, these supernatural elements are which lift AC from a simple historical game series. These are the secrects which the templars and assassins are after in any time period.

Nuartey
11-12-2014, 12:02 PM
Without MD the original AC concept would be meaningless.
What is MD's purpose? The templars' claim for highly advanced artifacts, to know more about First Civ, to create their DNA, the new world order, etc.

Without the above mentioned keypoints what would AC be? Nothing more than simple historical games without connections. Historical games with 2 organizations which wouldn't have secrets, purposes.

Not only that there'd be no point of the animus itself and all these excuses about accent translation would be out the window. The modern day story grounds and contextualises the self contained narrative.

pirate1802
11-12-2014, 12:15 PM
But we are talking about AC.

How did Al Mualim want to gain power in AC1? With a Piece of Eden.
How could Rodrigo Borgia be a pope and try to access the Vatican Vault? With a (actually 2) PoE.
What was Haytham's purpose? To gain access to the Grand Temple...with a PoE.
What was Laureano's aim? To know what their enemies do...with the help of the Observatory..and a PoE.

I don't know what Unity's story is about because I haven't played it yet, but I know that there is the Sword of Eden. I think it will be important for the french templars and assasins as well.

You can see, these supernatural elements are which lift AC from a simple historical game series. These are the secrects which the templars and assassins are after in any time period.

And how do all these things suddenly become meaningless if we dont have a significant MD portion? That's what I'm saying, there are conspiracies and Scifi stuff in every era. They don't become nil if there isn't a modern day story to connect them to present.


Not only that there'd be no point of the animus itself and all these excuses about accent translation would be out the window. The modern day story grounds and contextualises the self contained narrative.

And they can always invent new excuses and framing devices. Did Gladiator have an Animus? hmm.. wonder why the characters weren't speaking ancient latin. Mass Effect doesn't have an animus either, still aliens speak english. Excuses galore. Animus certainly isn't indispensable. It's like saying the game of thrones stories wouldn't exist if dragons didn't exist. Ofcourse it would, just with some other changes and incarnations.

EmbodyingSeven5
11-12-2014, 12:45 PM
I love MD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! (from AC 2 and brotherhood)

EmbodyingSeven5
11-12-2014, 12:46 PM
And how do all these things suddenly become meaningless if we dont have a significant MD portion? That's what I'm saying, there are conspiracies and Scifi stuff in every era. They don't become nil if there isn't a modern day story to connect them to present.



Mass Effect doesn't have an animus either, still aliens speak english..
that's because all characters have language translators. Shepard mentions it in 2

andrew_m50
11-12-2014, 01:07 PM
And how do all these things suddenly become meaningless if we dont have a significant MD portion? That's what I'm saying, there are conspiracies and Scifi stuff in every era. They don't become nil if there isn't a modern day story to connect them to present.


That's true, they could be in the games without MD part. I'm just trying say that if AC had been planned without MD originally, all these supernatural stuff would have been left out I think. Those wouldn't have been needed in order to create a simple historical game with 2 mystic organizations. And that's why MD is essential. Because of the basic idea of AC.

pirate1802
11-12-2014, 01:13 PM
that's because all characters have language translators. Shepard mentions it in 2

lul. And do their language translators also translate their lip synchings? Come on. It's an excuse, you're not meant to look deeply into it. The actual reason is because this game was made by english-speaking people for english-understanding people. Same reason why almost all period movies are in modern languages and not in ancient latin or greek.


That's true, they could be in the games without MD part. I'm just trying say that if AC had been planned without MD originally, all these supernatural stuff would have been left out I think. Those wouldn't have been needed in order to create a simple historical game with 2 mystic organizations. And that's why MD is essential. Because of the basic idea of AC.

MD =/= supernatural stuff. One can exist without the other.

LaMOi
11-12-2014, 01:26 PM
Because in the past, it's led to nothing but disappointment? Because the modern gameplay has always been awful? Because they've strung us along for seven years with no resolution in sight and we're all losing interest?

A disjointed meta-story does not "context" make. There's no need to have a modern story for the historical story to be meaningful, unless your entire definition of "meaningful" is just "how it ties into the sequel." Desmond's dead, we now have no compelling reason to continue on with the "Abstergo" plot anymore (not that I ever found Desmond particularly compelling). The developers really can't win with the modern plot anymore; tons of people hate it so they can't invest too much time and money into making it, but they can't axe it completely because many of the most loyal, long-term fans (like you) would be devastated. So we're stuck with this weird, halfassed modern day that neither the MD fans or haters like.


couldn't of said it better myself.... Personally I think adventures through history is good enough without Ubisofts pseudo matrix animus crap.... I loathe the modern day segments, the whole time your sitting there thinking "yea yea, let me get back to the good stuff" !! I mean pacing is not interspersing good stuff with boring bits.....


Thank goodness Ubisoft are finally listening.... Assassins creed has never been a series that's been quick to catch on what it got right and what it didn't ....

Ubisoft have almost blindly stuck to some game mechanics that simply didn't work or badly needed updating! The linear hand holding gameplay, stray too far "desynchronisation" .... Not being able to crouch .... The social stealth worked to a point but made things feel limited...

CoachAssassin
11-12-2014, 01:30 PM
You said 'only' real fans like MD but then added that doesn't mean that those who don't like it aren't real fans. Dafuq does that even mean? Only real horses eat grass but I'm not saying who doesn't eat grass aren't horses :) (even if what I said just before imply just that) ?

regarding the Daniel Cross situation, you are confusing the lack of availability vs lack of effort. Many people didn't get Cross's part because many didn't know about the comics. Once they would come to know, you think it'd require a shakespearian grasp on language to understand Cross's part? Nope! A ten year old can understand it, if he has the comics. Same with the other so-called details (like Berg etc.) Effort vs availability. MD doesn't need a herculean effort to understand, like I said, its basic premise is quite simple. It's just that it is very fragmented, intentionally. And so people miss some points, occasionally, which might make it look like the person wasn't 'smart' enough to understand the Mycenaean maze that is MD apparently, but the truth is quite different.

See of it this way. You have 2 groups. group 1 are ''real ac fans'' and group 2 are casuals/general gamers. Group 1 contains people that love MD and people that don't. Group 2 contains only people that don't love MD.

As a casual you can't love MD, because loving MD and knowing what its about will cost time (not to mention initiates etc..) turning you into a group 1 member.

So yes, only real AC fans could love MD, and there are real AC fans that don't love it, simple as that ;o.

pirate1802
11-12-2014, 01:34 PM
Then you should drop the 'only' from that sentence. I could go on and explain why but that'd involve venn diagrams and tautologies, you'll probably be bored long before. :p

CoachAssassin
11-12-2014, 01:38 PM
Then you should drop the 'only' from that sentence. I could go on and explain why but that'd involve venn diagrams and tautologies, you'll probably be bored long before. :p

yeah lets avoid that :p. Anyways glad that we now both understand eachother. Agree to disagree?

ArabianFrost
11-12-2014, 04:03 PM
Objectively speaking, regardless of the modern day plot, the sci-fi stuff a good-ish tool to tie the different timelines and assassins together to create the amazing sense of "connected universe" between all the different assassins. Do we need the modern day plot to justify it? I don't think so, but the game has been constructed in a way that makes the first civ stuff only have a significant effect in the modern day plot. Hell, the whole 2012 disaster could have been in 1850 for example and we'd play as a victorian assassin or something. All of the sci-fi plot could have been entirely historical but they chose to tie it to the animus instead, which was interesting at first, but was badly managed later.

Do we need the sci-fi stuff? Well, if we didn't, then first things first, we wouldn't have anything to tie the assassins together. They would just be "the disconnected chronicles of guys in robes stabbing people in different times". The games probably would not have a major arc. They'd be sort of like AC1 and AC3 where you intervene in historical events and the game ends when they do. The political conspiracy aspect of the game would have to play a more major role in the game to replace the sci-fI searches for ze first civ shiz. It sounds good, but I can't accept it for the life of me. AC is a sci-fi historical game. Modern day or not, the whole sci-fi aspect is what makes it different from any other historical game. Maybe 1666 could have filled the gap for the more politics-focused game, but I would not accept it on my AC. It would be too weird.

Harry A Tuttle
07-24-2015, 10:17 PM
Seriously, I'm shocked that the stupid animus is still in these games, I was sure they would have figured out how hated and lame it is by now. Adds nothing to the game. I just want it to be over. If they'd let you go postal and kill the entire office it might be worth it, but other than that just do away with this ****. I can't believe someone thought it would be a good idea to take you out of a great adventure and put you in some ******* office that someone escorts you slowly around that you can't just exit out of. What the hell were they thinking?

THE ANIMUS IS IDIOTIC!

killerman_2012
07-25-2015, 04:42 AM
A "fan" who doesn't like the MD, is not a real AC fan.

MD is the main connection of all AC games. If you remove it, AC doesn't have any sense.

Hans684
07-25-2015, 08:10 AM
It's everything about AC, relive memories to accomplish something in MD(except Unity). History & the First Civ. will become pointless without as there would be no reason to relive the ancestors life as we'd accomplish nothing with the memories(like Unity). The First Civ. would just be there because it's part of the lore but wouldn't move the story forward(like Unity). History itself would be a waste of time since we wouldn't accomplish something and the reason to relive the memories would be gone(like Unity). So what you say is true, if you don't give a **** about the story.

SixKeys
07-25-2015, 09:01 AM
A "fan" who doesn't like the MD, is not a real AC fan.

MD is the main connection of all AC games. If you remove it, AC doesn't have any sense.

Let's not start with the "true fan" nonsense. Everyone likes the series for their own reasons, not everyone is going to agree on everything.

ninja4hire10
07-25-2015, 04:02 PM
Let's not start with the "true fan" nonsense. Everyone likes the series for their own reasons, not everyone is going to agree on everything.


^^^Truth.

While I don't hate MD, it's my least favorite part of the games, no doubt. It's a decent concept, at least in terms of Black Flag's MD, which I thought was kinda clever. The root of the problem for me though is/was Desmond -- a half a box of Triscuits would've been more interesting and tolerable. If the new MD protag rumors are true for Syndicate my mind might be changed.

That said, by "modern day" I mean the Animus; I never, ever, ever ("ever" infinity) want a fully-fleshed AC modern day game with the protag running around a modern city, neck-stabbing Uzi-armed guards decked out in Kevlar vests and whatnot.

That happens, I'm done.

dxsxhxcx
07-25-2015, 05:01 PM
It's everything about AC, relive memories to accomplish something in MD(except Unity). History & the First Civ. will become pointless without as there would be no reason to relive the ancestors life as we'd accomplish nothing with the memories(like Unity). The First Civ. would just be there because it's part of the lore but wouldn't move the story forward(like Unity). History itself would be a waste of time since we wouldn't accomplish something and the reason to relive the memories would be gone(like Unity). So what you say is true, if you don't give a **** about the story.

I disagree that history and First Civ. would become pointless without MD, because they don't need the MD to justify their existence, the ancestor's actions weren't dictated by the Modern Days, it's the other way around.

The thing is that people EXPECT to have a reason to do that, because there still is an ongoing plot happening during the Modern Days and they expect answers, but once this plot (Juno) is dealt with, if they just release a game as an Abstergo Entertainment product as a way to justify the HUD elements, IMO the ancestor' story wouldn't make more or less sense than it already does...

killerman_2012
07-25-2015, 09:13 PM
Let's not start with the "true fan" nonsense. Everyone likes the series for their own reasons, not everyone is going to agree on everything.

I wrote that because if someone doesn't like the original concept of AC series (reliving ancestors memories to achieve a goal in the present day), it means he/she really doesn't like AC at all. If you want to change parts of something, it means you really don't love it as it is.

Hans684
07-25-2015, 09:18 PM
I disagree that history and First Civ. would become pointless without MD, because they don't need the MD to justify their existence, the ancestor's actions weren't dictated by the Modern Days, it's the other way around.

In MD we look trough the memories of X to find Y related to the First Civ. It's not about justifying going back, it's the overall story is about. The First Civ. impacted history and we relive history to find exactly what First Civ. stuff that's there.


The thing is that people EXPECT to have a reason to do that, because there still is an ongoing plot happening during the Modern Days and they expect answers, but once this plot (Juno) is dealt with, if they just release a game as an Abstergo Entertainment product as a way to justify the HUD elements, IMO the ancestor' story wouldn't make more or less sense than it already does...

One Juno is dealt with it's the good ol' Assassin vs Templar war still going on. It won't end unless humanity ends.

killerman_2012
07-25-2015, 09:30 PM
I AGREE!!! The modern day had been abysmal since the end of ACIII!:mad: SORT IT OUT UBI.

I always follow the modern day story in AC games because its the part that links the series as a whole. ;)
Also its insulting to the fans who have played every game and followed the story, for Ubisoft to practically ignore the modern day story in order to get new people into the franchise.:mad:

Have you played AC Rogue, It makes up for the pathetic modern day in Unity and its similar to ACBF.

I agree with you. I don't know why Ubisoft took that decision, the only possible answer is what you said: get new people into the franchise. You know, if you have not a main plot to connect your games, new people doesn't feel "scared" to play the entire franchise before to buy a new AC.

They have an AMAZING story in Initiates, it's only a thing of taking that and put it within a game. You know what I'm talking about: Galina Voronina. I don't know what are they waiting for. Galina is an incredible character. She can be the main protagonist after Desmond.

SixKeys
07-25-2015, 11:12 PM
I wrote that because if someone doesn't like the original concept of AC series (reliving ancestors memories to achieve a goal in the present day), it means he/she really doesn't like AC at all. If you want to change parts of something, it means you really don't love it as it is.

Nonsense. It's perfectly possible to love something and still criticize parts of it. That kind of attitude is where the idiotic "love it or leave it" mentality so common in politics comes from. If you love something, you should want to change it for the better. I like MD in AC (well, liked until ACR) but even I can admit it never reached its full potential and was certifiably botched already before the end of Desmond's saga.

EmbodyingSeven5
07-26-2015, 03:14 PM
The why don't they make it good! Why not spend a little extra time on something that will stop the divided views. Why not create a great modern day story that is fun to play!

This will undivide the views and make everyone like every aspect of the game!

It's so fu*king simple!
This, so much

Eduard413
07-26-2015, 05:34 PM
actually AC Unity is just a historical game with not interesting blockbuster story for teenagers and casual ******bags who doesn't want to use brain and think more about the story = this is the reason why AC series are getting bad - last good AC game was AC Rogue - it had a great new story for the series in the past and also Modern Day which wasn't like it was with Desmond but still I was happy that the past has influence on the modern day and it connects - but AC unity? no connection... just ugly person called Bishop in 2 videos telling me to find a Sage and in the end she tells me Ooops sorry it was pointless I forgot he is dead for about 200 years...
AC unity was a dissapointment for me and I think that AC Syndicate will suck too and why? I believe it will have the same crappy modern day as Unity + not interesting story in the past = but maybe
I am wrong and story about Jacob and his sister will be good / after all, he looks better than Arno who was just a copy of Ezio...
the thing that annoys me most is, that they will never finish the story - why they killed Desmond and released Juno... if she will never enslave people on Earth? What the hell? She was resurrected at the end of AC3 and in AC4 and especially in AC Unity we discover that she just lives like some kind of PC virus that infects computers? what the ... ****? ;) this is funny but also, really sad and stupid...
I really don't get it why are Ubisoft doing this - they had a really good story about Desmond and his ancestor - in the end they killed him, well, ending of AC3 was not bad scripted but the execution of it was... terrible / in comparison to Mass Effect 3 - I cried at the end of that game, what a wonderful epic ending to series
They should end Desmonds story properly but no... they left us clifhanger that will never be solved because of... CASUAL Gamers and people who doesn't think about the story too much - but yeah... but they will defend themselfs and say how they care about the story so much but what I think is that they only care about the gameplay and they are ok with a blockbuster teenager story - just like Terminator Genysis = I loved that franchise but the last movie is just ... bad. It was created for the teenagers that are too lazy to watch the old movies and think about the story more

.... and in the end, I am sorry for my bad English ;)

Altair1789
07-26-2015, 11:18 PM
Agreed;) Just do it right ubi

It's really really really not that simple though. A lot of people prefer vastly different things. If Ubisoft could choose who they want to satisfy and focus on that group alone, they could "just do it right". If they wanted to satisfy those who only play the games for the history, they'd remove MD completely. If they wanted to satisfy those who love the overarching narrative and want to see it continued, they'd make MD a connection for the sequels. If they wanted to satisfy the people who only play for the gameplay, they'd probably make MD a miniscule part of the game, non intrusive, and gameplay focused. There's no objective way to "do it right"

steveeire
07-27-2015, 12:10 AM
What is Juno up to after Black Flag btw?

Xstantin
07-27-2015, 12:39 AM
What is Juno up to after Black Flag btw?

some usual nonsense as since forever
basically her followers infiltrated Abstergo with their stupid cult iirc
expect it to go nowhere anyway