PDA

View Full Version : I have come to a conclusion about Unity (no spoilers)



SixKeys
11-28-2014, 12:22 AM
I have concluded.... that people don't actually know what they want from AC anymore.


For years, people complained about the combat being easy to the point of boredom.

So Unity made combat harder.

Now people complain the combat is too hard.


For years, people begged for co-op.

Unity gave us co-op.

People complain that co-op isn't fun unless you play with friends instead of randoms. (Which is totally not a complaint you can make about literally every single co-op game ever made.)


For years, people complained that the stealth was too simplistic and practically nonexistent.

Unity made stealth more challenging and rewarding, and gave us both a cover system and a dedicated crouch button. Guards now remember you after a fight and the "last known position" mechanic draws them towards your position.

People complain that stealth is now too hard.


For years, people complained that the series is too stale and afraid to let go of existing systems.

Unity gave us dedicated buttons for crouching and cover and removed things like whistling and picking up bodies which would likely have messed with the renewed aspects of stealth. In the old games it was already annoying when Ezio started to pick up a body in the middle of a fight. Imagine that being a factor in Unity with the crouch and cover buttons.

Now people complain that Unity didn't bring back enough old systems. To recap: AC doesn't do enough to reinvent itself, but when it does, people say it doesn't play the same way it has since 2007.


For years, people begged for a French Revolution setting.

Unity took us there.

People complain about being confined to Paris instead of sailing the open seas (http://img.444.hu/jackie.gif).


For years, people begged for the ability to go inside buildings.

Unity allows you to enter buildings.

People complain it's "too hard" to enter windows.


For years, people complained about "the Gump factor", about the protagonist being conveniently thrown into every major historical event.

Unity makes the historical era more of a backdrop for a personal story.

People complain that the protagonist isn't involved enough in every major historical event.


For years, people complained about Desmond being boring and telling Ubi to just scrap modern day altogether. "Just make it a historical adventure with no Animus stuff", they said.

Unity makes modern day almost entirely nonexistent.

People complain that Ubi needs to bring modern day back.


For years, people asked for a return of open-ended assassinations like in the early games.

Unity's assassinations are more open than ever before.

People complain that mission design sucks and they should go back to a more cinematic approach.


For years, people begged for more in-depth character customization.

Unity has literally hundreds of customization combinations.

People complain that after buying the costliest pieces armor, there's no reason to get the lower-stats armor anymore. (Which....is kind of how armor works in every game?)


For years, people complained they wanted livelier NPCs, with random events, bigger crowds and natural involvement with their environment.

Unity has all of that.

People complain that the large crowds are a "gimmick", that random events get boring fast, and nobody seems to care or notice that NPCs now do things like draw attention to a commotion, recognize and greet Arno, have their own routines and actually interact with each other instead of just being stock animations.


For years, people complained that the assassin order didn't feel like a real order anymore - that instead of being a "proper" secret society with robes and ceremonies like in Altaïr and Ezio's time, it had become too mundane.

Unity made the assassin brotherhood more pompous and ceremonial than ever before. The council wore fancy robes, they had a gold-plated, secret underground lair with assassin insignia plastered all over the place. The ultimate armor is basically a black version of Altaïr's robes which is something modders have been dreaming of for ages. Statues of historical assassins line up every hallway.

People complain that the assassins are now too poncey and aloof.



In summary: for years, people have cried out for an AC game that brings back urban gameplay, renews parkour, has dynamic weather, more rewarding stealth, more challenging combat, more advanced AI, open-ended assassinations, co-op (including freeroam), animals, distraction tools, a meaningful brotherhood, disguise system, weapon and armor stats, natural crowds, multiple time eras within one game, meaty side content, reinvented modern day, etc. etc.

Unity has all of that. And what's been the fan response?

"Too little, too late."


Jesus H. Christ, you people really don't know what you want anymore, do you?



NOTE: I'm only talking about gameplay and story elements, not the technical issues or social connectivity BS. Those things deserve every criticism. But apparently even if the game worked exactly as intended for everyone, it still would be regarded as a failure, despite delivering everything the previews promised.

MakimotoJin
11-28-2014, 12:27 AM
I haven't played Unity yet,but aside from the bugs and glitches(based on what people are talking about),it seems like a good AC.I think people complain about franchises every release.Except HL.It's sort of a tradition,really.
Oh and by the way,reinventing modern days...yea...that happened in AC4.Mostly because of AC3's ending.I never complained about MD,because I know it can go very good if changed,but it can go very bad as well.

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 12:30 AM
Awesome post. I guess nobody knows what would make a perfect AC game.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2014, 12:37 AM
Absolutely agree. Especially on the Assassination mission part, that falls into general mission design too when people complain 'every mission is the same' despite the fact every mission can be completed differently. I don't get it, is it better to have a bunch of linear missions which require no player input and have you doing things irrelevant to being an Assassin? Apparently so.

The Brotherhood complaints really get me too, the Assassin Council was the ultimate fan service. I actually thought it was a bit much but thought "hey people have been asking for a return to this type of Brotherhood, so at least they'll like it." Nope. Another thing to nonsensically complain about I guess.

In a way though, I guess this is due to the fact it took them too long to finally make a focused AC like Unity. Too many fans had been gained who enjoyed the Grand Theft Gondola approach (as you wonderfully put it :p) by the time Unity rolled around.

But yes, apart from the bugs and BS locked content - Unity's poor reception makes no sense to me.

I-Like-Pie45
11-28-2014, 12:37 AM
SixKeys this is very profound

EmptyCrustacean
11-28-2014, 12:47 AM
Here is what's wrong with your argument:


I have concluded.... that people don't actually know what they want from AC anymore.

For years, people complained about the combat being easy to the point of boredom.

So Unity made combat harder.

Now people complain the combat is too hard.

No. People complained that the mechanics were bugged. Arno doesn't know when he's in combat or not. If you press dodge he'll take cover, if you press parry he'll sheath his weapon. If you move a few steps back he'll walk away. Combat being harder is awesome. Glitched combat is not.



For years, people begged for co-op.

Unity gave us co-op.

People complain that co-op isn't fun unless you play with friends instead of randoms. (Which is totally not a complaint you can make about literally every single co-op game ever made.)

No. People complained that Ubisoft put the sync points in co-op so if you want to fully level up you're forced to play with others online. Co-Op should be optional not compulsory.


For years, people complained that the stealth was too simplistic and practically nonexistent.

Unity made stealth more challenging and rewarding, and gave us both a cover system and a dedicated crouch button. Guards now remember you after a fight and the "last known position" mechanic draws them towards your position.

People complain that stealth is now too hard.


No, people complain that the cover system is inconsistent. Sometimes Arno springs in to cover, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he's able to move from cover to cover, sometimes not. Sometimes he leaves cover in a crouch, sometimes he'll outright stand up. Then there's the fact that he has to leave cover just to get round the other side of the table which he shouldn't have to do.


For years, people complained that the series is too stale and afraid to let go of existing systems.

Unity gave us dedicated buttons for crouching and cover and removed things like whistling and picking up bodies which would likely have messed with the renewed aspects of stealth. In the old games it was already annoying when Ezio started to pick up a body in the middle of a fight. Imagine that being a factor in Unity with the crouch and cover buttons.

Now people complain that Unity didn't bring back enough old systems. To recap: AC doesn't do enough to reinvent itself, but when it does, people say it doesn't play the same way it has since 2007.

Branching out and doing something new does not necessarily mean taking out things that actually worked. It means ADDING and BUILDING upon what is there.


For years, people begged for a French Revolution setting.

Unity took us there.

People complain about being confined to Paris instead of sailing the open seas (http://img.444.hu/jackie.gif).

Nobody complained about that.


For years, people begged for the ability to go inside buildings.

Unity allows you to enter buildings.

People complain it's "too hard" to enter windows.

Yes because enterign windows is inconsistent. Sometimes Arno will do it, sometimes he won't. Entering buildings is great...when it works.
When it doesn't it's frustrating.



For years, people complained about "the Gump factor", about the protagonist being conveniently thrown into every major historical event.

Unity makes the historical era more of a backdrop for a personal story.

People complain that the protagonist isn't involved enough in every major historical event.


There needs to be a BALANCE like AC2: Brotherhood. Whereas AC3 just felt like an American Revolution game, Unity goes the opposite way and completely ignores history. Both are bad because of this. As a result characters like Napoleon, Madam Tausaud are wasted cameos.


For years, people complained about Desmond being boring and telling Ubi to just scrap modern day altogether. "Just make it a historical adventure with no Animus stuff", they said.

Unity makes modern day almost entirely nonexistent.

People complain that Ubi needs to bring modern day back.

Very few complained about the MD being missed and the ones that did never wanted it to go in the first place (me included).



For years, people asked for a return of open-ended assassinations like in the early games.

Unity's assassinations are more open than ever before.

People complain that mission design sucks and they should go back to a more cinematic approach.


Why does the mission being open ended mean you have to lose the cinematics? They have nothing to do with one another.


For years, people begged for more in-depth character customization.

Unity has literally hundreds of customization combinations.

People complain that after buying the costliest pieces armor, there's no reason to get the lower-stats armor anymore. (Which....is kind of how armor works in every game?)

Nobody complained about that.


For years, people complained they wanted livelier NPCs, with random events, bigger crowds and natural involvement with their environment.

Unity has all of that.

People complain that the large crowds are a "gimmick", that random events get boring fast, and nobody seems to care or notice that NPCs now do things like draw attention to a commotion, recognize and greet Arno, have their own routines and actually interact with each other instead of just being stock animations.

No. People complain about the large crowds because they mess up the frame rate and become repetitive. Large crowds are great when they don't affect game performance but that's not the case here.


For years, people complained that the assassin order didn't feel like a real order anymore - that instead of being a "proper" secret society with robes and ceremonies like in Altaïr and Ezio's time, it had become too mundane.

Unity made the assassin brotherhood more pompous and ceremonial than ever before. The council wore fancy robes, they had a gold-plated, secret underground lair with assassin insignia plastered all over the place. The ultimate armor is basically a black version of Altaïr's robes which is something modders have been dreaming of for ages. Statues of historical assassins line up every hallway.

People complain that the assassins are now too poncey and aloof.

Nobody complained about that.



In summary: for years, people have cried out for an AC game that brings back urban gameplay, renews parkour, has dynamic weather, more rewarding stealth, more challenging combat, more advanced AI, open-ended assassinations, co-op (including freeroam), animals, distraction tools, a meaningful brotherhood, disguise system, weapon and armor stats, natural crowds, multiple time eras within one game, meaty side content, reinvented modern day, etc. etc.

Unity has all of that. And what's been the fan response?

"Too little, too late."


Jesus H. Christ, you people really don't know what you want anymore, do you?

I think it's you that doesn't know what the fans want. It's not enough to introduce things that the fans ask for and just do it slapdash, it needs to be executed properly in order to be considered an actual wish fulfilment.


NOTE: I'm only talking about gameplay and story elements, not the technical issues or social connectivity BS. Those things deserve every criticism. But apparently even if the game worked exactly as intended for everyone, it still would be regarded as a failure, despite delivering everything the previews promised.

Not true because the game has NEVER worked as intended. All anyone has ever spoken about is the glitches, the bugs and the dodgy mechanics. These are the things that stop Unity from reaching its true potential.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 12:54 AM
And another thing: I still see people complaining about tailing and eavesdropping missions as if they were still an abundant feature in Unity. "Oh, it's the same old tired gameplay, just following people around all the time."

In my entire 85-plus hours of playtime so far, I think there have been 3 missions, tops, with tailing involved. Some of those may even have been side missions, not story content. Where the heck are people getting this "ohhhh, it's still happening all the time"?

Not to mention the tailing is a lot more tolerable now that they removed the annoying "stay inside the circle" requirement. Are they supposed to remove the mechanic entirely for people to finally be satisfied? And replace it with what, exactly? Treasure hunts? Whaling? You know, "proper" assassin activities? :rolleyes:

I-Like-Pie45
11-28-2014, 12:56 AM
SixKeys I don't think you should bother arguing with them.

There is no eyesight for the blind.

lukazdragon
11-28-2014, 01:00 AM
HAhah, great text XD

But as another thread (great as well) pointed: It's not that people don't know what they want. It's that a part of the fanbase wants one thing, and the other wants the opposite. The first part of the points you mention is one side, the reaction is the other side.

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 01:03 AM
Agreed. Although you have to take into a count the many different audiences Ac caters to. It's being pulled into different directions by critics, casuals, and fans alike.

Megas_Doux
11-28-2014, 01:03 AM
http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/2137378.jpg

I will add one of my own:

" I want everything to be like AC II" Ubi gives them AC II 2.0 and they will say " How in the world you tried to replicate that, how unoriginal, blah blah blah.

Derp43
11-28-2014, 01:06 AM
tl;dr: People who hate Unity are massive hypocrites.

Namikaze_17
11-28-2014, 01:23 AM
Point of this Thread: People will always ***** and complain.


I just sip on my tea as it goes down really... :rolleyes:


All the true fans see the "hidden gem" if you catch my drift.

x___Luffy___x
11-28-2014, 01:25 AM
Very nice post. i don't have any major issue with the game, just that the view distance is not good unless you play on ultra. im loving the game actually. playing with friends is so much funn ;)

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 01:31 AM
No. People complained that the mechanics were bugged. Arno doesn't know when he's in combat or not. If you press dodge he'll take cover, if you press parry he'll sheath his weapon. If you move a few steps back he'll walk away. Combat being harder is awesome. Glitched combat is not.

Like I said before, this is not about technical issues. When the game works properly (and for me it does, a lot of the time), there's nothing wrong with combat. When it doesn't work, it's due to technical issues which need to be patched out, not a core design issue.



No. People complained that Ubisoft put the sync points in co-op so if you want to fully level up you're forced to play with others online. Co-Op should be optional not compulsory.

It's not compulsory. I've done every single co-op mission solo at least once. You can collect the sync points without needing other players. You also get sync points from completing story missions, so if you don't have enough skills yet, just do a couple of story missions before tackling co-op.


No, people complain that the cover system is inconsistent. Sometimes Arno springs in to cover, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he's able to move from cover to cover, sometimes not. Sometimes he leaves cover in a crouch, sometimes he'll outright stand up. Then there's the fact that he has to leave cover just to get round the other side of the table which he shouldn't have to do.

Again, technical issues. And yes, even apart from the cover system, people complain about the stealth being too hard regardless. They want to go back to the days when an enemy spots you and then entirely forget you were ever there as soon as they lose sight of you.



Branching out and doing something new does not necessarily mean taking out things that actually worked. It means ADDING and BUILDING upon what is there.

People are always complaining that AC games are building and adding too much on top of existing systems instead of removing stuff that clashes with innovation. Which is it? Do you want innovation or do you want the series to retain the same elements from game to game, regardless of whether they add anything meaningful to gameplay?


Nobody complained about that.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/11/24/assassins-creed-unity-review/

"Though Creed once again swings for the fences with a stunning open world, the landscape feels very repetitive, especially compared to Black Flag. Sure, sometimes Black Flag was a little too open—the expansive map of various islands could be daunting—but at least once you got tired of a particular island or plundered its riches, you could move on. This is not the case with Unity. You are stuck in 18th century Paris, with its monotonous blue rooftops and seemingly endless array of objects connecting each building. The backdrop soon feels claustrophobic. The only really memorable landmark is Notre Dame, which gets less screen time than you’d imagine."


Yes because enterign windows is inconsistent. Sometimes Arno will do it, sometimes he won't. Entering buildings is great...when it works.
When it doesn't it's frustrating.

I've seen people criticize the very existence of interiors just because they have trouble mastering entering windows. The controls could be more precise, but is it really reasonable to say they should remove interiors entirely just because some people are too impatient to learn the controls?


There needs to be a BALANCE like AC2: Brotherhood. Whereas AC3 just felt like an American Revolution game, Unity goes the opposite way and completely ignores history. Both are bad because of this. As a result characters like Napoleon, Madam Tausaud are wasted cameos.

I guess this is down to personal preference. I like Unity's approach because it reminds me of AC1. Just the story of an assassin and his personal story against a historical backdrop and the occasional cameo from a famous person. Unity hardly "ignores" history: the game still throws Arno into major events, most of them are just in co-op missions (which can be done solo) instead of the main story.


Very few complained about the MD being missed and the ones that did never wanted it to go in the first place (me included).

You must not have read any professional game critic reviews from the last 7 years. :rolleyes: Almost every single official game review site always criticized the modern day stuff for being boring and silly. Even lots of fans on these forums told Ubi to just get rid of it. I've never been one of them, but I can understand why Ubi would go down that route after so many complaints. Now that modern day is suddenly irrelevant, both fans and professional critics alike are surprised and saying modern day has become TOO irrelevant. What do you people actually want?!


Why does the mission being open ended mean you have to lose the cinematics? They have nothing to do with one another.

Cinematics =/= cinematic approach.
I didn't say anything about cinematics (which are still in the game), I said cinematic approach, meaning corridor-style mission design where the player has no freedom and every replay will always play exactly the same way. Aka 90% of AC3's missions. The Kotaku review of ACU complained that the mission design was too open-ended and that they missed having their hand held by the devs.



Nobody complained about that.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/9920-Assassins-Creed-Unity-Review


No. People complain about the large crowds because they mess up the frame rate and become repetitive. Large crowds are great when they don't affect game performance but that's not the case here.

You keep saying "no" as if I'm just making this stuff up. I have personally seen every one of these complaints. Bitebug2003 was the one who said the crowds felt like an unnecessary gimmick.

Many people have also found after intensive testing that it's not the crowds but the detailed interiors which are causing performance issues. But again, technical issues are separate from the issue of having large crowds at all and whether or not it is a gimmick. It's the difference between saying: "Sometimes when I want Ezio to pick up a body, he loots it instead. Therefore picking up bodies is a gimmick and should not exist at all".


I think it's you that doesn't know what the fans want. It's not enough to introduce things that the fans ask for and just do it slapdash, it needs to be executed properly in order to be considered an actual wish fulfilment.

I'm simply listing examples of hypocrisy. These are all real complaints I have seen. First fans complain about one thing, then get angry when Ubi listens to their complaints and changes things.

2013: "Combat is too easy! Remove counter kills and kill streaks, please! Soldiers only attack one at a time and it's impossible to die!"
*Unity changes things up*
2014: "Waahh, combat is too hard! Bring back counter kills and kill streaks! I keep dying! People no longer wait for their turn to slaughter me! What sorcery is this?!"


Not true because the game has NEVER worked as intended. All anyone has ever spoken about is the glitches, the bugs and the dodgy mechanics. These are the things that stop Unity from reaching its true potential.

Nobody has EVER complained about anything except performance issues? What about the countless threads criticizing the story and characters?

lukazdragon
11-28-2014, 01:44 AM
People are always complaining that AC games are building and adding too much on top of existing systems instead of removing stuff that clashes with innovation. Which is it? Do you want innovation or do you want the series to retain the same elements from game to game, regardless of whether they add anything meaningful to gameplay?


While I agree more with you than the person you are debating with, I think you're wrong at this point.

I think it's essential to make a big move like Unity did, and it's necessary to leave some elements behind, so the other games keep their special charm (You'll only see diving and a focus on Naval on ACIV, and the Assassin Enemies are an exclusivity of Rogue, for example), but some small features can be preserved for gameplay purposes, without looking like shameless repeats. Whistling is a good mechanic, it has a small range, it's good for improvisations. Hiding bodies is basic, especially for those who seek a more stealthy approach, where they want to go past without even letting guards know someone was killed.

I would also point out that while stealth is getting close to something consistent (finally we can crouch!), the detection system still need urgent changes, as it doesn't fit outside the social stealth, inside restricted areas.

He said something valid: It's not just about bringing what people asked, but bringing it properly.

Bringing it like they did, though, is already a start.

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 01:46 AM
There needs to be a BALANCE like AC2: Brotherhood. Whereas AC3 just felt like an American Revolution game, Unity goes the opposite way and completely ignores history. Both are bad because of this. As a result characters like Napoleon, Madam Tausaud are wasted cameos.

Could you please specify how exactly the FrRev as backdrop is different from Borgia Rome as such?

PedroAntonio2
11-28-2014, 01:53 AM
The major problem about the storyline it's how Robespierre was treated, he just appear for two cutscenes and....it's just horrible, they could've used him is such an epic way! And the ending was terrible...recycling Ezio was a cr*p move from the writers. just to please the nostalgic fans from Ezio.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 01:59 AM
While I agree more with you than the person you are debating with, I think you're wrong at this point.

I think it's essential to make a big move like Unity did, and it's necessary to leave some elements behind, so the other games keep their special charm (You'll only see diving and a focus on Naval on ACIV, and the Assassin Enemies are an exclusivity of Rogue, for example), but some small features can be preserved for gameplay purposes, without looking like shameless repeats. Whistling is a good mechanic, it has a small range, it's good for improvisations. Hiding bodies is basic, especially for those who seek a more stealthy approach, where they want to go past without even letting guards know someone was killed.

I would also point out that while stealth is getting close to something consistent (finally we can crouch!), the detection system still need urgent changes, as it doesn't fit outside the social stealth, inside restricted areas.

He said something valid: It's not just about bringing what people asked, but bringing it properly.

Bringing it like they did, though, is already a start.

Personally I think whistling was unrealistic and made the guards look even more stupid than they already are. If you're guarding a restricted area and told by your superiors to be on the lookout for anything suspicious, and you hear a sudden whistle from behind a corner, do you move in for a closer look like an idiot or do you pull out your gun and shout: "Who's there? Hands where I can see them!" ?

There are some features I miss (like moving bodies), but removing them may have been a conscious choice in lieu of all the new button adds and how they already complicate gameplay. The cover system is finicky enough as it is. Sometimes Arno will seek cover when you're trying to make him climb a building. That's what happens when the same button is used for several actions and the game is trying to determine what you want. Now imagine more features piled on top. Arno would be trying to seek cover, climb a building, pick up a body and whistle at a guard, all at the same time (if all these functions were all on the same button). The reason the old games worked more smoothly was because of the puppeteer system. Each button had, at max, 2 functions. The "hand" button didn't do things dedicated to "leg" functions etc. Since AC3 the games have gone for controls that are simultaneously more simplified and more complex. You no longer accidentally pickpocket people by fast-walking into them like in the Ezio games, but new issues have arisen since freerunning is now more automated. Every solution to an old problem is more likely to present new problems.

Namikaze_17
11-28-2014, 02:07 AM
Could you please specify how exactly the FrRev as backdrop is different from Borgia Rome as such?

Because having historical figures being the protagonist's closest friends & bitter enemies is a "great balance". :rolleyes:

PedroAntonio2
11-28-2014, 02:09 AM
The whistle could be replaced by something you can do in MGS which is attract a guard just hitting the wall with your fist to make a noise. Maybe just throwing a item like a stone ( Far Cry ) or something from the area like a brick, a bottle, anything ( Hitman and The Last of Us ) to distract the guard.

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 02:29 AM
You can attract guards with money bags as well. Worked for me now in Hotel de Sens at least.

Sejdovic11
11-28-2014, 03:40 AM
Personally I think whistling was unrealistic and made the guards look even more stupid than they already are. If you're guarding a restricted area and told by your superiors to be on the lookout for anything suspicious, and you hear a sudden whistle from behind a corner, do you move in for a closer look like an idiot or do you pull out your gun and shout: "Who's there? Hands where I can see them!" ?

Yeah, I agree that's kinda stupid, but what is the point of the "stealth" if you have to show yourself to guard to attract him? That's even more stupid than whistling by my opinion, because when someone see you, your stealth should be done, ruined, whatever. And tell me, what would you do if you would saw someone as a guard showing himself in restricted area just for a second? Would you go to this "last known position BS" or would you do the same as you would do by hearing someone whistling around the corner (pull out your gun and say: "Hey, who is this?")? They should AT LEAST give us option to throw rocks or something to discract guards. I mean really, playing stealth based game (ironically, stealth mechanics sucks giant balls in this game) and to be able to attract someone you have to show yourself? What's so stealthy here?

D.I.D.
11-28-2014, 04:03 AM
*applause*

I agree with most of this, bar a couple of straw man points, but fair enough! Also, remember the same people who ask for one thing aren't the same people who criticise the remedy! Short of keeping a spreadsheet of everyone's wants and responses, there's no way to track that.

Ultimately, all this only proves how little this forum matters, and how unrepresentative it is of the games' market. All these new additions and changes are the result of positive assent in Ubisoft market research, i.e. the wider audience, the one that matters. The little knot of fans that gathers on this forum is not, therefore, significant at all. We can tell them a little bit of what we want, maybe even filter through the odd new idea at times, but if the makers taliored the games solely to the democratic lean of opinion on this forum then the series would already be dead and Ubisoft would be out of pocket.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2014, 04:09 AM
*applause*

I agree with most of this, bar a couple of straw man points, but fair enough! Also, remember the same people who ask for one thing aren't the same people who criticise the remedy! Short of keeping a spreadsheet of everyone's wants and responses, there's no way to track that.

Ultimately, all this only proves how little this forum matters, and how unrepresentative it is of the games' market. All these new additions and changes are the result of positive assent in Ubisoft market research, i.e. the wider audience, the one that matters. The little knot of fans that gathers on this forum is not, therefore, significant at all. We can tell them a little bit of what we want, maybe even filter through the odd new idea at times, but if the makers taliored the games solely to the democratic lean of opinion on this forum then the series would already be dead and Ubisoft would be out of pocket.

Not sure what you mean. The changes in Unity have disappointed the wider demographic and pleased the more seasoned crowd (forumers and the like) who are in the minority. If anything Unity proves they have their market research wrong since all the changes have been received badly by most.

DynaRider
11-28-2014, 04:11 AM
Some people complained about this and some people complained about that and still the game has been a popular series. I've been to midnight releases where long lines of people stood outside in the cold waiting to pick up the latest copy of AC. I don't have sales figures but I'll wager that those complaining about any one facet of the game were a pretty small minority in the overall number of players who were enjoying the game. We'll never know how many people are playing the game and not coming on line to complain or say how good the game is. I've had my complaints about the games but I still have played each version several times over and I'll admit that the combat and dying so quickly is not my favorite part of Unity. If the games are disappointing so many people as alleged by SixKeys then the series should have died a long time ago and not remained as popular as it is. Will I buy the next release of AC? Sure will.

DavisP92
11-28-2014, 04:15 AM
Here is what's wrong with your argument:



No. People complained that the mechanics were bugged. Arno doesn't know when he's in combat or not. If you press dodge he'll take cover, if you press parry he'll sheath his weapon. If you move a few steps back he'll walk away. Combat being harder is awesome. Glitched combat is not.




No. People complained that Ubisoft put the sync points in co-op so if you want to fully level up you're forced to play with others online. Co-Op should be optional not compulsory.



No, people complain that the cover system is inconsistent. Sometimes Arno springs in to cover, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he's able to move from cover to cover, sometimes not. Sometimes he leaves cover in a crouch, sometimes he'll outright stand up. Then there's the fact that he has to leave cover just to get round the other side of the table which he shouldn't have to do.



Branching out and doing something new does not necessarily mean taking out things that actually worked. It means ADDING and BUILDING upon what is there.



Nobody complained about that.



Yes because enterign windows is inconsistent. Sometimes Arno will do it, sometimes he won't. Entering buildings is great...when it works.
When it doesn't it's frustrating.




There needs to be a BALANCE like AC2: Brotherhood. Whereas AC3 just felt like an American Revolution game, Unity goes the opposite way and completely ignores history. Both are bad because of this. As a result characters like Napoleon, Madam Tausaud are wasted cameos.



Very few complained about the MD being missed and the ones that did never wanted it to go in the first place (me included).




Why does the mission being open ended mean you have to lose the cinematics? They have nothing to do with one another.



Nobody complained about that.



No. People complain about the large crowds because they mess up the frame rate and become repetitive. Large crowds are great when they don't affect game performance but that's not the case here.



Nobody complained about that.




I think it's you that doesn't know what the fans want. It's not enough to introduce things that the fans ask for and just do it slapdash, it needs to be executed properly in order to be considered an actual wish fulfilment.



Not true because the game has NEVER worked as intended. All anyone has ever spoken about is the glitches, the bugs and the dodgy mechanics. These are the things that stop Unity from reaching its true potential.

Preach

D.I.D.
11-28-2014, 04:27 AM
Not sure what you mean. The changes in Unity have disappointed the wider demographic and pleased the more seasoned crowd (forumers and the like) who are in the minority. If anything Unity proves they have their market research wrong since all the changes have been received badly by most.

I mean that after every game, Ubisoft has sent out market research and collected the answers. Kotaku in particular has been keen to connect the dots from questions/answer choices in past questionnaires to the game of the present day, showing how each game was in a sense predicted.

The fact that these features and game ideas came true proves that the market research showed that the majority of their sample wanted these things, so they supplied them. That's evidence. You don't have evidence for what the wider audience thinks of Unity, just your feelings. That's supposition.

This forum is not a reliable sample, because there is a filtration involved in simply being here and continually participating in it. It's also a very small number of people by comparison with proper market research. It's easy for this forum to complain at times that "we, the real fans!" are not being listened to, but we don't represent the real fans. Every fan is real, no matter how tenacious they are about it, and they wanted the features that Unity provided. We won't know how happy the real fan base is with what it got for some time, but you can bet we'll see its feelings reflected in the next game, and more so in the one after.

Charles_Phipps
11-28-2014, 04:49 AM
This may surprise you but it's very likely not the fans complaining about the same things.

KG_NOx
11-28-2014, 04:51 AM
Six you forgot mentioning those AMM(Adaptive Mission Mechanic) missions where you can find in side missions, btw very nice thread you earn my respect. You know where you at

crusader_prophet
11-28-2014, 05:42 AM
A Stellar Genuine Effort with Shallow Interests & Missed Opportunities

Good

An absolute breathtaking recreation of game's physical and living environment and is taken advantage of via Nostradamus missions, however the reward is too small.
A genuine effort of breathing fresh air into the franchise with new elements yet keeping the roots (Assassin HQ’s, older economy system, Social Clubs, Rooftops navigation, classic and more realistic environmental blending)

Character customization is a very neat idea and introduces a motive for upgrade and random fights.
Stealth mechanics is finally here in an AC game and it is brilliant. However, the performance has room for optimization.
Co-op missions have high replay value and are unique unlike any other multiplayers out there.
Open ended sandbox style single player missions leaves room for players to approach on their own terms


Ambitious AI engineering but unfortunately associated with bugs and glitches
Improved parkour mechanics however, the auto-correct feature could be optimized
Better and more appropriate combat system for an AC game
Better User Interface mechanics


Opportunities


Performance Issues: Frame rate and rendering, lag in music and action output, AI glitches such as floating NPC's,
Gameplay - Dull single player missions which is attributed to dull script and screenplay. Although approach to missions are more open ended than traditional AC games.
Partial character development and weak script/screenplay, for example Arno’s father is killed in the beginning without establishing a relationship via the game for the player to associate with the loss and impact on the character’s motives and perspective. In addition, relationship with Elise is not well developed and missing critical pieces for the player to care about her since a major part of the game’s plot revolves around her.
Current day story so far seems lacking a focused narrative, the idea of infiltrating common public’s genetic data via distribution of Animus consoles by the Templars does not seem to keep me hooked to know more about it. But I guess we still have yet to see where it is headed.
RPG elements not fully realized. Examples -

Renovations, murder mysteries, Paris stories could have played a role in the overall impact to the French revolution and the outcome of the story.
Random side events (such as tackle thieves, kill criminals etc.) are there but do not play a role in overall impact to the revolution and the outcome of the story.
Chests are there and merely for money, they should have played a role in bomb crafting, weapon and armor upgrades via introduction of crafting materials as it was partly in AC Revelations.


Too early introduction of microtransactions interrupts the immersive aspect of the game and indicates shallow intentions of UbiSoft.
Unlike every previous AC installments (including Rogue), this is the first AC game where I think the music does not complement or/and increase immersive aspect of the game. The bloody revolution, the chaos and the hidden beauty of Paris cannot be felt via the music. In addition, music is absent during majority of the missions (or it could be a glitch!)

D.I.D.
11-28-2014, 05:52 AM
...





I think you missed the point of this thread somewhat.

crusader_prophet
11-28-2014, 05:55 AM
I think you missed the point of this thread somewhat.


Lol, I think I did, but I wanted to share his sentiments by sharing my thoughts and be honest about what I think about Unity. I am absolutely loving exploring Paris.

Fatal-Feit
11-28-2014, 06:04 AM
Preach it, OP. ;)


tl;dr: People who hate Unity are massive hypocrites.

Yes, yes they are. Not all, but some of the people here are a great example.

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2014, 06:52 AM
franchise fatigue (but Ubisoft will file bankruptcy before they admit that)






For years, people complained about Desmond being boring and telling Ubi to just scrap modern day altogether. "Just make it a historical adventure with no Animus stuff", they said.

Unity makes modern day almost entirely nonexistent.

People complain that Ubi needs to bring modern day back.


Did they scrap it alltogether (what IMO would've been ten thousand times better than what we have now)? No! Between what we have today and what we had before AC4, I certainly prefer the latter..

I also think you generalized too much, I believe some people's concerns are not as simple as you're implying and I really don't blame some of them, this is a 7 year old franchise and Ubisoft still struggles to find balance in combat for example...

AdamPearce
11-28-2014, 06:56 AM
My only concern about Unity is how it breaks the immersion on almost every situation:


Open Assassinations: your target is directly pointed out by a huge red dot, why ? (oh and there's no possibility to remove it). The oppportunities are also obviously pointed out for you, those could've been inner investigations missions and would've been awesome, but no, the game has to hold your hand all the way through like you're 5 yo ! I want to find my own target by myself and keep track on him/ her by myself, that's Assassin's Creed !

Combat: I believe it is a question of satisfaction. ACIII-IV-Rogue have extremely brutal and glorifiying finishes and the overall flow of the combat makes it look epic and smooth. Same goes for ACB-R, and AC1 can also claim it. Though with Unity...well, the animations are just cheap. The fight itself is great, but when you get down to it, the final blow is just a big mess of glitchy textures and doesn't have that brutal & majestic rewardness you had with previous AC.

Crowds: Arno doesn't have that hand pushing Altair & Ezio had, it's basic, but feels so great. Also the fact that the camera is just way too far, our character isn't 7feet high, he's average and in order to feel in a crowd, we should almost have a shoulder angle (see AC1 trailer for clearer understanding)

Stealth Kills : Now this is a problem for me since ACIII, but I'll repeat it. Bring back the old Striking Sound FX goddammit ! It just adds that much feeling in the process, and it's such a small detail. But I also have a concern about the overall animations: the camera is locked when you kill someone, it's annoying since you can't change your angle to have better look or simple watch over incoming ennemies. Air assasination, same thing, they removed the low angle views in ACIII, those should be back by now !

NPCs: they aren't heavy enough, the guards still look like skeletons in comparision to Arno, when they are trained soldiers. It's odd and sometimes you feel like they're empty and I'm kicking potatoe bags instead of human flesh...oh and the chara' design...god. I know it's technically original revolutionnary outfits, but couldn't they have more than one face for every type of ennemies ? ALL the Brutes are a big round face (who looks like big babies), ALL the Extremists have brown hair with a little wing hat, ALL snipers weight 50 pound wet and look like 14 yo. It's just ridiculous.



A good example of how combat flow can be improved with small camera tricks: Shadow of Mordor. It isn't that different from ACU's gameplay except it's much more (fun to play) interesting to look ! Why ? Because every kill you make is rewarding and everything is made to make you feel great and going 'OMG that was so sick !'. And it's exactly what AC needs to do, now !

Overall the game is too gamey and not immersive enough compared to games like Ground Zeroes and I really feel like these small changes could change most people opinions about the new cores.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2014, 10:04 AM
My only concern about Unity is how it breaks the immersion on almost every situation:


Open Assassinations: your target is directly pointed out by a huge red dot, why ? (oh and there's no possibility to remove it). The oppportunities are also obviously pointed out for you, those could've been inner investigations missions and would've been awesome, but no, the game has to hold your hand all the way through like you're 5 yo ! I want to find my own target by myself and keep track on him/ her by myself, that's Assassin's Creed !

Combat: I believe it is a question of satisfaction. ACIII-IV-Rogue have extremely brutal and glorifiying finishes and the overall flow of the combat makes it look epic and smooth. Same goes for ACB-R, and AC1 can also claim it. Though with Unity...well, the animations are just cheap. The fight itself is great, but when you get down to it, the final blow is just a big mess of glitchy textures and doesn't have that brutal & majestic rewardness you had with previous AC.

Crowds: Arno doesn't have that hand pushing Altair & Ezio had, it's basic, but feels so great. Also the fact that the camera is just way too far, our character isn't 7feet high, he's average and in order to feel in a crowd, we should almost have a shoulder angle (see AC1 trailer for clearer understanding)

Stealth Kills : Now this is a problem for me since ACIII, but I'll repeat it. Bring back the old Striking Sound FX goddammit ! It just adds that much feeling in the process, and it's such a small detail. But I also have a concern about the overall animations: the camera is locked when you kill someone, it's annoying since you can't change your angle to have better look or simple watch over incoming ennemies. Air assasination, same thing, they removed the low angle views in ACIII, those should be back by now !

NPCs: they aren't heavy enough, the guards still look like skeletons in comparision to Arno, when they are trained soldiers. It's odd and sometimes you feel like they're empty and I'm kicking potatoe bags instead of human flesh...oh and the chara' design...god. I know it's technically original revolutionnary outfits, but couldn't they have more than one face for every type of ennemies ? ALL the Brutes are a big round face (who looks like big babies), ALL the Extremists have brown hair with a little wing hat, ALL snipers weight 50 pound wet and look like 14 yo. It's just ridiculous.



A good example of how combat flow can be improved with small camera tricks: Shadow of Mordor. It isn't that different from ACU's gameplay except it's much more (fun to play) interesting to look ! Why ? Because every kill you make is rewarding and everything is made to make you feel great and going 'OMG that was so sick !'. And it's exactly what AC needs to do, now !

Overall the game is too gamey and not immersive enough compared to games like Ground Zeroes and I really feel like these small changes could change most people opinions about the new cores.

I think the distraction and assistance opportunities being pointed out is only there because it's a game in 2014, I believe the devs would have left those unmarked if they were allowed. Pretty annoying.
The target being pointed out is a small gripe, I mean with eagle vision you can basically do that anyway. It would help if the marker was a little smaller. Unity can't really be criticized for being too hand holdy IMO. It has very open objectives for every main mission save a few linear set pieces - given the history of the series it was a brave decision for them to go that route and the least we can do is commend them for doing so.

Anykeyer
11-28-2014, 10:42 AM
I have concluded.... that people don't actually know what they want from AC anymore.



So Unity made combat harder.
I find ACU combat being as easy as before. Just less options which is bad.

Unity made stealth more challenging and rewarding
Stealth is too easy now (bc you have disguise) and its almost never actually usefull. I dont remember any missions where detection would lead to desync, and they put it as optional challenge only in 2. I use "stealth" just to get some extra creed points and for lulz.

People complain about being confined to Paris
I would like to have more countryside than endless Paris streets. ACB and AC3 had a nice balance. And there is no reason why you cant have Paris and naval gameplay in the same game.

I like variety and complexity but ACU removed most of gameplay elements and dumbed down the rest. You can say they "streamlined core pillars" but I suspect the real reason is their ****ty network code, which cant handle complex scenarious and physics. Not a single horse in entire Paris? They must be high.

UniteUnderPower
11-28-2014, 11:44 AM
I've complained about MD being missed because I've always liked modern-day. Basically getting rid of modern-day did NOT help move Unity forward. It made the game worse and without purpose. I've said for years that the less modern-day they put into the games, the worse they will become and putting all technical problems aside, that was one of the things that killed Unity. It felt more tacked-on than ever before.


And there is no reason why you cant have Paris and naval gameplay in the same game.

Overdoing naval will not help anything. Naval was fun, but overusing it will stray far away from the series' core pillars.

nswidan
11-28-2014, 11:47 AM
1. Combat is a gunfight.

2. F*** those people.

3. Guards are like f***ing robots now and detect you from anywhere.

4. Not a big deal, but still miss them.

5. F*** those people.

6. F*** those people.

7. Modern was s*** and I'm happy they removed it. It's not a deal breaker either way.

8. F*** those people.

9. This one did bother me a lot. I don't know how this wouldn't bother anyone.

Let's see, what else?

10. F*** those people.

11. F*** those people.

And that's about it.
You gotta understand, there are many whiny b****es out there that no one can please. But there are some obvious mistakes in this game that could've been avoided.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2014, 12:52 PM
the game has NEVER worked as intended. All anyone has ever spoken about is the glitches, the bugs and the dodgy mechanics. These are the things that stop Unity from reaching its true potential.

I guess we really shouldn't argue with them. It only makes them post more. Some people would defend Ubisoft if they packaged a turd in a DVD case and claimed it was the latest AC game.

Here are a few reviews that nail Unity's issues:

http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/assassins-creed-unity-review/1900-686/
"Unity's biggest flaw: it's just not very much fun. For all its hugeness and graphical splendor, Unity is starved for excitement. It's much too concerned with a story that feels confused by itself, wasting potentially interesting allies and antagonists in much the same way that it wastes the rich, violent history of its time period."

http://darkzero.co.uk/game-reviews/assassins-creed-unity-xb1/
"Naturally, all of the media attention is focused on [Unity], as fans and critics alike join together to see what benefits the AC series can reap from a new engine running on more powerful consoles. What we got, instead, was the worst performing Assassin’s Creed game of all time…"

http://www.digitaltrends.com/game-reviews/assassins-creed-unity-review/
"Assassin’s Creed Unity may be an incredible piece of architecture, but that’s sadly all it is. As a story, as a playground for wild digital tumbling, as a venue for playing with friends, and as good old-fashioned history porn, Unity fails..."
"That’s all Unity ultimately is: a beautiful place full of busy little icons to walk awkwardly towards until there aren’t any left."

http://www.darkstation.com/reviews/assassins-creed-unity/
"the game is all but ruined by disastrous online connectivity issues and insipid social media hooks that reek of meddling by upper management and marketing."

These are not some "hater's" fantasy. Unity's problems are not the fault of fans who don't know what they want. Unity is simply not a good game, because: 1, the game's director (Alex Amancio) doesn't know what the series is about - it's about HISTORY (not architecture, not massive crowds, not Templar/Assassin conspiracies, not even about combat. It's the HISTORY, stupid!); 2, because he has shown time after time (in both Revelations and Unity) that he is incapable of merging the history with the storyline; 3,because he failed to get the game ready for the scheduled release date; and 4, because he failed to outmaneuver upper-level management clowns who wanted to turn Assassin's Creed into a massive Vegas-style slot machine that pays Ubisoft with every play. Any one of these fundamental failures could have been forgiven, heck, I might have even been able to forgive two of them, but never all four.

This is the reality.

PedroAntonio2
11-28-2014, 01:12 PM
The assassinations missions were great, but all of them just have two opportunities missions...like '' Distraction opportunity and Help Opportunity'' and most of them are very repetitive...I was tired of saving a group of NPCs so they could help me escape.

And they should make this like Hitman series, without showing these opportunities...just say something like '' You have X number of opportunities, discover them'' and the game makes you walk around the place and pay attention to what people are talking about so you can discover a opportunity, like you hear a guard whispering to another about a secret entrance or a preach screaming that someone stole his keys or a woman crying to her husband who was arrested...and with that you learn a new way to infltrate a place and assassinate the target.

Anykeyer
11-28-2014, 01:22 PM
Overdoing naval will not help anything. Naval was fun, but overusing it will stray far away from the series' core pillars.

I didnt mean they should have made Black Flag 2, I didnt actually like AC4, naval was overdone indeed, game had a lot of repetitive activities and almost no side missions
IMO AC3 had the perfect mix of gameplay features and it remains my favorite AC game

Viking Dale
11-28-2014, 01:49 PM
The OP's post is the best I've read on here. It's about time for some positivity about this game and just gaming in general. All I'm seeing all over the web is people cackling about the game but many have not even played it. The 'no face' bug is everywhere and is from the unpatched game. I've never seen any visual errors that bad whilst I've played it.

Even people on here are saying it's the 'worst game ever'. It's not even close to a bad game.

I've never seen such a time in gaming where people never seem to be happy with anything. It's truly depressing. Hate over which console is best. Hate from PC gamers towards console gamers and back again. Anger and moaning over everything.

I have only played AC IV before and didn't really enjoy it. This game has kept me gripped. The artwork is astounding. The detail of Paris is something else. The deep history lessons throughout the game are teaching me more than I ever knew about French history and its people.

The fighting and assassinations are challenging. I love the equipment, weapons and varied skills. You can choose your own style of play.

Yes, it has bugs. I currently can't play it online at all without crashing but I'm not angry. I'll wait. It will get fixed. I'm playing another great Ubisoft game instead. Far Cry 4, which has got the OCD collecting bug in me going on overdrive!

Now, back to getting killed by Rhinos. ;)

projectpat06
11-28-2014, 01:59 PM
Six Key's OP is by far the best post in the history of this Forum. Since Unity has been out, I feel like the idiots of Ferguson have invaded this forum to plague the threads with stupidity. The devs of Unity did everything right by addressing the fans' (of this forum) requests. Every change to this game has a list of threads requesting for that feature to implemented showing that the devs do care about their fan base.

For that, I want to thank the ubisoft team for listening to us as well as the forum community managers for relaying our input. I look forward to seeing your future innovations on current mechanics in the upcoming games.

I would also include the fact that the Devs did a stupendous job with story presentation in Unity compared to the previous games. I understand some people find the actual story to be bland, but the presentation was a large step up from what we experienced in AC3.

Sejdovic11
11-28-2014, 02:14 PM
The OP's post is the best I've read on here. It's about time for some positivity about this game and just gaming in general. All I'm seeing all over the web is people cackling about the game but many have not even played it. The 'no face' bug is everywhere and is from the unpatched game. I've never seen any visual errors that bad whilst I've played it.

Even people on here are saying it's the 'worst game ever'. It's not even close to a bad game.

I've never seen such a time in gaming where people never seem to be happy with anything. It's truly depressing. Hate over which console is best. Hate from PC gamers towards console gamers and back again. Anger and moaning over everything.

I have only played AC IV before and didn't really enjoy it. This game has kept me gripped. The artwork is astounding. The detail of Paris is something else. The deep history lessons throughout the game are teaching me more than I ever knew about French history and its people.

The fighting and assassinations are challenging. I love the equipment, weapons and varied skills. You can choose your own style of play.

Yes, it has bugs. I currently can't play it online at all without crashing but I'm not angry. I'll wait. It will get fixed. I'm playing another great Ubisoft game instead. Far Cry 4, which has got the OCD collecting bug in me going on overdrive!

Now, back to getting killed by Rhinos. ;)

There is only 1 thing that I agree with you... Far Cry 4 is amazing... And that's it.

Unity failed, fact.

Cheers!

Shahkulu101
11-28-2014, 02:15 PM
I guess we really shouldn't argue with them. It only makes them post more. Some people would defend Ubisoft if they packaged a turd in a DVD case and claimed it was the latest AC game.

Here are a few reviews that nail Unity's issues:

http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/assassins-creed-unity-review/1900-686/
"Unity's biggest flaw: it's just not very much fun. For all its hugeness and graphical splendor, Unity is starved for excitement. It's much too concerned with a story that feels confused by itself, wasting potentially interesting allies and antagonists in much the same way that it wastes the rich, violent history of its time period."

http://darkzero.co.uk/game-reviews/assassins-creed-unity-xb1/
"Naturally, all of the media attention is focused on [Unity], as fans and critics alike join together to see what benefits the AC series can reap from a new engine running on more powerful consoles. What we got, instead, was the worst performing Assassin’s Creed game of all time…"

http://www.digitaltrends.com/game-reviews/assassins-creed-unity-review/
"Assassin’s Creed Unity may be an incredible piece of architecture, but that’s sadly all it is. As a story, as a playground for wild digital tumbling, as a venue for playing with friends, and as good old-fashioned history porn, Unity fails..."
"That’s all Unity ultimately is: a beautiful place full of busy little icons to walk awkwardly towards until there aren’t any left."

http://www.darkstation.com/reviews/assassins-creed-unity/
"the game is all but ruined by disastrous online connectivity issues and insipid social media hooks that reek of meddling by upper management and marketing."

These are not some "hater's" fantasy. Unity's problems are not the fault of fans who don't know what they want. Unity is simply not a good game, because: 1, the game's director (Alex Amancio) doesn't know what the series is about; 2, he has shown time after time that he is incapable of merging the history with the storyline; 3,because he failed to get the game ready for the scheduled release date; and 4, because he failed to outmaneuver upper-level management and a marketing department who wanted to turn Assassin's Creed into a massive Vegas-style slot machine that pays Ubisoft with every play. Any one of these fundamental failures could have been forgiven, heck, I might have even been able to forgive two of them, but never all four.

This is the reality.

Yeah, the people praising Unity are just blind Ubisoft apologists who defend AC no matter what...

Except you're forgetting that the people who love Unity dislike AC3. We like Unity because it's the opposite of AC3; it focuses on the core pillars, it has open mission design, the gameplay is balanced so it feels like you're an Assassin and not a one man army, levels aren't linear and don't hold your hand. And lol at blaming Amancio for everything, you don't like the games design, fine, but you can't lump everything on one man. Especially the bugs, that's ludicrous. I happen to think Amancio knows exactly how AC ticks and sets the perfect template for an AC game. It's just that the mechanics that fit that template aren't refined enough (which is not the fault of the creative director) - stealth and parkour are finicky, but the design is so good I still find the infiltration gameplay thrilling and rewarding. And you seem to have this notion that people who like the actual gameplay don't see bugs as a problem. Almost every post that praises Unity or counters a criticism has clarified the bugs were an issue but that they weren't referring to them. We genuinely enjoy the game; is it such a crime?

You claim Amancio is clueless, and that Patrice knows how the series should work. One crucial thing you forget is that Patrice laid the original foundations for the series which were as follows: an Assassin simulator that requires you to plan and think ahead, to tread carefully and avoid combat as you search the area for a target. A game where you use your observation skills to exploit surroundings and spot entrances and exits to plan your escape. That was Patrice's vision. Sound familiar? That's because Unity is precisely that type of game. You seem to have to frequently link to articles and internet opinion pieces, I can only assume you can't argue on your own merit.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2014, 02:56 PM
Even people on here are saying it's the 'worst game ever'. It's not even close to a bad game.

Would you know a bad game if you saw one? Because, based on your despair about the world's lack of positivity, it seems like you don't believe there is such a thing as a bad game. I assure you, Unity is a bad game. It has all the basic elements of an Assassin's Creed game, but it fails to bring any of them together in a unified and compelling whole. The biggest flaw is that the history is done in such an unimaginative, false and cursory way that it's just not immersive. The history is incredibly biased and superficial, with stereotypical bad guys that are not at all what we should expect from an Assassin's Creed game, and the historical content feels as if it is happening off to the side somewhere, rather than all around us. It almost seems as if we're reading about history rather than taking part in it. You may feel that's enough, but it could have and should have been so much more.

After all our banter back and forth about Unity's strengths and weaknesses is over, the reality is that Unity will be regarded as one of the two worst games in Assassin's Creed history. You seem to think that's because people are just negative these days. The fact is, Unity is a bad game. It's BAD. You and all the folks who are desperate to see the good in this game and ignore the bad are going to have to deal with the facts, sooner or later.

I'm fine with anyone playing the game and enjoying it. More power to you. But if you're going to defend a game as bad as Unity is, at least look at it without your rose-colored glasses for a little bit before you start. Otherwise it just seems as if you're living in a fantasy world.

king-hailz
11-28-2014, 03:27 PM
I agree with what you said bug I am not complaining about unitys game play at all! I think it is perfect, well not perfect it needs some more fine tuning but it's pretty much there! The story however was terrible! The modern day I have always loved yet they didn't do it well! I want them to make modern day that is done well!

RzaRecta357
11-28-2014, 03:28 PM
Absolutely love the game and I've been a major fan since the start. It's missing a few things like whistling but what it's gained is amazing. Combat and stealth and parkour are all so much more advanced it's insane. The parkour especially.

It's a character story and not about the french revolution so we have some whiners on that too.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2014, 03:32 PM
Absolutely love the game and I've been a major fan since the start. It's missing a few things like whistling but what it's gained is amazing. Combat and stealth and parkour are all so much more advanced it's insane. The parkour especially.

It's a character story and not about the french revolution so we have some whiners on that too.

No it's crap. You're obviously just lying to yourself.

My opinion differs from you so therefore if you say you enjoy the game you're obviously deluding yourself.

RzaRecta357
11-28-2014, 03:36 PM
Haha. They complain that the games don't change enough and then whine when they do. Yet we have people here praising Far Cry 4?

GTA V has more new things in it from PS3 to PS4 than Far Cry 4 has from Far Cry 3. Co-op and shooting from vehicles? Big whoop.. Yet it's praised. With Unity, GTAV and Dragon Age I've barely found time for FC4 :P.

Opinions, opinions, opinions!

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 03:40 PM
I find ACU combat being as easy as before. Just less options which is bad.

Stealth is too easy now (bc you have disguise) and its almost never actually usefull. I dont remember any missions where detection would lead to desync, and they put it as optional challenge only in 2. I use "stealth" just to get some extra creed points and for lulz.

I would like to have more countryside than endless Paris streets. ACB and AC3 had a nice balance. And there is no reason why you cant have Paris and naval gameplay in the same game.

I like variety and complexity but ACU removed most of gameplay elements and dumbed down the rest. You can say they "streamlined core pillars" but I suspect the real reason is their ****ty network code, which cant handle complex scenarious and physics. Not a single horse in entire Paris? They must be high.

Say what you want about Unity, but it is not as easy as before. Before, it was press B to win. Literally, you could commit massacres of 50 people. Practically, you can kill limitless amounts of enemies without breaking a sweat. In Unity, without health upgrades, you're almost guaranteed to die against 6+ people. Pistols 1 shot you and grunt attacks 2 shot you. Yes, medicine is handy, but I've been in fights against 10+ where it was actually difficult to use the medicine because of how quickly they barrage you with attacks. Never used the disguise skill, so don't know about that. The absence of desynch on detection is actually non-handholdy. They realize the game has multiple facets. You sneak, get caught, and then run and hide. Desynching you after detection kind of defeats the purpose of combat and hiding. Also, 2 didn't have optional objectives. The bit about open spaces is subjective I suppose. Compared to Black Flag, sure there's a lot less features. But you get a lot of features when you smash an open-world naval onto AC. A change of setting, a change of mechanics. That's practically the purpose of Rogue, to satisfy naval fans.

Anykeyer
11-28-2014, 03:53 PM
Combat can be hard w/o health upgrades and potions. But the problem is: game has health upgrades, you need them for 100% completion/achievements, and there are health potions. Also you usually fight far less enemies at once. So all things considered combat difficulty and usefullness of stealth didnt change at all: combat is easy, stealth isnt very usefull and rarely encouraged.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2014, 04:09 PM
Errr... Stealth is encouraged in practically every mission and even side quests... That's why combat is amped up.

Just because the Challenges aren't always 'don't get caught' doesn't mean they don't want you to be stealthy. Practically every mission can be tackled however you want, and since stealth is easier than combat - that's your best bet in all situations.

Stealth not being encouraged is a game like AC3, which might as well have forgot stealth existed. What with the telepathic AI and linear paths leading you into swathes of enemies to cut down.

Viking Dale
11-28-2014, 04:15 PM
Haha. They complain that the games don't change enough and then whine when they do. Yet we have people here praising Far Cry 4?

GTA V has more new things in it from PS3 to PS4 than Far Cry 4 has from Far Cry 3. Co-op and shooting from vehicles? Big whoop.. Yet it's praised. With Unity, GTAV and Dragon Age I've barely found time for FC4 :P.

Opinions, opinions, opinions!

That's why I like Far Cry 4. It's comfortable. I know what I'm doing and can just enjoy it. I know people wanted different and that's fair enough.

I'm trying to play GTAV, FC4, Halo MMC (which is an absolute mess online) and Unity at the same time. After months of waiting for decent games, I'm spoilt for choice.

Well... Unity has been taken off the list for now as it won't start anymore.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 04:32 PM
Here are a few reviews that nail Unity's issues:
I'm 95% convinced now that you're Stock.

Megas_Doux
11-28-2014, 04:38 PM
This is the reality.

The more I play Unity, performance issues and app stuff aside that I really dont experience in my PC gotta say, the more and more I get convinced how similar it is to AC I......

And whereas I loved that game, the critics did not because it was "boring" and not "action oriented enough"....Conclusions????

1 Cheesy accents will be coming back.
2 The combat will be dumbed down to 5 five years old levels.
3 You may carry 943840982409 weapons and 85487534809753098 units of ammo again without any effort whatsoever.
4 Guards will NOT detect you under any circumstance.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2014, 04:40 PM
Combat can be hard w/o health upgrades and potions. But the problem is: game has health upgrades, you need them for 100% completion/achievements, and there are health potions. Also you usually fight far less enemies at once. So all things considered combat difficulty and usefullness of stealth didnt change at all: combat is easy, stealth isnt very usefull and rarely encouraged.

I agree. When you get your character leveled up (and that's easily done if you just do a few Cafe Theatre missions), the combat becomes just as easy as it was in earlier games. The health potion system actually makes combat easier than it was in AC4, where you had to escape before your health level regenerated. AC4 actually encouraged careful and skillful play in a way that Unity does not.

In many ways, AC1 is still the toughest game in terms of combat, because there were some missions that just overwhelmed the player with tons of enemy soldiers.

As for stealth, there are still some bugs and gameplay flaws that make stealth both unworkable and fairly useless. It may get better, but unless they tweak the enemy detection system, I doubt stealth will ever be a true playstyle in this game. You can dabble in stealth, but as the game stands you cannot choose it as Arno's modus operandi.

mmac900
11-28-2014, 05:34 PM
OP, amazing analysis and I truly despair when I see people ranking unity as one of the worst in the series. It is at least 4th place (after ezio trilogy, which was the most perfect trilogy in all of gaming and always will be). In fact, if i wasnt such an ezio fanboy, I bet unity would be even higher. The only problem was the not so strong story and some bugs. In every other area, it improved upon all the other games, so how can people complain so much, jesus.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 05:37 PM
(after ezio trilogy, which was the most perfect trilogy in all of gaming and always will be). In fact, if i wasnt such an ezio fanboy,
Ehhhhh at least you admitted. That makes you better than..........Stock

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 05:44 PM
Combat can be hard w/o health upgrades and potions. But the problem is: game has health upgrades, you need them for 100% completion/achievements, and there are health potions. Also you usually fight far less enemies at once. So all things considered combat difficulty and usefullness of stealth didnt change at all: combat is easy, stealth isnt very usefull and rarely encouraged.

Yes, health upgrades that can be completely avoided, and are progressively unlocked throughout the story, are available. If you want them. If you need them to enhance your combat heavy playstyle, they're there. If not, get double assassination. Or stun bombs. If they're really unnecessary for your pure stealth playstyle, then there's 0 reason to pick them up. Yes, if you spec into combat, you will get better at combat. Also, combat IS more difficult than AC3's. Sure, fully upgraded into health and carrying the maximum amount of potions will carry you a lot longer through a fight. But the difference is, you can fight forever in AC3. In Unity, you're going to die, eventually. Especially thanks to a lack of human shields, resulting in being destroyed by firearms. Like Shahk said, considering you can tackle most missions anyway you like, stealth is more encouraged than anything else. More so, because it's the easiest and most effective way.

rob1990312
11-28-2014, 05:45 PM
the original post was post was brilliant
i honestly think that some of the haters in perticular havent even played unity and are just listing off all of the faults that they have heard of and spamming every thread with their bs

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2014, 05:47 PM
No wonder this franchise is going down the toilet when so many people are so willing to defend it when it's at its worst.

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 05:49 PM
I agree. When you get your character leveled up (and that's easily done if you just do a few Cafe Theatre missions), the combat becomes just as easy as it was in earlier games. The health potion system actually makes combat easier than it was in AC4, where you had to escape before your health level regenerated. AC4 actually encouraged careful and skillful play in a way that Unity does not.

In many ways, AC1 is still the toughest game in terms of combat, because there were some missions that just overwhelmed the player with tons of enemy soldiers.

As for stealth, there are still some bugs and gameplay flaws that make stealth both unworkable and fairly useless. It may get better, but unless they tweak the enemy detection system, I doubt stealth will ever be a true playstyle in this game. You can dabble in stealth, but as the game stands you cannot choose it as Arno's modus operandi.

Except I do? Not sure what's the case with your copy, but I'm not having any such problems.

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 05:52 PM
No wonder this franchise is going down the toilet when so many people are so willing to defend it when it's at its worst.

>I don't like this game.

>I do.

>But it's bad.

>Not in my opinion.

>You're destroying the franchise.

Brilliant.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 05:56 PM
Errr... Stealth is encouraged in practically every mission and even side quests... That's why combat is amped up.

Just because the Challenges aren't always 'don't get caught' doesn't mean they don't want you to be stealthy. Practically every mission can be tackled however you want, and since stealth is easier than combat - that's your best bet in all situations.

Stealth not being encouraged is a game like AC3, which might as well have forgot stealth existed. What with the telepathic AI and linear paths leading you into swathes of enemies to cut down.

Stealth being encouraged doesn't make stealth Fun. It should be fun to sneak in and sneak out, it should be stylish and cool. The game's mission design should make it awesome to be stealthy, like the earlier titles did all the time.

You say it goes back to Assassin's Creed I but in AC1, all the Assassination Missions had a unique feel, setting and mission design to it, not one of them felt repititive, like the level design in this game does. AC3 or the Ezio games may not have been stealthy or as non-linear but between fun and cool level design and non-linearity, I'd choose that, since its cooler to do missions that feel awesome as many times as you play it than to do a boring mission hundred different ways and expect the next time will be fun.

Megas_Doux
11-28-2014, 05:58 PM
No wonder this franchise is going down the toilet when so many people are so willing to defend it when it's at its worst.

The performance issues and app stuff is plain unacceptable. But the gameplay reminds me of AC I and I loved AC I......

I know you want to return to more a more more caricaturesque/easy approach similar to AC II. Opinions......

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 06:03 PM
No wonder this franchise is going down the toilet when so many people are so willing to defend it when it's at its worst.
It all started with you saying AC II and Ezio were great, it's your fault the franchise is going down the toilet.

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 06:03 PM
Stealth being encouraged doesn't make stealth Fun. It should be fun to sneak in and sneak out, it should be stylish and cool. The game's mission design should make it awesome to be stealthy, like the earlier titles did all the time.


Well I think Le Peletier assassination was very stylish, same goes for majority of the targets. I screwed up with Luxembourg one, but this place gets me confused for some reason and I'm sure it's possible to figure out a "perfect" clean kill there.

Fatal-Feit
11-28-2014, 06:05 PM
It all started with you saying AC II and Ezio were great, it's your fault the franchise is going down the toilet.

So much this. :rolleyes:

Give this guy a sticker.

Speaking of drab missions, I didn't come across any in Unity. They were all fun, enhanced by its openness and level designs.

swiftkinfe
11-28-2014, 06:09 PM
I don't know about the combat complaints really. I do just fine once I became able to parry. I do know what I want and that's for Ubisoft to finish the actual game before release. No companion apps or initiates or of they do actually make them work!

I may not be without things to do in Unity but that doesn't mean the game is finished. I enjoy Paris and I like Arno. From a gameplay perspective he is an incompetent fool who can't climb into a darn window! All I'm asking is to finish the game next time.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 06:11 PM
Speaking of drab missions, I didn't come across any in Unity. They were all fun, enhanced by its openness and level designs.
Same here, especially the co-op missions. Those were very fun and looooooooooong. Also, why are people saying cherry bombs don't work to lure guards to corners? They worked for me all the time.

rob1990312
11-28-2014, 06:13 PM
Same here, especially the co-op missions. Those were very fun and looooooooooong. Also, why are people saying cherry bombs don't work to lure guards to corners? They worked for me all the time.

climbing in windows also work

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2014, 06:13 PM
>I don't like this game.

>I do.

>But it's bad.

>Not in my opinion.

>You're destroying the franchise.

Brilliant.

This is why the game's defenders just don't get it. They consistently refuse to address their opponents' points, instead pretending they represent mere contradiction.

If you want to like the game, like it. But when you involve yourself in a debate, you need to actually engage. Building up straw men and engaging in sophistry and character assassination just make you look childish. If you continue to act like this, no one is going to treat you seriously.

Unity has serious flaws, and the game's critics have done a lot more in this thread (and others) than just say it's bad. If you're seriously a fan of the franchise, you need to realize that the last thing the developers need is a club of cheerleaders who are blind to a game's faults. People like that are far worse than useless, because if a developer takes them too seriously, it results in games like Day Z.

No one ever helped a game developer by endlessly cheering for every game.

rob1990312
11-28-2014, 06:15 PM
you must be a modern day hero

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 06:17 PM
No one ever helped a game developer by endlessly cheering for every game.
So that's why ACB sucked so much.

Fatal-Feit
11-28-2014, 06:18 PM
Same here, especially the co-op missions. Those were very fun and looooooooooong. Also, why are people saying cherry bombs don't work to lure guards to corners? They worked for me all the time.

Beats me. Personally, I don't lure guards towards myself. What I do is throw a cherry bomb towards a corner, get them all in a smoke bomb, eagle vision to highlight targets, and stab them all dead before the smoke wears out.

Sometimes I mix it up with a poison bomb + group healing. Is fun.

RinoTheBouncer
11-28-2014, 06:18 PM
I think the glitches that many gamers have suffered from in AC:U have overshadowed any argument about the quality of the game alone or any productive review of the actual piece with negligence to the game-breaking glitches and frame-rate drops. I personally only faced a few glitches in Unity and non of them were game-breaing. So I can’t really bash the game for being glitchy cause it wasn’t for me.

However, even though I adore Elise and Arno, I despise the ending. The fact that the modern day is now gone (and it was my reason to love the franchise since day one) was a big overkill for me and the ending of the game where we’re basically told “Sorry, we can’t get to the Sage’s body. We’ll call you if we need you” as a voice over during the credits, not to mention the CLICHÉ and predictable fate of Elise absolutely ruined the beauty of the rest of that game. I loved Elise so much and she and Arno had zero problems with their ways or the order/creed they work for, yet the just choose this fate to make it look “deep” when it really isn’t cause it was predictable as hell, and not to mention VERY unnecessary. It felt like they just did that so they avoid being asked for a sequel

That’s my only problem with Unity. Otherwise, the fact that we shared a lot of moments with Elise during the game, Arno as a character himself, and Elise as a Templar and the fact that the two of them stood up against everything wrong with their own Creed/Order was just wonderful. The graphics were amazing, the city was so alive, the cutscenes were epic. To be perfectly honest, I would’ve been a trillion times happier had the game ended with the Balloon cutscene. I would’ve given it 10/10 and it’s not about happy or sad, it’s about a well-made and well-planned ending.

In addition to all that, the total lack of Juno story progression was like a spear in my heart. When a few days before released, ATA fan site and AC:I posted a video of Juno’s message, I was so hyped about what I’ll be encountering in Rogue and Unity, but neither offered a tiny bit of progress to that.

I think nobody can blame those of us who adore Ezio’s trilogy because we don’t just love it for Ezio’s charisma or looks, but there was so much going on from Modern Day to First Civ. to Glyphs and Rifts to Clay’s story..etc. while now, there’s just a self-contained story that didn’t even conclude properly and tons of side missions that I really don’t feel motivated to play more of, since they add nothing to overarching story, but just random affairs in the city. I don’t hate Unity, but I’m just saying that my problem was neither the bugs, the difficulty of combat, the stealth, the lack of whistling and human shield abilities..etc. but it was the story itself, which sadly, cannot be patched.

But then again, I don’t have AC games that I hate, just most and least favorites and I came to ACU with an open heart along with Rogue, but I’m sorry, I still can’t put them above Ezio’s trilogy, ACIII and ACI.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 06:20 PM
Beats me. Personally, I don't lure guards towards myself. What I do is throw a cherry bomb towards a corner, get them all in a smoke bomb, eagle vision to highlight targets, and stab them all dead before the smoke wears out.
I sometimes do that if I want to avoid killing a lot of guards, just lure them to a corner and get their backs, then sneak forward.

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 06:31 PM
Stealth being encouraged doesn't make stealth Fun. It should be fun to sneak in and sneak out, it should be stylish and cool. The game's mission design should make it awesome to be stealthy, like the earlier titles did all the time.

You say it goes back to Assassin's Creed I but in AC1, all the Assassination Missions had a unique feel, setting and mission design to it, not one of them felt repititive, like the level design in this game does. AC3 or the Ezio games may not have been stealthy or as non-linear but between fun and cool level design and non-linearity, I'd choose that, since its cooler to do missions that feel awesome as many times as you play it than to do a boring mission hundred different ways and expect the next time will be fun.

Uh, what? What game did you play? I found every missions to be designed exceptionally, and, there's a lack of variety? Really?

*SPOILERS*

Here are the main assassination settings:

Note Dame Cathedral.

Sewer system.

Graveyard.

Boss fight on top/inside of a church.

Top of bastille.

Palace.

Ball in an estate.

Execution.

Another execution, yet formatted vastly different.

Boss fight in a crypt.

Honestly...

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 06:36 PM
This is why the game's defenders just don't get it. They consistently refuse to address their opponents' points, instead pretending they represent mere contradiction.

If you want to like the game, like it. But when you involve yourself in a debate, you need to actually engage. Building up straw men and engaging in sophistry and character assassination just make you look childish. If you continue to act like this, no one is going to treat you seriously.

Unity has serious flaws, and the game's critics have done a lot more in this thread (and others) than just say it's bad. If you're seriously a fan of the franchise, you need to realize that the last thing the developers need is a club of cheerleaders who are blind to a game's faults. People like that are far worse than useless, because if a developer takes them too seriously, it results in games like Day Z.

No one ever helped a game developer by endlessly cheering for every game.

I've been addressing points my entire time in this thread, including yours. Still waiting for your reply. I also find it ironic how you accuse me of character assassination and not addressing opposing points, when, instead of replying to our points, you just generalize every defender of the game. Please point out the part where I used a strawman.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 06:42 PM
Yes, health upgrades that can be completely avoided, and are progressively unlocked throughout the story, are available. If you want them. If you need them to enhance your combat heavy playstyle, they're there. If not, get double assassination. Or stun bombs. If they're really unnecessary for your pure stealth playstyle, then there's 0 reason to pick them up. Yes, if you spec into combat, you will get better at combat. Also, combat IS more difficult than AC3's. Sure, fully upgraded into health and carrying the maximum amount of potions will carry you a lot longer through a fight. But the difference is, you can fight forever in AC3. In Unity, you're going to die, eventually. Especially thanks to a lack of human shields, resulting in being destroyed by firearms. Like Shahk said, considering you can tackle most missions anyway you like, stealth is more encouraged than anything else. More so, because it's the easiest and most effective way.

The point is they made combat more difficult in UNITY by making Arno weaker, they didn't do it by making the enemies tougher to combat. You have to use currency to get to the privileges earlier game characters had. In other words the combat isn't harder or more creative. For creative gameplay in combat, they should have made the enemies upgrade or match you in fight with yourself at your best.

In AC3, the enemies were harder too - you had Captains, you had Grenadiers and above that you have those Jaegars who were the hardest fighters in AC combat. Connor started with all of Ezio's moves but in a straight fight against these harder fights, only stealth would work. So in the mission with Sam Adams where you are introduced to Notoriety System, you had to use stealth because the street was filled with Jaegars.

Making stealth the easiest and effective way is not good gameplay design, far from it. Making stealth a challenge and fun is more important.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 06:43 PM
Please point out the part where I used a strawman.
When you didn't.

mmac900
11-28-2014, 06:45 PM
This is why the game's defenders just don't get it. They consistently refuse to address their opponents' points, instead pretending they represent mere contradiction.

If you want to like the game, like it. But when you involve yourself in a debate, you need to actually engage. Building up straw men and engaging in sophistry and character assassination just make you look childish. If you continue to act like this, no one is going to treat you seriously.

Unity has serious flaws, and the game's critics have done a lot more in this thread (and others) than just say it's bad. If you're seriously a fan of the franchise, you need to realize that the last thing the developers need is a club of cheerleaders who are blind to a game's faults. People like that are far worse than useless, because if a developer takes them too seriously, it results in games like Day Z.

No one ever helped a game developer by endlessly cheering for every game.

It's not like OP actually gave his (great) reasons for why this game is awesome and improves upon most things people wanted:rolleyes:

Fatal-Feit
11-28-2014, 06:45 PM
So dumb.

DraconisLupus
11-28-2014, 06:48 PM
I think I'm just not adjusted to the cherry bombs yet. I started by throwing them where I wanted the enemy to go but they would stop about 20 feet from where I threw it and look at it the move back to where they were. So then I tried adjusting where I threw them for that and then they didn't react at all. Haven't really used them since just berserked them instead.

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 06:50 PM
The point is they made combat more difficult in UNITY by making Arno weaker, they didn't do it by making the enemies tougher to combat. You have to use currency to get to the privileges earlier game characters had. In other words the combat isn't harder or more creative. For creative gameplay in combat, they should have made the enemies upgrade or match you in fight with yourself at your best.

In AC3, the enemies were harder too - you had Captains, you had Grenadiers and above that you have those Jaegars who were the hardest fighters in AC combat. Connor started with all of Ezio's moves but in a straight fight against these harder fights, only stealth would work. So in the mission with Sam Adams where you are introduced to Notoriety System, you had to use stealth because the street was filled with Jaegars.

Making stealth the easiest and effective way is not good gameplay design, far from it. Making stealth a challenge and fun is more important.

Press B to win against Jaegers, like any enemy in that game. Janiserries were harder than Jaegers. Also, combat is more difficult in Unity, you said it yourself before contradicting yourself. If you don't find Unity combat creative, then I don't see how you could find AC3 combat to be creative. Unity has character archetypes just like AC3. Enemies also attack more quickly, at nearly the same time (not in perfect synchronization to enable an insta double kill, just far apart to make you have to parry both), you can't sacrifice any enemy in the game to the altar of meat shield to protect yourself from gunfire, and brutes have attacks that you have to dodge.

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 06:52 PM
When you didn't.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure this guy is just trolling.

Viking Dale
11-28-2014, 07:03 PM
Exactly. I'm pretty sure this guy is just trolling.

Which is why I'm not engaging. :)

wvstolzing
11-28-2014, 07:17 PM
One thing that puzzles me, is how little appreciation there seems to be for the art team's work.

I almost don't even care that this is a *game*, in addition to being a virtual historical tourism portal; so my warped opinions on the combat aspect, or the stealth aspect (... in this thread in particular, you guys tend to be a bit too forgiving in those respects ...) don't even matter (so, ignore what I've just said -- I mean, seriously).

But what bugs me, for instance, is that I haven't seen anyone comment on how big of a difference it makes for the monuments in ACU to have been built on a 1:1 scale.

I don't think I can return to any of the Ezio games now, without feeling that I'm in an elaborate theme park.

As to 'historicity', some comments are in order: Yes, they often take very strange liberties with the factual source material, some of which can even be offending to some sensibilities, and entirely reasonably too. My attitude, though, is that if AC's crazy, warped, biased, soap-opera version of history incites 1 in 1000 players to actually pick up a book about the period and read it, that's achievement enough. And there's SO little in popular entertainment that can serve a similar purpose. This summer I read three books on the so-called 'golden age of piracy', which, I admit, I wouldn't have picked up in a hundred years, if it weren't for Black Flag. And I'm so glad that I did, because apart from it's being rather interesting and fun in itself to read about people like Cpt. Morgan, Francis Drake, followed by our wonderful cast of Ed Teach, Bart Roberts, Stede Bonnet, Mary Read et al., a little more knowledge as to sea trade during this crucial period has contributed to making my sketchy picture of early modern world history a little less sketchy.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 07:24 PM
Uh, what? What game did you play? I found every missions to be designed exceptionally, and, there's a lack of variety? Really?

*SPOILERS*

Here are the main assassination settings:

The settings are not the same as gameplay. The gameplay for all these missions involves you doing the same things. If you have lockpick skill, you can come this way, if you do one mini-mission you might have chance for special assassination. There are no special variations at all. All your targets are sitting in one place waiting for you to come to them. So there's no tension, nothing dynamic happening in the Assassination mission, nothing really at stake..

In AC1 - To take three some examples
- Majd Addin -- Assassinate him in Public in the middle of an execution.(They re-used this one for the La Touche Assassination).
- Sibrand -- Jump off several docks, poles, ship masts and climb on side of a ship and stab him in the back.
- Jubair - Bookburning dude. Four different possibilites you have to chase through crowds and street, and randomized.

In AC2 - To take three examples
- Pazzi Conspirator on Top of Tower -- You do stealthy climbing, dodging arrows fired at you (One hit and you drop down), moving from tower to tower, until you can climb the central one and get to the target at Top.
- Barbarigo - Infiltrate Party, Wear a Mask, Social Stealth, and then fire at guy with a Hidden Gun.
- Carlo Grimaldi - You have to stop an Assassination Attempt, to get there you need to use flamboyant methods of flying machine, and then sneak through a palace where detection is mission failure. High tension and then at the end of it you are too late anyway.

In AC3 - Full Synchronization Only
- William Johnson - You have to climb up a cliff, shift through bushes and woods before coming to a house.
- John Pitcairn - Assassinate him in the middle of the battlefield, moving through hail of firepower and shifting in-between waves of enemy gunpowder, then go corner to corner in an armed camp, before a flamboyant finish where you jump from trees to a top of a flagpole and land a Tomahawk on a skull
- Thomas Hickey - Your attempt to kill Hickey ends in disaster, both of you end up in jail and the gameplay shifts all of a sudden into an actual stealth mission indoors in terms of sneaking around, keeping noise levels down but you fail anyway and are about to be hanged. Finally you have to charge at Hickey in a time limit to save the President by rushing down the street and Parkouring like no tomorrow.

Black Flag - Full Syncronization Only
- Julien du Casse - Sneak through a Jungle, get past a small town, climb aboard a Man'O War, and drop off a tall setting. The only AC mission I can think of where every single type of land environment is used at once (Jungle, Town, Ship).
- Charles Vane - The two of you on an island, you with only hidden blades, him with guns and grenades(and good aim). You have to still sneak up and drop down and kill him.
- Woodes Rogers - Infiltrate a party, blend in, avoid direct line of sight with Rogers, wait for the right moment to do an Assassination either in Corner or while Seated(a re-use from the Juan Borgia Brotherhood Mission but I'll let it pass since Edward's attempt at an Italian accent is cool).

In UNITY - the only Unique Assassination Missions I can think of is,
- NOTRE DAME - The Sivert one at the Demo which is the only good mission of the game. Movement from exteriors to interiors, highs and lows, crowded spaces and high ceilings to tiny Confessional.
and that's it.
All the other missions (Levesque, Lafreniere, Lepeletier, LaTouche, Roi des Thunes, Rouille) follow the same patterns - Infiltrate building/Pick Locks when you can, Cut off Alarm Bells, Trigger unique assassination if you are not bored) and lather rinse repeat.

Fatal-Feit
11-28-2014, 07:24 PM
Which is why I'm not engaging. :)

Which is why you all should just place him on your ignore list like I have.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 07:35 PM
Also, combat is more difficult in Unity, you said it yourself before contradicting yourself.

What I said, quite clearly, is "They made combat more difficult in UNITY by making Arno weaker, they didn't do it by making the enemies tougher to combat."


Enemies also attack more quickly, at nearly the same time (not in perfect synchronization to enable an insta double kill, just far apart to make you have to parry both), you can't sacrifice any enemy in the game to the altar of meat shield to protect yourself from gunfire, and brutes have attacks that you have to dodge.

That is exactly my point, combat is made harder by depriving players of gameplay options not with smarter, resilient and creative enemies. Like say, an enemy that uses civilians as Human Shields or uses other objects to block you using a Pistol. Or probably enemies that hold you and put you in direction of gunfire.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 08:01 PM
Like say, an enemy that uses civilians as Human Shields or uses other objects to block you using a Pistol.
They dodge shots, which wasn't possible in previous AC games. honestly, they did both. They made Arno weaker and made enemies more challenging. Could it be better? Sure, anything can.

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 08:12 PM
In UNITY - the only Unique Assassination Missions I can think of is,
- NOTRE DAME - The Sivert one at the Demo which is the only good mission of the game. Movement from exteriors to interiors, highs and lows, crowded spaces and high ceilings to tiny Confessional.
and that's it.
All the other missions (Levesque, Lafreniere, Lepeletier, LaTouche, Roi des Thunes, Rouille) follow the same patterns - Infiltrate building/Pick Locks when you can, Cut off Alarm Bells, Trigger unique assassination if you are not bored) and lather rinse repeat.

I don't get it, sorry. The game gives you many replay options and different approaches - but when you round it up as "infiltrate building/pick locks" everything looks similar. I could say the exact same thing about any game really.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2014, 08:25 PM
But what bugs me, for instance, is that I haven't seen anyone comment on how big of a difference it makes for the monuments in ACU to have been built on a 1:1 scale.

I appreciate it. I've even said on a number of occasions that the game's setting is perfect. On the other hand, I don't think getting the setting perfect is enough to offset the game's problems.


if AC's crazy, warped, biased, soap-opera version of history incites 1 in 1000 players to actually pick up a book about the period and read it, that's achievement enough.

Not if, for every one who picks up a book, ten don't, and think they've learned something. It used to be the case, back in the days of AC1 and AC2, that they might actually learn something from Assassin's Creed: for example, that Richard I spoke French or that Leonardo da Vinci designed weapon inventions for the Borgias and may have been gay. But with Unity's "Leatherface" Saint-Just and the murderous Robespierre, those days are definitely gone.

If Robespierre had appeared in an earlier AC game, they would have done enough research to know that Robespierre's true character is controversial, and they would have made the game reflect the reality. they would have even allowed him a speech that defended his point of view. But now they just go with the most stereotypical popular view of him as a bloodthirsty tyrant, and they have him gloating over Danton, no matter that this has more to do with modern political spin than documentary evidence. You'd never know from the game that Robespierre actually tried, and managed, to delay Danton's execution.

And that reminds me: Danton was hardly the spotless victim of revolutionary justice that the game paints him. He was clearly corrupt, and if anything, he was more bloodthirsty than Robespierre.

I wouldn't mind the simplistic spin and the stereotyping so much if it made the game better, but it doesn't. On the contrary, it makes the game far worse.

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 08:42 PM
The settings are not the same as gameplay. The gameplay for all these missions involves you doing the same things. If you have lockpick skill, you can come this way, if you do one mini-mission you might have chance for special assassination. There are no special variations at all. All your targets are sitting in one place waiting for you to come to them. So there's no tension, nothing dynamic happening in the Assassination mission, nothing really at stake..

In AC1 - To take three some examples
- Majd Addin -- Assassinate him in Public in the middle of an execution.(They re-used this one for the La Touche Assassination).
- Sibrand -- Jump off several docks, poles, ship masts and climb on side of a ship and stab him in the back.
- Jubair - Bookburning dude. Four different possibilites you have to chase through crowds and street, and randomized.

In AC2 - To take three examples
- Pazzi Conspirator on Top of Tower -- You do stealthy climbing, dodging arrows fired at you (One hit and you drop down), moving from tower to tower, until you can climb the central one and get to the target at Top.
- Barbarigo - Infiltrate Party, Wear a Mask, Social Stealth, and then fire at guy with a Hidden Gun.
- Carlo Grimaldi - You have to stop an Assassination Attempt, to get there you need to use flamboyant methods of flying machine, and then sneak through a palace where detection is mission failure. High tension and then at the end of it you are too late anyway.

In AC3 - Full Synchronization Only
- William Johnson - You have to climb up a cliff, shift through bushes and woods before coming to a house.
- John Pitcairn - Assassinate him in the middle of the battlefield, moving through hail of firepower and shifting in-between waves of enemy gunpowder, then go corner to corner in an armed camp, before a flamboyant finish where you jump from trees to a top of a flagpole and land a Tomahawk on a skull
- Thomas Hickey - Your attempt to kill Hickey ends in disaster, both of you end up in jail and the gameplay shifts all of a sudden into an actual stealth mission indoors in terms of sneaking around, keeping noise levels down but you fail anyway and are about to be hanged. Finally you have to charge at Hickey in a time limit to save the President by rushing down the street and Parkouring like no tomorrow.

Black Flag - Full Syncronization Only
- Julien du Casse - Sneak through a Jungle, get past a small town, climb aboard a Man'O War, and drop off a tall setting. The only AC mission I can think of where every single type of land environment is used at once (Jungle, Town, Ship).
- Charles Vane - The two of you on an island, you with only hidden blades, him with guns and grenades(and good aim). You have to still sneak up and drop down and kill him.
- Woodes Rogers - Infiltrate a party, blend in, avoid direct line of sight with Rogers, wait for the right moment to do an Assassination either in Corner or while Seated(a re-use from the Juan Borgia Brotherhood Mission but I'll let it pass since Edward's attempt at an Italian accent is cool).

In UNITY - the only Unique Assassination Missions I can think of is,
- NOTRE DAME - The Sivert one at the Demo which is the only good mission of the game. Movement from exteriors to interiors, highs and lows, crowded spaces and high ceilings to tiny Confessional.
and that's it.
All the other missions (Levesque, Lafreniere, Lepeletier, LaTouche, Roi des Thunes, Rouille) follow the same patterns - Infiltrate building/Pick Locks when you can, Cut off Alarm Bells, Trigger unique assassination if you are not bored) and lather rinse repeat.

Sounds like you just prefer more linear missions to open sandboxes approachable from different ways and complete able in any way you like. Except for AC1, which missions are structured similarly, in that they give you an area, a target, and let you lose, so not sure what your point is there. The way you personally approach the mission not being satisfactory to you, has little to do with how the missions are actually designed.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2014, 08:47 PM
Sounds like you just prefer more linear missions to open sandboxes approachable from different ways and complete able in any way you like. Except for AC1, which missions are structured similarly, in that they give you an area, a target, and let you lose, so not sure what your point is there. The way you personally approach the mission not being satisfactory to you, has little to do with how the missions are actually designed.

Exactly. There are more ways to do missions than ever before.

Not the games fault if you can only find one way of doing them. As for pointing out scripted crap like Pitcairn and Hickey as good assassinations that Unity should have aspired to, LOL.

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 08:47 PM
Also:

The point is they made combat more difficult in UNITY by making Arno weaker, they didn't do it by making the enemies tougher to combat. You have to use currency to get to the privileges earlier game characters had. In other words the combat isn't harder or more creative. For creative gameplay in combat, they should have made the enemies upgrade or match you in fight with yourself at your best.

In AC3, the enemies were harder too - you had Captains, you had Grenadiers and above that you have those Jaegars who were the hardest fighters in AC combat. Connor started with all of Ezio's moves but in a straight fight against these harder fights, only stealth would work. So in the mission with Sam Adams where you are introduced to Notoriety System, you had to use stealth because the street was filled with Jaegars.

Making stealth the easiest and effective way is not good gameplay design, far from it. Making stealth a challenge and fun is more important.

Namikaze_17
11-28-2014, 08:55 PM
"I give you everything, yet it's never enough." - Ubisoft


And guys, I don't know why you bother with Prometheus.

He's old...have some respect. :rolleyes:

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 08:58 PM
Also, maybe it's just me but listing something with "fullsync" requirements as "unique" is a terrible idea. As much as I like ACIII never again I want to trudge through the crowd running after Hickey where I need to kill two guards just because.

Namikaze_17
11-28-2014, 08:59 PM
Also, maybe it's just me but listing something with "fullsync" requirements as "unique" is a terrible idea. As much as I like ACIII never again I want to trudge through the crows running after Hickey where I need to kill two guards just because.

If you think bout it, Connor must be hella fast. :rolleyes:

GoldenBoy9999
11-28-2014, 09:00 PM
Also, maybe it's just me but listing something with "fullsync" requirements as "unique" is a terrible idea. As much as I like ACIII never again I want to trudge through the crowd running after Hickey where I need to kill two guards just because.

Or not running into civilians. :rolleyes:

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 09:02 PM
I don't get it, sorry. The game gives you many replay options and different approaches - but when you round it up as "infiltrate building/pick locks" everything looks similar. I could say the exact same thing about any game really.


I don't get it, sorry. The game gives you many replay options and different approaches - but when you round it up as "infiltrate building/pick locks" everything looks similar. I could say the exact same thing about any game really.

My argument is that there is no variety that makes different missions stand out, not in terms of playing them. Sivert's assassination mission is only distinctive because it uses this amazing location of the Notre Dame Cathedral and really makes you explore it from the outside and the inside, with the different infiltration opportunities furthering the exploration. To get to Sivert, you can charge straight ahead yes, but the stealth option is more fun since you get to explore the building.

The other missions aren't as memorable nor does the gameplay perfectly synchronize with that location like the Sivert one does.

There's not a lot of difference between Palais Luxembourg(Levesque) and Palais Royal(Lepeletier).

The September Massacres mission could have really been a dark mission since that was the bloodiest moment of street violence during the Revolution, but again, they use it for you to sneak into a building, stab guards and cut alarm bells and climb up to the top and stab the dude at a right time. Wow, that is really creative design there. In other words, even if the story is extremely chaotic and ought to provide interesting gameplay, it plays the same way as the other missions.

It's the same with Le Roi des Thunes, he's there in this one place, when you could say chase him through the Sewers(like in Les Miserables) or have to carefully navigate the catacombs or other cool stuff. I mean the Assassin Tomb in Brotherhood, Cloaca Maxima was also a Sewer Level, but they used the setting more creatively, granted its scripted gameplay but it feels new everytime you played it, whereas here you can replay it using a different approach and it still plays the same.

La Touche's Assassination, where you sneak to him by walking beside other condemned of the guillotine is a little smarter but again it reuses the Majd Addin Assassination from AC1, which it consciously echoes.

The main problem with the Assassination levels aside from repetitive design and gameplay, is that none of your targets are entertaining or memorable themselves. I mean you can forgive the flaws if the story worked its way and added to the experience. In AC1, you remembered Majd Addin, Sibrand, Garnier, Abul Nuqod.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 09:09 PM
The settings are not the same as gameplay. The gameplay for all these missions involves you doing the same things. If you have lockpick skill, you can come this way, if you do one mini-mission you might have chance for special assassination. There are no special variations at all. All your targets are sitting in one place waiting for you to come to them. So there's no tension, nothing dynamic happening in the Assassination mission, nothing really at stake.. .

The examples you listed are examples of missions that will always play more or less the same upon each replay. AC1 and AC4 are the only games besides Unity which don't insta-fail you upon detection in most cases. In all the other games, you usually only have the choice of either combat or stealth, not both, and it's very clear which path the devs meant for you to take. For example the Hickey mission in AC3 will always end up playing exactly the same way. It's impossible to assassinate him before ending up in jail, and when you're there, you're forced to remain undetected. Every replay of that mission will always be the same. Whereas in Unity, if I can't be bothered to sneak around disabling alarm bells, I can stock up on medicine and smoke bombs and go balls-to-the-wall fighting a most epic number of guards to get to my target. There can even be a mixture of both, as the case usually ends up being: I start out stealthy, then get detected and depending on my mood, either flee the scene to start over or kill a few guards before continuing with stealth. Pre-AC4 this was usually not an option.

Unity's unique assassinations can be amazing when everything goes perfectly. I loved the one where you poison you target's wine. It's totally assassiny and something I've always wanted to do in AC. I stayed undetected the entire time, moved slowly between people and once he got up and walked behind a corner, BAM! Unfortunately one guard started to detect me just as I moved in for the kill, so in the end I had to run, but I want to do that mission again to see if I can corner the target so sneakily his guards won't even know what happened before I've quietly snuck out.

That's just as cinematic and memorable as any of the examples you mentioned. The only difference is that if you don't meet the special requirements, you can end the mission any way you want: with a huge brawl, a quick headshot, poison bomb, cherry bomb to lure the guards away, etc.


The point is they made combat more difficult in UNITY by making Arno weaker, they didn't do it by making the enemies tougher to combat. You have to use currency to get to the privileges earlier game characters had. In other words the combat isn't harder or more creative. For creative gameplay in combat, they should have made the enemies upgrade or match you in fight with yourself at your best.

In AC3, the enemies were harder too - you had Captains, you had Grenadiers and above that you have those Jaegars who were the hardest fighters in AC combat. Connor started with all of Ezio's moves but in a straight fight against these harder fights, only stealth would work. So in the mission with Sam Adams where you are introduced to Notoriety System, you had to use stealth because the street was filled with Jaegars.

Making stealth the easiest and effective way is not good gameplay design, far from it. Making stealth a challenge and fun is more important.

Jaegers were the only difficult enemy type in AC3, and only in large numbers, which is what happened when you got to level 3 notoriety. Then it was almost impossible to shake them off. But unlike Unity's toughest enemies, you could one-shot Jaegers with the rope dart (and I think with the gun as well?). The only way to one-shot Unity's captains is to headshot from a distance, stealthily. So many times I've forgotten the tougher enemies can't be quick-shotted and gotten myself into trouble.

My Arno is level 5 and I still find combat difficult if I'm surrounded by high level enemies. I just did the mission in sequence 11 where you kill Latouche. I messed up right at the end, got detected and got into a huge fight. Didn't even have time to heal myself from all the beating. And I was fine with that, because just like AC1, you don't get insta-desynchronized in this game but getting detected is a failstate in itself. I messed up, my punishment is having to either fight or flee. In the Ezio games, desynchronization upon detection was basically telling the player "oops, you messed up, but rather than forcing you to deal with the consequences, we'll pretend this didn't happen and make you do it OUR way". AC1 and Unity are the only games that force you to adapt to the situation. If you're tough enough to fight your way through every situation without ever bothering with stealth, I salute you. I always run out medicine before running out of enemies to fight.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 09:11 PM
If Robespierre had appeared in an earlier AC game, they would have done enough research to know that Robespierre's true character is controversial, and they would have made the game reflect the reality. they would have even allowed him a speech that defended his point of view. But now they just go with the most stereotypical popular view of him as a bloodthirsty tyrant

Yeah, like the fair and balanced way they portrayed Cesare Borgia in ACB.

Oh, wait.

Megas_Doux
11-28-2014, 09:11 PM
AC I and Unity have a lot of similarities gameplay wise, the assassinations included. And to MANY AC I is the most "adquired taste" in the franchise, Unity bugs aside, is the same. You locate you target and you get to kill it, as simple as that.

That simplicity kills the game to many gamers.....

And as siskeys said I LOL everytime prometheus claims that AC II/ACB villians are balanced and historically accurate, mostly Cesare Borgia.

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 09:13 PM
My argument is that there is no variety that makes different missions stand out, not in terms of playing them. Sivert's assassination mission is only distinctive because it uses this amazing location of the Notre Dame Cathedral and really makes you explore it from the outside and the inside, with the different infiltration opportunities furthering the exploration. To get to Sivert, you can charge straight ahead yes, but the stealth option is more fun since you get to explore the building.

The other missions aren't as memorable nor does the gameplay perfectly synchronize with that location like the Sivert one does.

There's not a lot of difference between Palais Luxembourg(Levesque) and Palais Royal(Lepeletier).

The September Massacres mission could have really been a dark mission since that was the bloodiest moment of street violence during the Revolution, but again, they use it for you to sneak into a building, stab guards and cut alarm bells and climb up to the top and stab the dude at a right time. Wow, that is really creative design there. In other words, even if the story is extremely chaotic and ought to provide interesting gameplay, it plays the same way as the other missions.

It's the same with Le Roi des Thunes, he's there in this one place, when you could say chase him through the Sewers(like in Les Miserables) or have to carefully navigate the catacombs or other cool stuff. I mean the Assassin Tomb in Brotherhood, Cloaca Maxima was also a Sewer Level, but they used the setting more creatively, granted its scripted gameplay but it feels new everytime you played it, whereas here you can replay it using a different approach and it still plays the same.

La Touche's Assassination, where you sneak to him by walking beside other condemned of the guillotine is a little smarter but again it reuses the Majd Addin Assassination from AC1, which it consciously echoes.

The main problem with the Assassination levels aside from repetitive design and gameplay, is that none of your targets are entertaining or memorable themselves. I mean you can forgive the flaws if the story worked its way and added to the experience. In AC1, you remembered Majd Addin, Sibrand, Garnier, Abul Nuqod.

Majd Addin and La Touche Assassination are nothing alike, design wise. Also, you seem to be mistaking design for playstyle. Again.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2014, 09:13 PM
The September Massacres mission could have really been a dark mission since that was the bloodiest moment of street violence during the Revolution, but again, they use it for you to sneak into a building, stab guards and cut alarm bells and climb up to the top and stab the dude at a right time. Wow, that is really creative design there. In other words, even if the story is extremely chaotic and ought to provide interesting gameplay, it plays the same way as the other missions.
.

Oh my God, it's almost as though it's a game about assassinating people and not a scripted tour through history!

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 09:23 PM
OK, as far as I remember so it's not all:

Marie Levesque - I had trouble with this one tbh, so can't really list the best way and ended up running like hell from there, but you could air assassinate her from the balcony or move through the crowds, yay, social stealth. I think fireworks are supposed to distract her or something like that as well. I need to try and mess up her guards with darts and see where it goes

Le Peletier - you could do unique poison where nobody saw you or wait for him in his study again without any major hiccups with the guards

September Massacres - going through the sewers is way easier then climbing with the guards yelling at you

The King of Beggars - run into an ambush and fight guards, go under the wooden thing and stay close to the walls ignoring them where he never sees you

La Touche - again, getting into a huge fight in the middle of the execution is completely different from sneaking around the square imo

EDIT: Also the assassination in the Cemetery of the innocents gave you the perfect kill as well.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 09:34 PM
Sounds like you just prefer more linear missions to open sandboxes approachable from different ways and complete able in any way you like.

I prefer fun gameplay that is memorable and entertaining. If it has to be linear than so be it. I gather that recently people have jumped on the bandwagon about open-world and non-linear stuff and I am not opposed to that, but I am opposed to it being used as justification for lazy mission design.

You want innovative multi-tiered non-linear missions where you have total freedom of style, there's DISHONORED where there's no real one way to finish a mission, even if you do it violently or non-violently. There are many different ways and that's a game where the level design really makes you feel like you are creating your own path and every time you play it, you can do something different and every different path you take is fun. UNITY was clearly inspired by that game but it's not even close.

Dishonored is fun, Black Flag, AC1 and AC2 was fun as well. The Bunker Hill missions of AC3 was also fun as was the William Johnson Mission.


The way you personally approach the mission not being satisfactory to you, has little to do with how the missions are actually designed.

It has everything to do with how the mission is designed. You do understand that missions are designed and built by artists and developers right, that every pathway you can come up with actually has to be coded and written in the game. The gameplay has to anticipate and predict and cater to any style you can come up with if it wants to be open world, and failing that, script the game so that you can play the game for the most fun and best impact.


Exactly. There are more ways to do missions than ever before.

Not the games fault if you can only find one way of doing them. As for pointing out scripted crap like Pitcairn and Hickey as good assassinations that Unity should have aspired to, LOL.

I only pointed those out to suggest variety, I liked the Hickey missions, not in terms of assassination but simply in terms of unpredictability. It's the great gag of the series, An Assassin runs like a madman after a Templar on a city street, they get caught and both of them get hurled in jail, it's a great joke on the entire conflict and it was something that didn't happen in any of the earlier titles.

OrangeFret
11-28-2014, 09:35 PM
Here is what's wrong with your argument:



No. People complained that the mechanics were bugged. Arno doesn't know when he's in combat or not. If you press dodge he'll take cover, if you press parry he'll sheath his weapon. If you move a few steps back he'll walk away. Combat being harder is awesome. Glitched combat is not.




No. People complained that Ubisoft put the sync points in co-op so if you want to fully level up you're forced to play with others online. Co-Op should be optional not compulsory.



No, people complain that the cover system is inconsistent. Sometimes Arno springs in to cover, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he's able to move from cover to cover, sometimes not. Sometimes he leaves cover in a crouch, sometimes he'll outright stand up. Then there's the fact that he has to leave cover just to get round the other side of the table which he shouldn't have to do.



Branching out and doing something new does not necessarily mean taking out things that actually worked. It means ADDING and BUILDING upon what is there.



Nobody complained about that.



Yes because enterign windows is inconsistent. Sometimes Arno will do it, sometimes he won't. Entering buildings is great...when it works.
When it doesn't it's frustrating.




There needs to be a BALANCE like AC2: Brotherhood. Whereas AC3 just felt like an American Revolution game, Unity goes the opposite way and completely ignores history. Both are bad because of this. As a result characters like Napoleon, Madam Tausaud are wasted cameos.



Very few complained about the MD being missed and the ones that did never wanted it to go in the first place (me included).




Why does the mission being open ended mean you have to lose the cinematics? They have nothing to do with one another.



Nobody complained about that.



No. People complain about the large crowds because they mess up the frame rate and become repetitive. Large crowds are great when they don't affect game performance but that's not the case here.



Nobody complained about that.




I think it's you that doesn't know what the fans want. It's not enough to introduce things that the fans ask for and just do it slapdash, it needs to be executed properly in order to be considered an actual wish fulfilment.



Not true because the game has NEVER worked as intended. All anyone has ever spoken about is the glitches, the bugs and the dodgy mechanics. These are the things that stop Unity from reaching its true potential.

1000 times this.

TO_M
11-28-2014, 09:40 PM
How is whistling to distract/lure guards not realistic but cherry/money bombs are?

I definitely liked Unity's assassinations setups but perhaps the opportunities could have been found through investigation (like AC:1).
And some of the assassinations felt repetitive due to being inside, similar as how AC:4 had a couple of assassinations that were on a ship.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 09:57 PM
I prefer fun gameplay that is memorable and entertaining. If it has to be linear than so be it. I gather that recently people have jumped on the bandwagon about open-world and non-linear stuff and I am not opposed to that, but I am opposed to it being used as justification for lazy mission design.

You want innovative multi-tiered non-linear missions where you have total freedom of style, there's DISHONORED where there's no real one way to finish a mission, even if you do it violently or non-violently. There are many different ways and that's a game where the level design really makes you feel like you are creating your own path and every time you play it, you can do something different and every different path you take is fun. UNITY was clearly inspired by that game but it's not even close.

Dishonored is fun, Black Flag, AC1 and AC2 was fun as well. The Bunker Hill missions of AC3 was also fun as was the William Johnson Mission.



It has everything to do with how the mission is designed. You do understand that missions are designed and built by artists and developers right, that every pathway you can come up with actually has to be coded and written in the game. The gameplay has to anticipate and predict and cater to any style you can come up with if it wants to be open world, and failing that, script the game so that you can play the game for the most fun and best impact.



I only pointed those out to suggest variety, I liked the Hickey missions, not in terms of assassination but simply in terms of unpredictability. It's the great gag of the series, An Assassin runs like a madman after a Templar on a city street, they get caught and both of them get hurled in jail, it's a great joke on the entire conflict and it was something that didn't happen in any of the earlier titles.

Pitcairn's was the only assassination in AC3 I enjoyed and it was coincidentally the only one (or one of maybe two others) that didn't punish you if you wanted to go in fighting or stealthily. I freaking hate the prison mission. It's the worst example of linear design. You're only allowed to move slowly, and thanks to the broken detection system and not being able to see where guards are currently looking, you end up constantly being detected even if you're doing everything right.

You want a good example of linear mission design? The final level of AC2 where you infiltrate the Vatican. It's literally one long corridor, but there's only forced stealth once you get close to the end boss. You can fight guards along the way or take them out unseen, your choice.

MakimotoJin
11-28-2014, 10:02 PM
Pitcairn's was the only assassination in AC3 I enjoyed and it was coincidentally the only one (or one of maybe two others) that didn't punish you if you wanted to go in fighting or stealthily. I freaking hate the prison mission. It's the worst example of linear design. You're only allowed to move slowly, and thanks to the broken detection system and not being able to see where guards are currently looking, you end up constantly being detected even if you're doing everything right.

You want a good example of linear mission design? The final level of AC2 where you infiltrate the Vatican. It's literally one long corridor, but there's only forced stealth once you get close to the end boss. You can fight guards along the way or take them out unseen, your choice.

Rogue has some missions like that.However,most of the times,the optional objectives are about stealth.But the last mission is the best,
If you go stealth,Haytham goes as well,but if you enter in open conflitct,Haytham fights with you too,it's so cool

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 10:09 PM
Oh my God, it's almost as though it's a game about assassinating people and not a scripted tour through history!

"Scripted Tour Through History" is a central facet of Assassin's Creed as a franchise. Even in AC1, the least historical of the earlier games (UNITY is even less historical than that, somehow, I mean its a special kind of failure), you have Altair at the Battle of Arsuf hanging out with Richard the Lionheart, one dudebro to another, when its actually fairly gratuitous and they could have kept Richard in the background instead of giving you a chance to hang out with that guy. In AC2, the game that made the Franchise, "Scripted Tour Through the Renaissance" became the game. Even Black Flag is "Scripted Tour Through the Golden Age of Piracy", a lot of the key missions aren't assassinations at all. In Unity, they decided to rubbish that historical element and they made a terrible game.


Majd Addin and La Touche Assassination are nothing alike, design wise. Also, you seem to be mistaking design for playstyle. Again.

Design has to accommodate Playstyle, that is how development works in games. You can't design a mission in abstract without considering how players will interact and play and experience it. The Majd Addin mission has you sneaking at a crazy guy giving a loud speech at a Public Execution, La Touche is a crazy guy giving a loud speech at a Public Execution, the comparison I think is quite clear, and the point is to execute the executioner while he's trying to assert his power.


The examples you listed are examples of missions that will always play more or less the same upon each replay.

That is true, but those missions were also memorable and different from other missions in the game. The fact is developers who create the mission have a sound idea what is the most fun way to do it, the synchronization objectives earlier were there to support that and it was only some select missions, such as the infiltration into Castel Saint-Angelo in Brotherhood that punished detection with desynch. Besides these games had plenty of side-missions and the side-missions are there for people who want something tougher anyway, whereas in UNITY the side-missions are just pathetic.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 10:12 PM
whereas in UNITY the side-missions are just pathetic.
My over 4 hours in just 2 coop missions would like a word with you, please.

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 10:14 PM
That is true, but those missions were also memorable and different from other missions in the game. The fact is developers who create the mission have a sound idea what is the most fun way to do it, the synchronization objectives earlier were there to support that and it was only some select missions, such as the infiltration into Castel Saint-Angelo in Brotherhood that punished detection with desynch. Besides these games had plenty of side-missions and the side-missions are there for people who want something tougher anyway, whereas in UNITY the side-missions are just pathetic.

How so? How are they pathetic.
Fullsync needs to die anyway, it's not fun to skin alligators while trying to tail a boat, no matter what you say.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 10:15 PM
How is whistling to distract/lure guards not realistic but cherry/money bombs are?
Bombs are way less intimidating than bombs. A firecracker could have been the sound of more than one thing. It could be a fireplace, things breaking or just some noise, same goes for money. "Oooh hey, where did this come from?" whereas with whistling, it's definitely done by another person and it's coming from around the corner, holy shiz.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2014, 10:19 PM
Unity's missions do compliment a variety of play styles, that's why they are so good and what we've been saying to you. They haven't made the missions in abstract without considering play styles, they've done precisely the opposite. We aren't deluding ourselves here, it's how we've experienced the game.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 10:19 PM
That is true, but those missions were also memorable and different from other missions in the game. The fact is developers who create the mission have a sound idea what is the most fun way to do it, the synchronization objectives earlier were there to support that and it was only some select missions, such as the infiltration into Castel Saint-Angelo in Brotherhood that punished detection with desynch. Besides these games had plenty of side-missions and the side-missions are there for people who want something tougher anyway, whereas in UNITY the side-missions are just pathetic.


"The fact is developers who create the mission have a sound idea what is the most fun way to do it"

Now this is just arrogant. I'M the player, I should be allowed to decide what I think is the most fun approach. There is nothing fun about slowly walking around a prison cell, not knowing which direction guards are facing, not being able to defend yourself and being sent back to the beginning as soon as one of them happens to see you. Add to that the optional objective of "you're only allowed to kill 2 guards". So you're constantly being detected from all directions, with no way of predicting where enemies are looking, you can only do corner kills, and if you do that more than twice, you've failed part of the mission. How is that fun in any way, shape or form?

Such missions are memorable, all right. Memorable in the sense that oh please, Lord, fire everyone who designed this mission and don't ever let them near a game again.


Edit: Okay, the last bit was a bit mean. I get upset just thinking about the trainwreck that was AC3.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 10:23 PM
My over 4 hours in just 2 coop missions would like a word with you, please.

I meant the Paris Side Stories, the Murder Mysteries, the Social Club Missions. Maybe not the Nostramus Riddles since they are cool.

The Co-Op is on the cover of the game box, it's a central part of the game, it's not exactly a side-mission though it isn't a story either. And even then, you have the same repititive mission design of sneak in, press B and collect this document that treasure there, but since Co-Op is supposed to be played with two persons it can't really be judged on the single-player standards, which is my only interest here.


Fullsync needs to die anyway, it's not fun to skin alligators while trying to tail a boat, no matter what you say.

You know that tailboat mission in BLACK FLAG is the greatest tailing mission in the Franchise, its the only time that felt fun.

As for the Side Missions, I did a thread here
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/961443-ACU-Side-Missions-in-Unity

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 10:23 PM
God, it's so hard arguing with Lama and taking sides with Sixkeys when I like AC III so much. Dammit, sixkeys, why do you have to hate AC III so much?

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 10:25 PM
God, it's so hard arguing with Lama and taking sides with Sixkeys when I like AC III so much. Dammit, sixkeys, why do you have to hate AC III so much?

Pr0methus would probably describe me as "a controversial character".

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 10:25 PM
I meant the Paris Side Stories, the Murder Mysteries, the Social Club Missions. Maybe not the Nostramus Riddles since they are cool.

The Co-Op is on the cover of the game box, it's a central part of the game, it's not exactly a side-mission though it isn't a story either. And even then, you have the same repititive mission design of sneak in, press B and collect this document that treasure there, but since Co-Op is supposed to be played with two persons it can't really be judged on the single-player standards, which is my only interest here.



You know that tailboat mission in BLACK FLAG is the greatest tailing mission in the Franchise, its the only time that felt fun.

As for the Side Missions, I did a thread here
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/961443-ACU-Side-Missions-in-Unity

Now you're just trolling. Greatest mission indeed
Oh that thread, I was told I lack critical thought there

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 10:30 PM
I meant the Paris Side Stories, the Murder Mysteries, the Social Club Missions. Maybe not the Nostramus Riddles since they are cool.

The Co-Op is on the cover of the game box, it's a central part of the game, it's not exactly a side-mission though it isn't a story either. And even then, you have the same repititive mission design of sneak in, press B and collect this document that treasure there, but since Co-Op is supposed to be played with two persons it can't really be judged on the single-player standards, which is my only interest here.
If it's not a story mission, it's a side mission, really. There's no really in between, unless you're gonna argue semantics. I thought the Paris stories were cool, although I thought they could use some input from Arno. There was one mission where I supposed to stop censors from trashing a controversial play and the guy just tells me to help with Arno not saying anything about it. I would have liked if he at least said "What's in it for me?" or something A lot of the Paris stories were pretty similar to the frontiersman missions from AC III and I loved those. I just found out from my fiancee that The story about a giant killing people somewhere close to Paris was really a story and it was told to her mother's grandmother as a child. My fiancee is half french

I'm also a big Mystery guy so I loved the murder mysteries but again, I would have liked some input from Arno and I thought the social club and cafe missions were cool. Liberating districts is awesome.

Nonetheless, you can play Coop solo, so the point of it being single player stands.

wvstolzing
11-28-2014, 10:31 PM
whereas with whistling, it's definitely done by another person

Not necessarily; parrots can whistle too.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 10:32 PM
Pr0methus would probably describe me as "a controversial character".
Indeed. Pr0m has quite the views. "AC II's love story"


Not necessarily; parrots can whistle too.
It's still a scary thought, man. "A parrot or a human is behind that corner" it's scary.

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 10:33 PM
Nonetheless, you can play Coop solo, so the point of it being single player stands.

It won't be memorable enough for him/her :rolleyes:

rob1990312
11-28-2014, 10:33 PM
i think the side missions in unity are more interesting and challenging compared to previous games which were mainly assassination contracts and quest items, they also take a lot more time and cant all be be finished in a couple of hours like previous acs

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 10:34 PM
"Scripted Tour Through History" is a central facet of Assassin's Creed as a franchise. Even in AC1, the least historical of the earlier games (UNITY is even less historical than that, somehow, I mean its a special kind of failure), you have Altair at the Battle of Arsuf hanging out with Richard the Lionheart, one dudebro to another, when its actually fairly gratuitous and they could have kept Richard in the background instead of giving you a chance to hang out with that guy. In AC2, the game that made the Franchise, "Scripted Tour Through the Renaissance" became the game. Even Black Flag is "Scripted Tour Through the Golden Age of Piracy", a lot of the key missions aren't assassinations at all. In Unity, they decided to rubbish that historical element and they made a terrible game.



Design has to accommodate Playstyle, that is how development works in games. You can't design a mission in abstract without considering how players will interact and play and experience it. The Majd Addin mission has you sneaking at a crazy guy giving a loud speech at a Public Execution, La Touche is a crazy guy giving a loud speech at a Public Execution, the comparison I think is quite clear, and the point is to execute the executioner while he's trying to assert his power.



That is true, but those missions were also memorable and different from other missions in the game. The fact is developers who create the mission have a sound idea what is the most fun way to do it, the synchronization objectives earlier were there to support that and it was only some select missions, such as the infiltration into Castel Saint-Angelo in Brotherhood that punished detection with desynch. Besides these games had plenty of side-missions and the side-missions are there for people who want something tougher anyway, whereas in UNITY the side-missions are just pathetic.

You didn't describe the design of Majd Addin's mission, you described the narrative behind it. Design is something totally different. Also, for all your harping about design having to cater to playstyle, that's exactly what Unity does and AC3 fails at with it's linear design. The point is, you didn't like the gameplay that resulted from your playstyle during assassinations. But instead of trying a different playstyle that you actually liked, you act like it's the design at fault. The design is there for you to work with, it doesn't work for you.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 10:39 PM
"The fact is developers who create the mission have a sound idea what is the most fun way to do it"

Now this is just arrogant. I'M the player, I should be allowed to decide what I think is the most fun approach.

The fun approach to tackle a mission they designed for you. Anyway, I am not saying the earlier linear missions are all good, I think the flaws have to do with poor design rather than the fact that they were linear to begin with. Good linear design is a mix between anticipation and giving players some amount of legroom, like an actor playing a part for a role. However much he improvises, he can't really change the character or the function he serves in the story, but he can hopefully bring something of himself to it.


There is nothing fun about slowly walking around a prison cell, not knowing which direction guards are facing, not being able to defend yourself and being sent back to the beginning as soon as one of them happens to see you.

That's immersion, your character is in prison and that's his predicament at the time. I mean yeah, there's Gameplay and Story Segregation and ultimately Connor should be able to smash through the walls and fight his way out with his bare hands in the mess hall, but I liked the fact that you played an Assassin character who got himself into a real predicament. That constriction worked well, when you get released and you get to chase after Hickey, storywise Connor has been kept back for days and he's back in his element.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 10:43 PM
If it's not a story mission, it's a side mission, really. There's no really in between, unless you're gonna argue semantics. I thought the Paris stories were cool, although I thought they could use some input from Arno. There was one mission where I supposed to stop censors from trashing a controversial play and the guy just tells me to help with Arno not saying anything about it. I would have liked if he at least said "What's in it for me?" or something A lot of the Paris stories were pretty similar to the frontiersman missions from AC III and I loved those. I just found out from my fiancee that The story about a giant killing people somewhere close to Paris was really a story and it was told to her mother's grandmother as a child. My fiancee is half french

I'm also a big Mystery guy so I loved the murder mysteries but again, I would have liked some input from Arno and I thought the social club and cafe missions were cool. Liberating districts is awesome.

Nonetheless, you can play Coop solo, so the point of it being single player stands.

Even without knowing much about history, I could tell many (most?) of the side missions were at least somewhat based in history. That's why it confuses me when people complain about the lack of history in Unity. Did you guys miss Madame Tussaud, Charlotte Corday, Cartouche, etc.?

I've actually been rather impressed with Arno often commenting on things. In the side mission with Cartouche, he first expresses disbelief at the man's identity and then agrees to help him, "if only to hear the end of this rather fanciful tale" (or something like that). The old assassins usually didn't ask any questions, just accepted whatever was thrown at them.

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 10:48 PM
Even without knowing much about history, I could tell many (most?) of the side missions were at least somewhat based in history. That's why it confuses me when people complain about the lack of history in Unity. Did you guys miss Madame Tussaud, Charlotte Corday, Cartouche, etc.?
I think Unity has THE biggest amount of historical characters out of any AC game. The side missions are just filled with them.


I've actually been rather impressed with Arno often commenting on things. In the side mission with Cartouche, he first expresses disbelief at the man's identity and then agrees to help him, "if only to hear the end of this rather fanciful tale" (or something like that). The old assassins usually didn't ask any questions, just accepted whatever was thrown at them.
Really? Then maybe it's just the couple that I ran into. Hopefully then i'll get to see Arno having more input when I do more missions.

Xstantin
11-28-2014, 10:49 PM
That's immersion, your character is in prison and that's his predicament at the time. I mean yeah, there's Gameplay and Story Segregation and ultimately Connor should be able to smash through the walls and fight his way out with his bare hands in the mess hall, but I liked the fact that you played an Assassin character who got himself into a real predicament. That constriction worked well, when you get released and you get to chase after Hickey, storywise Connor has been kept back for days and he's back in his element.

I think I should stop here, but walking around the cell is immersive, meanwhile going for the target during the execution/travelling through the catacombs/crashing the party during starving times is not. OK w/e

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 10:52 PM
Really? Then maybe it's just the couple that I ran into. Hopefully then i'll get to see Arno having more input when I do more missions.

Sometimes in the murder mysteries he also tells grieving relatives "do not despair, I will find whoever did this" and stuff like that, just like in the E3 demo. And when he finds clues or mission items, he'll sometimes comment "now this should prove useful" or "well well, that's interesting information". I really enjoy those subtle touches.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 10:54 PM
You didn't describe the design of Majd Addin's mission, you described the narrative behind it. Design is something totally different. Also, for all your harping about design having to cater to playstyle, that's exactly what Unity does and AC3 fails at with it's linear design. The point is, you didn't like the gameplay that resulted from your playstyle during assassinations. But instead of trying a different playstyle that you actually liked, you act like it's the design at fault. The design is there for you to work with, it doesn't work for you.

Hey I liked the La Touche mission only since it brought memories of a better game. Look, I will break this down slowly.

The Majd Addin mission has you move through the crowd, break through and kill him in time before he kills a captive Assassin Me, I go forward and stab him first chance I get after his crazy speech.

The La Touche mission has the dude stand at the guillotine giving a crazy speech, one of the Special Objectives has you free up these two guys who bullied you at the start, get into a cage with them and then wait until being brought to the gallows where La Touche recognizes you right before you stab him.

I think the similarities are fairly clear, the story is the same, the objective and timing is the same. You have to kill this guy in broad daylight in front of a crowd of people when he thinks he's all powerful, the design of the game, the timing is clear. So please explain to me how the design is different from what I've described?

Assassin_M
11-28-2014, 10:55 PM
Sometimes in the murder mysteries he also tells grieving relatives "do not despair, I will find whoever did this" and stuff like that, just like in the E3 demo. And when he finds clues or mission items, he'll sometimes comment "now this should prove useful" or "well well, that's interesting information". I really enjoy those subtle touches.
God, really? I did about 4 murder mysteries and never got those. Dammit, must'v missed them then.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 11:00 PM
God, really? I did about 4 murder mysteries and never got those. Dammit, must'v missed them then.

To be fair, I've been doing a LOT of side missions, so I may be getting the murder mysteries, club missions and Paris stories mixed up somewhat. There was one mission, I think it was Chemical Revolution, which I can't remember what type of mission it was, but it started with Arno talking to a lady about her husband, asking her what happened and telling her not to worry.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 11:02 PM
The La Touche mission (snip)

Spoiler tags, dude. The title of my thread says "no spoilers", I'd hate for unsuspecting people to wander in here and get spoiled.

MakimotoJin
11-28-2014, 11:09 PM
Oh man,some say Unity's the worst,some say it's the best...
I might get a next-gen console soon,so,for a person who loves AC and played Unity's perspective,is it worth 90 dollars?
I mean 90 bucks 'cause it's around the price in the store I buy.

VestigialLlama4
11-28-2014, 11:11 PM
I think I should stop here, but walking around the cell is immersive,

I meant immersive to that situation, a dude who is without weapons, behind bars and imprisoned like Connor is in that situation makes the player feel like he's in prison too. The game becomes a real stealth game there when you try to sneak out, controlling your noise level, trying to avoid the sight of guards and stealth only at all times.

To Assassin_M, I wrote about my grouses with the Side Missions here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/961443-ACU-Side-Missions-in-Unity


Even without knowing much about history, I could tell many (most?) of the side missions were at least somewhat based in history. That's why it confuses me when people complain about the lack of history in Unity. Did you guys miss Madame Tussaud, Charlotte Corday, Cartouche, etc.?

I wrote about that here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-SPOILERS

Someone at the Tvtropes page has added a more concise list:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/AssassinsCreedUnity
With regards to the Paris Side Stories, its written:


A lot of the Paris Side Stories, Social Club Missions and the DLC exclusives "Chemical Revolution" and "American Prisoner" are filled with numerous basic errors in facts, including several anachronistic events and characters. Champollion, the famous Egyptologist, appears as an adult when he was born in 1790. Likewise Josephine describes herself as a divorcee when her husband was guillotined (The man who signed his execution order was none other than the painter Jacques-Louis David, future friend and collaborator of Napoleon, who quite obviously was grateful for the assist ) and she was herself imprisoned during the Terror. Arno is tasked by Thomas Paine to rescue The Rights of Man from the Warden's custody, a book that was already widely published before he arrived in Paris (indeed the reason why he was invited in the first place), while the book Paine was working on was The Age of Reason, his Deist critique of Christianity.

Leaving aside the historical element, and looking at it from a gameplay perspectives, the side stories lack cutscenes which you got in the Homestead Missions and several optional conversations moreover, all the historical figures you meet lack unique character models for the most part so you really don't feel the connection with history there.

Fatal-Feit
11-28-2014, 11:18 PM
Oh man,some say Unity's the worst,some say it's the best...
I might get a next-gen console soon,so,for a person who loves AC and played Unity's perspective,is it worth 90 dollars?
I mean 90 bucks 'cause it's around the price in the store I buy.

I spent more than 90 dollars on Unity and I think it was well worth it. Just don't spend money on the Companion APP and microtransaction.

MakimotoJin
11-28-2014, 11:22 PM
I spent more than 90 dollars on Unity and I think it was well worth it. Just don't spend money on the Companion APP and microtransaction.

Alright.But if it's not,then I'll grab your foot when you're sleeping.

rob1990312
11-28-2014, 11:22 PM
Oh man,some say Unity's the worst,some say it's the best...
I might get a next-gen console soon,so,for a person who loves AC and played Unity's perspective,is it worth 90 dollars?
I mean 90 bucks 'cause it's around the price in the store I buy.

its worth the money

rprkjj
11-28-2014, 11:39 PM
Hey I liked the La Touche mission only since it brought memories of a better game. Look, I will break this down slowly.

The Majd Addin mission has you move through the crowd, break through and kill him in time before he kills a captive Assassin Me, I go forward and stab him first chance I get after his crazy speech.

The La Touche mission has the dude stand at the guillotine giving a crazy speech, one of the Special Objectives has you free up these two guys who bullied you at the start, get into a cage with them and then wait until being brought to the gallows where La Touche recognizes you right before you stab him.

I think the similarities are fairly clear, the story is the same, the objective and timing is the same. You have to kill this guy in broad daylight in front of a crowd of people when he thinks he's all powerful, the design of the game, the timing is clear. So please explain to me how the design is different from what I've described?

Jesus, do you know what design is? You're not wrong on the similarities, but it ends there. The 2 missions are structured completely differently, in a different environment, with different oppertunties, guard positions, scope, crowd size and positions, and Majd Addin lacked mod missions which give 2 new approaches the completely differ than any of AC1's. Just watch a walkthrough, because besides knowing the narrative details, it seems like you didn't even play the game.

SixKeys
11-28-2014, 11:39 PM
I meant immersive to that situation, a dude who is without weapons, behind bars and imprisoned like Connor is in that situation makes the player feel like he's in prison too. The game becomes a real stealth game there when you try to sneak out, controlling your noise level, trying to avoid the sight of guards and stealth only at all times.

If I remember correctly, Eagle Vision is disabled in that mission, which makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Connor lose his ability along with his gear? Eagle Vision with AC4's system of showing guards' line of sight on the minimap would have made that mission so much more tolerable.


Leaving aside the historical element, and looking at it from a gameplay perspectives, the side stories lack cutscenes which you got in the Homestead Missions and several optional conversations moreover, all the historical figures you meet lack unique character models for the most part so you really don't feel the connection with history there.

Okay, the historical inaccuracies are pretty annoying if they're true. :/ I can forgive a few since part of AC lore is that Templars have rewritten history to suit their needs, but most of the games have been fairly accurate.

The Homestead cut scenes were made with in-game character models and had terrible voice-acting. I'd rather they didn't have those cut scenes at all than watch the characters painfully stumble through dialogue while staring ahead with dead eyes.

"Hey Connor, remember that time my wife had a baby?"
"I do not. Think. I have. Ever. Been so. Anxious."


As for MakimotoJin's question, as this thread perfectly demonstrates, opinions about this game vary greatly. It probably depends a lot on what your favorite game so far is. The people whose favorite is AC1 seem to be most positive about Unity's direction, since it emphasises player freedom and stealth over action and cinematic design. Whichever approach you like best will probably determine how much you enjoy the game.

Despite its shortcomings, I think Unity is my favorite AC of all time and it's difficult to imagine going back to the old games after erverything this one has to offer. I'm not sorry I spent €80 on the Gold Edition, and I'm glad I didn't listen to the critics who would have told me to ditch the game due to its poor performance before I even had a chance to try it out. Technical issues and social connectivity BS aside, it's a fantastic game.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-28-2014, 11:53 PM
Champollion, the famous Egyptologist, appears as an adult when he was born in 1790.

The Rosetta Stone wasn't even discovered until 1799, so this mission has to take place sometime between 1799 and 1822, when Champollion announced the transliteration of the Egyptian scripts. I've placed it in 1799 in my Assassin's Creed Unity timeline (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/952229-Unity-Timeline-%28helps-players-chronologically-integrate-storyline-and-co-op-missions%29), because that's about when all the rubbings would have been circulating. It's hard to put some of the missions into a proper timeline, because Ubisoft gets so much of the history wrong and some characters (like the Crimson Rose) are pure fabrications.

TO_M
11-29-2014, 12:03 AM
Because money always appears out of nowhere without another person involved? And I disagree about the firecracker part as well because it doesn't sound non-suspicious (to me at least).

If I was alone somewhere and I'd suddenly hear firecrackers/the cherry bomb going off or money being dropped/thrown around me for no reason I would be a LOT more suspicious than if I heard some sort of whisting sound, but that might just be me.

Agree to disagree?

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 12:08 AM
Jesus, do you know what design is? You're not wrong on the similarities, but it ends there. The 2 missions are structured completely differently, in a different environment, with different oppertunties, guard positions, scope, crowd size and positions, and Majd Addin lacked mod missions which give 2 new approaches the completely differ than any of AC1's. Just watch a walkthrough, because besides knowing the narrative details, it seems like you didn't even play the game.

The point is the different guard positions, the mod missions, the scope and what have you do not create an experience different from what Altair did in the first game. It's still the same kind of mission. All the rest is just filigree, obviously a Next-Gen game would be different than a game in mid-console cycle so naturally there are more features with the guards.


If I remember correctly, Eagle Vision is disabled in that mission, which makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Connor lose his ability along with his gear? Eagle Vision with AC4's system of showing guards' line of sight on the minimap would have made that mission so much more tolerable.

No Eagle Vision was there. In any case, I'm surprised you have a problem with that, it's not that hard a mission. The final Charles Lee mission would be different, that one only works if you get the Duck Footed Pistol, otherwise it's the lowest in the scripted ones.

To be honest, I'm not sure AC4's Eagle Vision is such a good thing, since it tends to show up outside Eagle Vision and what it does is clutter the display of the scenery. It's okay in AC4 where the settings are jungles and emerging cities and shantytowns but it's a bloody eyesore in UNITY's Parisian interiors, and it completely spoils the architecture-sighting. Even in AC4, they still kept the character model only highlighted with a sharper tinge, here they make every target gloating slabs of red and yellow and it just uglies up the scenery.


Okay, the historical inaccuracies are pretty annoying if they're true. :/ I can forgive a few since part of AC lore is that Templars have rewritten history to suit their needs, but most of the games have been fairly accurate.

UNITY is nothing less than a lie from beginning to end. Well okay, until Mirabeau's death and the storming of tuileries I'd still say it's sort of accurate and fair, but after that its just a parade of lies. The Brotherhood Co-Op Mission cutscenes are the most deceitful depictions of the Revolution ever, bar none. Honestly, next to UNITY, scarlet pimpernel is more accurate(or at least more honest). Even the Borgia got a fairer shake compared to it. The Side stories likewise has more lies.


The Homestead cut scenes were made with in-game character models

Don't know what you mean but AC has entirely in-game models since the beginning, they don't do FMV at all. Some of the Homestead figures are definitely unique in terms of models, they are a little more memorable at least than some of Arno's assassin recruits.

Xstantin
11-29-2014, 12:11 AM
The Rosetta Stone wasn't even discovered until 1799, so this mission has to take place sometime between 1799 and 1822, when Champollion announced the transliteration of the Egyptian scripts. I've placed it in 1799 in my Assassin's Creed Unity timeline (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/952229-Unity-Timeline-(helps-players-chronologically-integrate-storyline-and-co-op-missions)), because that's about when all the rubbings would have been circulating. It's hard to put some of the missions into a proper timeline, because Ubisoft gets so much of the history wrong and some characters (like the Crimson Rose) are pure fabrications.

But every game did that so it's nothing new. For some reason it's a big deal for Unity while the first game had different people lumped into one, ACII had a bunch of fictional characters as well like LaVolpe, Brotherhood decided that Cesare wasn't good enough for Machiavelli to write about and made Lucretia and Sforza get into catfight, most of the targets in Revelations were MP characters, ACIII had Lee becoming Haytham and so on.

Rafe Harwood
11-29-2014, 12:14 AM
Despite its shortcomings, I think Unity is my favorite AC of all time and it's difficult to imagine going back to the old games after erverything this one has to offer. I'm not sorry I spent €80 on the Gold Edition, and I'm glad I didn't listen to the critics who would have told me to ditch the game due to its poor performance before I even had a chance to try it out. Technical issues and social connectivity BS aside, it's a fantastic game.

After reading all the negativity and hype, and not even owning a next gen console, I ordered the Bastille edition yesterday to play on a friends machine.

It's good to see that some others are enjoying it, as I know I will :)

SixKeys
11-29-2014, 12:17 AM
AC4's Eagle Vision took some getting used to, but I'm fine with it now. It's really helpful in Unity when infiltrating buildings, since interiors are often kinda dark.



Don't know what you mean but AC has entirely in-game models since the beginning, they don't do FMV at all. Some of the Homestead figures are definitely unique in terms of models, they are a little more memorable at least than some of Arno's assassin recruits.

Arno had recruits? Since when?

I'm not talking about the character models being memorable. The Homestead characters were actual characters with their own stories. Unity doesn't have anything like that, so there's no comparison. My point was about how those characters were handled in cut scenes. They weren't specially animated for story cut scenes, meaning their dialogue and body language were often at odds. Warren would be getting emotional about his newborn son while his character model was busy scratching his ***.

MakimotoJin
11-29-2014, 12:22 AM
Warren would be getting emotional about his newborn son while his character model was busy scratching his ***.

Haha,good point.

rprkjj
11-29-2014, 12:33 AM
The point is the different guard positions, the mod missions, the scope and what have you do not create an experience different from what Altair did in the first game. It's still the same kind of mission. All the rest is just filigree, obviously a Next-Gen game would be different than a game in mid-console cycle so naturally there are more features with the guards.



No Eagle Vision was there. In any case, I'm surprised you have a problem with that, it's not that hard a mission. The final Charles Lee mission would be different, that one only works if you get the Duck Footed Pistol, otherwise it's the lowest in the scripted ones.

To be honest, I'm not sure AC4's Eagle Vision is such a good thing, since it tends to show up outside Eagle Vision and what it does is clutter the display of the scenery. It's okay in AC4 where the settings are jungles and emerging cities and shantytowns but it's a bloody eyesore in UNITY's Parisian interiors, and it completely spoils the architecture-sighting. Even in AC4, they still kept the character model only highlighted with a sharper tinge, here they make every target gloating slabs of red and yellow and it just uglies up the scenery.



UNITY is nothing less than a lie from beginning to end. Well okay, until Mirabeau's death and the storming of tuileries I'd still say it's sort of accurate and fair, but after that its just a parade of lies. The Brotherhood Co-Op Mission cutscenes are the most deceitful depictions of the Revolution ever, bar none. Honestly, next to UNITY, scarlet pimpernel is more accurate(or at least more honest). Even the Borgia got a fairer shake compared to it. The Side stories likewise has more lies.



Don't know what you mean but AC has entirely in-game models since the beginning, they don't do FMV at all. Some of the Homestead figures are definitely unique in terms of models, they are a little more memorable at least than some of Arno's assassin recruits.

What? I'm talking about design. They are designed completely differently, no matter how they go about this. This is fact. It is a different experience. What does next-gen guard mechanics have to do with you being wrong when saying Majd Addin and La Touche had the same design? Because it doesn't, you're just babbling. Also, learn the definition of fiction. It's not lying if it's communicated to you the entire game is fictional, no matter the setting. Way to be melodramatic.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 12:50 AM
A guard hears a a whistle, he'll probably just wander over to check it out.

A guard hears a firecracker, and this is about what's gonna happen:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c38HJR-9vhU

Firecrackers are stupid.

Assassin_M
11-29-2014, 01:01 AM
Firecrackers are stupid.
Don't hang up your failure to use the fire crackers effectively on such silly things. Adults own up to their failures, Timmy.

Namikaze_17
11-29-2014, 01:12 AM
Timmy Turner? :rolleyes:

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 01:14 AM
UNITY is nothing less than a lie from beginning to end. Well okay, until Mirabeau's death and the storming of tuileries I'd still say it's sort of accurate and fair, but after that its just a parade of lies. The Brotherhood Co-Op Mission cutscenes are the most deceitful depictions of the Revolution ever, bar none...

It makes me wonder what sort of right wing conservative nutjob they hired to do the historical consulting. I mean, even the Royalists that came into power after Napoleon gave Robespierre & Co. a more fair and balanced treatment than Unity gives them.

I think it's deeply ironic that the game portrays Robespierre, who said "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant", as a monster.

SixKeys
11-29-2014, 01:18 AM
But the Ezio trilogy is perfect, of course. Like the time they portrayed a complex relationship between the Byzantines and the Ottomans as "eh, one side was all Templars, so they were all evil".

Assassin_M
11-29-2014, 01:18 AM
Timmy Turner? :rolleyes:
No, I like Timmy Turner. Don't make me hate Timmy Turner.

Namikaze_17
11-29-2014, 01:20 AM
No, I like Timmy Turner. Don't make me hate Timmy Turner.

Is that a wish? :rolleyes:

*Waves Wand*

EmptyCrustacean
11-29-2014, 03:09 AM
Like I said before, this is not about technical issues. When the game works properly (and for me it does, a lot of the time), there's nothing wrong with combat. When it doesn't work, it's due to technical issues which need to be patched out, not a core design issue.

But very few people have complained about the actual combat itself. You can't assume that a select minority all hate the new difficulty. I personally love it. I just wish it wasn't so bugged and worked properly so I can actually play it the way it should be played. You keep waving off the technical side of things like it doesn't matter when that has featured in 95% of these complaints.


It's not compulsory. I've done every single co-op mission solo at least once. You can collect the sync points without needing other players. You also get sync points from completing story missions, so if you don't have enough skills yet, just do a couple of story missions before tackling co-op.

You cannot do a 5 star co-op mission alone. Well, you can but it wasn't designed that way so it will be difficult in a way that's frustrating rather than challenging. I now have to buy PS+ just to get the best out of the game. Kinda sucks. And for the record, many people were horrified when they first heard about co-op me included for the simple fact that I had no intention of getting PS+. Not everybody wanted it. Again, you're assuming a select minority represent the core fan base. They don't.


Again, technical issues. And yes, even apart from the cover system, people complain about the stealth being too hard regardless. They want to go back to the days when an enemy spots you and then entirely forget you were ever there as soon as they lose sight of you.

I've only seen people complain about removing the whistling mechanic - which again goes back to my argument that innovation does not mean removing what came before, it means evolving and expanding on what is already there so that the game remains recognisable while constantly developing. If you get rid of some of the core elements of gameplay then all you're doing is 'changing' things, not innovating. They've put in the cherry bomb mechanic now as a replacement which makes the guards seem even dumber. Plus half the time the cherry bomb lure doesn't even work. Change for the sake of change = NOT innovation.


People are always complaining that AC games are building and adding too much on top of existing systems instead of removing stuff that clashes with innovation. Which is it? Do you want innovation or do you want the series to retain the same elements from game to game, regardless of whether they add anything meaningful to gameplay?

Who are these 'people?


http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/11/24/assassins-creed-unity-review/

"Though Creed once again swings for the fences with a stunning open world, the landscape feels very repetitive, especially compared to Black Flag. Sure, sometimes Black Flag was a little too open—the expansive map of various islands could be daunting—but at least once you got tired of a particular island or plundered its riches, you could move on. This is not the case with Unity. You are stuck in 18th century Paris, with its monotonous blue rooftops and seemingly endless array of objects connecting each building. The backdrop soon feels claustrophobic. The only really memorable landmark is Notre Dame, which gets less screen time than you’d imagine."

The original reviewer never expressed a desire for a French Revolution setting so your point is invalid. Again, you're making the assumption that the fan base all think the same.


I've seen people criticize the very existence of interiors just because they have trouble mastering entering windows. The controls could be more precise, but is it really reasonable to say they should remove interiors entirely just because some people are too impatient to learn the controls?

They're saying they should remove interiors because Ubisoft hasn't mastered how to do the controls properly. However, I agree that the solution is NOT to just remove interiors, it is for Ubisoft to fix the controls. Problem is, they haven't done it thus far so again this is where technical issues have to be considered. People tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater in these situations because the reasoning is that if Ubisoft can't do it right then they shouldn't do it at all - which makes sense.


I guess this is down to personal preference. I like Unity's approach because it reminds me of AC1. Just the story of an assassin and his personal story against a historical backdrop and the occasional cameo from a famous person. Unity hardly "ignores" history: the game still throws Arno into major events, most of them are just in co-op missions (which can be done solo) instead of the main story.

Yes, I love AC1 but the difference is AC1's story was incredibly well paced - in fact the amazing story is what SAVES AC1. The dialogue was clever, the mystery was intriguing, the world building was breathtaking and made you want to progress through the repetitive gameplay just to find out more. It was unique in every way. Arno's personal story is RUSHED, dull, by the numbers with a predictable ending so when it's not tied directly into its historical settings it exposes how bad it is. Furthermore, Altair's story was tied into the conflict of Assassins vs Templar, Arno's story was not. Ubisoft made the mistake again of putting the Assassins vs Templars thing in the background and I never felt Arno's true loyalty to the Brotherhood.


You must not have read any professional game critic reviews from the last 7 years. :rolleyes: Almost every single official game review site always criticized the modern day stuff for being boring and silly. Even lots of fans on these forums told Ubi to just get rid of it. I've never been one of them, but I can understand why Ubi would go down that route after so many complaints. Now that modern day is suddenly irrelevant, both fans and professional critics alike are surprised and saying modern day has become TOO irrelevant. What do you people actually want?!

You misread my original quote. I said very few MISS the MD stuff. Therefore, that would be consistent with everything that has been said before. The ones that are complaining about MD being gone never wanted it gone in the first place, me included: https://cartoonsarebetterthanreallife.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/nothing-is-true-assassins-creed-coming-2015/ I actually became hooked on Desmond's story from the end of Brotherhood onwards. So once again, you're assuming that the fanbase are all the same.


Cinematics =/= cinematic approach.
I didn't say anything about cinematics (which are still in the game), I said cinematic approach, meaning corridor-style mission design where the player has no freedom and every replay will always play exactly the same way. Aka 90% of AC3's missions. The Kotaku review of ACU complained that the mission design was too open-ended and that they missed having their hand held by the devs.

But Kotaku LIKED Assassin's Creed III: http://kotaku.com/5957510/assassins-creed-iii-the-kotaku-review
so of course they would be disappointed in the new open ended missions. If they had dissed ACIII for its rigidity THEN you would have a point that they're being hypocrites but they LIKED ACIII...


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/9920-Assassins-Creed-Unity-Review

Sorry, where does he mention customisation?


You keep saying "no" as if I'm just making this stuff up. I have personally seen every one of these complaints. Bitebug2003 was the one who said the crowds felt like an unnecessary gimmick.

A select minority! I like the huge crowds, I just don't like poor frame rate and repetitive motion. I don't think it's a "gimmick" and many others don't. Again, don't assume a select minority of the fanbase represent the majority. And don't assume the ones that criticised elements of the game are now contradicting themselves by criticising the game when those problems have been rectified - they may well be different people.


Many people have also found after intensive testing that it's not the crowds but the detailed interiors which are causing performance issues. But again, technical issues are separate from the issue of having large crowds at all and whether or not it is a gimmick. It's the difference between saying: "Sometimes when I want Ezio to pick up a body, he loots it instead. Therefore picking up bodies is a gimmick and should not exist at all".

Yes, and many people complained that frame rate would start playing up when moving through crowds. Regarding 'gimmick', how do you know the ones calling it a gimmick even wanted it at all? How do you know the ones complaining about the technical issues are calling it gimmicky as a result?



Nobody has EVER complained about anything except performance issues? What about the countless threads criticizing the story and characters?

What about them? That SHOULD be criticised and is not hypocritical at all.

Wolfmeister1010
11-29-2014, 04:41 AM
Agree with everything, OP. I love you.

Also, anyone noticed and/or irked by the fact that the nighttime in the game isn't actually night? Like, it is still bright as hell in the sky and it is just grayish/yellow everywhere. I wished it was like the

opening missions when you play as the templar.


oh and weapon streaks. whai.

^This is my weird thing. I love the game in the grand scheme but get nitpick about the small things. Although, in defense these small things like weapon streaks should not have been an issue to begin with and a fix would be so damn easy.

I kinda hate myself

SixKeys
11-29-2014, 05:20 AM
But very few people have complained about the actual combat itself. You can't assume that a select minority all hate the new difficulty. I personally love it. I just wish it wasn't so bugged and worked properly so I can actually play it the way it should be played. You keep waving off the technical side of things like it doesn't matter when that has featured in 95% of these complaints.

If by "very few" you mean about half the people posting on the forums since the game's release.

I'm waving off the technical side because that is not my focus here. My focus is on gameplay elements IN GENERAL. It's a valid point to say "the improvements to combat would be great if only the game worked properly". But the majority of combat complaints that I have seen isn't about the bugs, it's about the very fact that they even attempted to make combat harder. Some people (forumers) say they dislike the harder combat not because it doesn't work properly but because they don't want AC to be difficult. I'm not exaggerating, that is literally what they are saying. They want a game where they can just storll through historical vistas without breaking a sweat. To which I would suggest they go play Civilization, not ask the devs of an action-adventure game to dumb down one of its core mechanics.


You cannot do a 5 star co-op mission alone.

Yes, you can. I've done it, and I know others who have.


Well, you can but it wasn't designed that way

Then your point is moot. If you can't do it, get better.


And for the record, many people were horrified when they first heard about co-op me included for the simple fact that I had no intention of getting PS+. Not everybody wanted it. Again, you're assuming a select minority represent the core fan base. They don't.

I've been on these forums a lot longer than you. Trust me, I've seen enough threads where people begged for co-op. I was never one of them, I'm more of a single-player person myself, but Unity's co-op is more fun than I expected. And again, your point about PS+ is invalid, since the game does not require you to play with other people to complete the co-op missions.


I've only seen people complain about removing the whistling mechanic - which again goes back to my argument that innovation does not mean removing what came before, it means evolving and expanding on what is already there so that the game remains recognisable while constantly developing. If you get rid of some of the core elements of gameplay then all you're doing is 'changing' things, not innovating. They've put in the cherry bomb mechanic now as a replacement which makes the guards seem even dumber. Plus half the time the cherry bomb lure doesn't even work. Change for the sake of change = NOT innovation.

Whistling was in two games before Unity. Hardly a core mechanic. That's like saying the rope dart was a core mechanic. Whistling was an element of one core mechanic, aka stealth. The function of whistling was luring enemies to a given spot. Now it's been replaced with cherry bombs. So the mechanic is still there, it's just called something different. Whether it functions as well as it did before is another issue.



Change for the sake of change = NOT innovation.

Not all changes are good, but if Unity was just another reskin of old games like Rogue was, I don't think I would have been as receptive to it. I'm very 'meh' about Rogue at this point, gameplay-wise.


Who are these 'people?

Forumers, mostly. Many threads have been made about the complaint that AC is too afraid to remove mechanics that serve no real purpose. Things like the assassin recruits in AC3, who were just kind of there and in a way undermined the idea that Connor was the last hope of the assassins. But the mechanic had been there since ACB (2010) and devs were reluctant to let go of it, even though it didn't really add anything meaningful to the game. The same complaints surfaced with Black Flag when some people felt Ubi was just piling new features on top of a broken core to distract fans from the big problems. Enemies are still stupid after 6 years? Ah, we're too busy to fix that, but LOOK, you can go whalehunting! Combat still too easy? Ehh, whatever, here's a ship, go sail on the open seas! Stealth is still laughably easy? What if give you these shiny new berserk darts that make the game even easier, will that help?


The original reviewer never expressed a desire for a French Revolution setting so your point is invalid. Again, you're making the assumption that the fan base all think the same.

Fair enough. The OP was mostly based on threads I've seen from both newbies and seasoned veterans here, some of whom I have seen request certain things for years, but when Unity came out and had all those things, they barely even acknowledged it and went "eh, whatever, I'mma go play Shadow of Mordor".


They're saying they should remove interiors because Ubisoft hasn't mastered how to do the controls properly. However, I agree that the solution is NOT to just remove interiors, it is for Ubisoft to fix the controls. Problem is, they haven't done it thus far so again this is where technical issues have to be considered. People tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater in these situations because the reasoning is that if Ubisoft can't do it right then they shouldn't do it at all - which makes sense.

Fair enough. I can respect that opinion, even though I disagree that the solution is to not do something at all if you can't do it perfectly. The interiors in Unity would be better if they removed the ability to parkour inside (so you don't accidentally climb on tables and stuff). Climbing in windows definitely needs tweaking, but at least the game gives you tips on how to do it effectively, which means they know it's a problem.


Yes, I love AC1 but the difference is AC1's story was incredibly well paced - in fact the amazing story is what SAVES AC1.

As much as I love AC1, I don't know that I would agree that the story is incredibly well-paced. Try replaying a mission a few times and listen to Al Mualim's unskippable speeches a few times and you start to notice how jarring the pacing can be.


The dialogue was clever, the mystery was intriguing, the world building was breathtaking and made you want to progress through the repetitive gameplay just to find out more. It was unique in every way. Arno's personal story is RUSHED, dull, by the numbers with a predictable ending so when it's not tied directly into its historical settings it exposes how bad it is. Furthermore, Altair's story was tied into the conflict of Assassins vs Templar, Arno's story was not. Ubisoft made the mistake again of putting the Assassins vs Templars thing in the background and I never felt Arno's true loyalty to the Brotherhood.

I guess this is down to opinion. I like Unity's story and I love Arno. I like that he questions the brotherhood and makes sarcastic remarks on their pompous ways. His loyalty is to Élise, she's the reason he joins the order. I like how the council brings that loyalty into question often - it's perfectly understandable from both sides. Arno admits he didn't join because of some noble philosophy, he joined because of a personal vendetta (just like Ezio). I have some complaints about the emotional connection in the story (or rather, lack thereof) and its disjointedness, so I'll admit it's not A material. But then, neither was AC1. AC1 was saved by its atmosphere and dialogue.


You misread my original quote. I said very few MISS the MD stuff. Therefore, that would be consistent with everything that has been said before. The ones that are complaining about MD being gone never wanted it gone in the first place, me included: https://cartoonsarebetterthanreallife.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/nothing-is-true-assassins-creed-coming-2015/ I actually became hooked on Desmond's story from the end of Brotherhood onwards. So once again, you're assuming that the fanbase are all the same.

Fair enough, but once again, I've seen people (forumers and reviewers) who used to dislike modern day and after Unity, admitted: "No, wait! I didn't mean I wanted it GONE-gone, I just wanted it to be better". Which, okay, how were the devs supposed to know that after all the complaints that modern day should be buried forever?


But Kotaku LIKED Assassin's Creed III: http://kotaku.com/5957510/assassins-creed-iii-the-kotaku-review
so of course they would be disappointed in the new open ended missions. If they had dissed ACIII for its rigidity THEN you would have a point that they're being hypocrites but they LIKED ACIII...

http://kotaku.com/5958941/how-has-assassins-creed-iii-disappointed-me-let-me-count-the-ways

http://kotaku.com/5959845/assassins-creed-iii-is-a-bummer-no-its-not-lets-talk-this-out

Keep in mind Kotaku has more than one reviewer and their opinions often vary wildly.


Sorry, where does he mention customisation?

He didn't, I was pointing to the part where he says the assassin council in Unity is poncey and aloof.


A select minority! I like the huge crowds, I just don't like poor frame rate and repetitive motion. I don't think it's a "gimmick" and many others don't. Again, don't assume a select minority of the fanbase represent the majority. And don't assume the ones that criticised elements of the game are now contradicting themselves by criticising the game when those problems have been rectified - they may well be different people.

Look, I don't keep data handy on how many numbers of people have said or not said things. If I see enough complaints about the same issue, I will note it. I don't always know if it reflects the opinion of the majority of players or not.


Yes, and many people complained that frame rate would start playing up when moving through crowds. Regarding 'gimmick', how do you know the ones calling it a gimmick even wanted it at all? How do you know the ones complaining about the technical issues are calling it gimmicky as a result?

I'm not saying ALL players are saying this or that. I'm just noting trends in the complaints that have surfaced about Unity's gameplay and reflecting them against my years of experience here on the forums.


What about them? That SHOULD be criticised and is not hypocritical at all.

You said: "All anyone has ever spoken about is the glitches, the bugs and the dodgy mechanics" (emphasis mine). I pointed out that this was false.

SixKeys
11-29-2014, 05:22 AM
Also, anyone noticed and/or irked by the fact that the nighttime in the game isn't actually night? Like, it is still bright as hell in the sky and it is just grayish/yellow everywhere.


This irks me a bit too. It doesn't feel properly dark.

D.I.D.
11-29-2014, 05:24 AM
Agree with everything, OP. I love you.

Also, anyone noticed and/or irked by the fact that the nighttime in the game isn't actually night? Like, it is still bright as hell in the sky and it is just grayish/yellow everywhere. I wished it was like the

opening missions when you play as the templar.


oh and weapon streaks. whai.

^This is my weird thing. I love the game in the grand scheme but get nitpick about the small things. Although, in defense these small things like weapon streaks should not have been an issue to begin with and a fix would be so damn easy.

I kinda hate myself

Unless it's my imagination, I noticed some very specific things happening towards the end of the story missions that were not to be found elsewhere. I did a huge amount of side missions and exploration, so I saw a lot of the day/night cycle and weather effects, but only saw certain things at a certain point in the story. There seemed to be a really sickly sense of menace introduced by some things in the lighting cycle that I didn't see anywhere else until the late story: weird yellow sunsets, in particular, which felt very appropriate to the chaos of the story.

It was around this time that I saw some night effects that were extremely impressive to me. I'm trying to remember exactly when it happened, but it's during the point where the city really feels like it's falling apart. There are nights when it's very dark indeed, and there's only the soft orange glow from street lamp posts and passing torch-bearers to light it all, but it was beautiful to me: darker than any night in an AC game, and yet just enough edge illumination to see by. It felt like the closest any video game I've seen has come to representing a true night effect. I'll try and make a note of exactly where these things happen, if I'm right that they're specific to the narrative (I'm on my second playthrough).

I'm playing on PC with all effects cranked right up, so I don't know if the consoles have all of the same effects exactly, but I assume they do.

I-Like-Pie45
11-29-2014, 05:32 AM
This irks me a bit too. It doesn't feel properly dark.
If only Ubisoft let you mod their games.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 07:20 AM
But every game did that so it's nothing new. For some reason it's a big deal for Unity while the first game had different people lumped into one, ACII had a bunch of fictional characters as well like LaVolpe, Brotherhood decided that Cesare wasn't good enough for Machiavelli to write about and made Lucretia and Sforza get into catfight, most of the targets in Revelations were MP characters, ACIII had Lee becoming Haytham and so on.


It's not lying if it's communicated to you the entire game is fictional, no matter the setting.

To people who bring the "this is a game" card, I am going to quote an interview by Alex Amancio himself:
http://time.com/3471390/assassins-creed-unity/

What we actually try to do, and I think this is just a personal belief that we have, is to avoid reducing history. You can’t start taking sides, because that makes it biased, and what we’re really trying to do is expose every slice of history in the most unbiased way possible. It’s obviously incredibly difficult. History is always subjective, because it’s written by people, and no matter how objective you try to be, human nature makes it subjective. We try very hard to portray things as factually as possible.

This is why I use the word "lie", a very serious word for me. The game is full of a pack of demonstrable lies(Simply match it with wikipedia), slander and misinformation. The game is seriously biased. The game does reduce history. I made a detailed list of the inaccuracies of this game in both the Single Player Campaign, the Brotherhood Missions and the Paris Side Stories/Murder Mysteries. I have actually found more since then, and maybe I'll add that here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-SPOILERS

It's not about keeping the history in the background. I have no problems at all if they did that. In AC1 they kept the Crusades in the background and it managed to be a game that still conveyed that era even if Altair(save for Arsuf and meeting Richard) didn't meet all the famous figures in that time(no Saladin for instance). REVELATIONS wasn't a historical game at all, but it did give you a sense of the awesomeness of Ottoman Turkey's golden age and the history of Istanbul.

In UNITY, most of the first section in the single player campaign is actually fine, even if you don't see the Revolution much. In fact I actually thought it was getting to be a good game. I liked Bellec and loved that twist of him killing Mirabeau, who in history was rumored to be poisoned. The mission where Arno invades the Tuileries and meets Napoleon, who was in Paris at that time and saw it happen, was probably the best introduction to a historical character in the franchise. Then the mission after that with the September Massacres is where the lies and crap piles up one after the other. It states that the Templars artificially created starvation to frame the royal family. It said that the King was killed and tried because the Templars wanted to make a statement. It says that the King's trial came to down to one vote. Each of this is a demonstrable lie because it makes the royal family blameless, they weren't. Louis XVI was not tyrannical, he was a nice man on a personal level, none of that changes the fact that he conspired with his wife to unleash a foreign army against France, later supported a war that he wanted France to lose, that his wife sold out information of troop movements to enemy soldiers and that his execution had a decent majority, it never came down to one vote, and was a popular decision.


But the Ezio trilogy is perfect, of course. Like the time they portrayed a complex relationship between the Byzantines and the Ottomans as "eh, one side was all Templars, so they were all evil".

The Templars in Revelations weren't Evil. The Prince Ahmet(I hope I can put him outside spoiler tags) was actually a great character and the Assassins do end up enabling his more dangerous and cruel brother. If they had characterization like that for the Revolutionary Templars within the same schema, I wouldn't complain. The fact is within the fictional schema of Byzantine-Ottoman stuff, the background of Istanbul, the portrayal of Suleiman and Piri Reis was quite fair and respectful. The Ottoman Turks have been demonized so often in popular Western media that the fact that they made a game where they were shown to be something outside of harem girls and religious fanaticism is refreshing, even if the plot is not historical, the background is fair.

The Borgia got a bad deal in the Ezio games, but in any case, the way the games portray them (Corrupt, Decadent, Murderous, Incestuous) is not unfair, they were definitely all or some of those things. In either case, they made memorable, entertaining villains which cannot be said about UNITY's Templars. Likewise AC3 which had the most history, showed the American Revolution as this gray conflict where everybody loses, even if the Assassins defeat the Templars. The background and research is fair. Black Flag gave us the most honest depiction of piracy in popular culture.

I mean isn't it sad that Ubisoft can show Blackbeard to be this nice guy who was not as violent as people believed, but they can't show Robespierre as anything other than a sadistic coward. At the end of the day, as amiable as he is, Blackbeard was a crook while Robespierre radically argued for fair rights for Jews, people of colour and actually abolished slavery for the first time in the history of the world. The only acknowledgement of this is is Eseosa's Codex in the Initiates Website, which actually made me wonder if they'll give us something accurate this time. I don't mind Robespierre being a villain or even a Templar as long as they put across that ambiguity, but here they just slander him using out-of-date misinformation.

Derp43
11-29-2014, 08:06 AM
. Louis XVI was not tyrannical, he was a nice man on a personal level, none of that changes the fact that he conspired with his wife to unleash a foreign army against France, later supported a war that he wanted France to lose, that his wife sold out information of troop movements to enemy soldiers and that his execution had a decent majority, it never came down to one vote, and was a popular decision.[/spoiler]
.
1. Source?
2. Seriously, stop hating on Louis XVI like that, he was just the wrong king at the wrong time.(Similar to Nicholas II, if you ask me)

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 08:32 AM
I am responding to both your OP and this post:


In summary: for years, people have cried out for an AC game that brings back urban gameplay, renews parkour, has dynamic weather, more rewarding stealth, more challenging combat, more advanced AI, open-ended assassinations, co-op (including freeroam), animals, distraction tools, a meaningful brotherhood, disguise system, weapon and armor stats, natural crowds, multiple time eras within one game, meaty side content, reinvented modern day, etc. etc. ... Unity has all of that. And what's been the fan response? ... "Too little, too late."...

Personally, I have never had any of those complaints you suggested. It never bothered me that the combat was too simple/too hard, that it was not pure stealth. For me the franchise is about crazy stuff, that the games were unpredictable, could go anywhere and do anything, they can give you a fistfight with the Pope at the Vatican, they can make George Washington into a Dark Lord, that you can zipline across Istanbul, or you can be Captain of your Own Boat and sail alongside Blackbeard and Company. I don't even mind AC being annualized, there are very few good games anyway, and that at least next year you could have an interesting game was nice, and until UNITY they never put out a bad game in the series.

That's what Assassin's Creed is really about, it was, or used to be anyway, a series where nothing is true and everything is permitted, that it would never be entirely one kind of game. Even the first AC game, most of the game was fairly realistic until the finale where it goes nuts and you have magic and an old-school boss-fight. But somewhere along the way, Ubisoft decided to start listening to fan complaints about how the series is not like other games, rather than follow their own instincts. I mean Black Flag wasn't planned but the minute they saw the sailing mechanic they knew that they had the chance to make the definitive pirate game and they followed their instincts. Sidelining the modern day displeased people who wanted modern AC but they follow their instincts and keep it historical entirely.

UNITY is just bland and gutless by comparison, about the only cool part was the Time Anomalies in that respect which I liked and I kind of wish that they made a game entirely about popping in and out of Paris in different eras rather than the lying history, boring villains and repetitive missions we see here. I liked the opening with Jacques de Molay as well, I mean Molay came off as way more cool and interesting in his brief run-time than any of the villains did, I kind of got the feeling that they didn't want to do a Revolutionary game but did it because fans asked for it. If you don't have passion or interest for a setting, don't do it since the game that comes out becomes boring, that was a problem with the history in AC3 was well, I like the game but from playing it I got the sense that it wasn't something they were personally interested in so it feels by-the-numbers mostly. I mean I don't see the care for the period that you got for the Renaissance or the Pirate Era. If they wanted to make a game about Paris through the ages, where your targets are different people across time and the like, that would have been awesome.


The interiors in Unity would be better if they removed the ability to parkour inside (so you don't accidentally climb on tables and stuff).

Well, then they would have to aggressively switch styles while "seamlessly" moving from inside to the outside, intricate work but considering the bug-eaten mess that is the game, it would probably have been worse, definitely needing more work on the whole. Ideally they could make interiors fun by going back to Sands of Time and introducing Wall-Running. The main thing about the interiors is that it should have made stealth harder, these old French buildings had acoustics and stuff and ideally they wouldn't need alarm bells to come running all the way to Arno's position. I mean the earlier games where interior missions had instant desynch for detection were more believable in that respect. They could have introduced a noise mechanic, whistling could have likewise had a sound element too you know. The earlier colonial titles were set in exteriors, open spaces so whistling worked there because the world is filled with bird noises and insects and crickets.


His loyalty is to Élise, she's the reason he joins the order.

To be frank, I think that UNITY, with its phony history and all its issues could have been redeemed if Elise was the main character instead of Arno. From her perspective, the anti-revolutionary story makes sense since none of the major French Revolutionaries argued for women's rights consistently. Unity is her story, the plot is entirely about the Templars and their lore, she is the main character, and let me say, that Ubisoft deserves every little brick people hurl on it for its representation of women.

If they wanted to an Assassin's Creed set in the Revolution then we should have played as Pierre Bellec, that is a character who fits that time period, who has that moral ambiguity and has a darkness which would challenge players in a way that none of the other characters would have. Instead we have Arno who is basically Altair's romance with Maria + Ezioesque Wit + Connor's Naive eager charm + Edward Kenway's alcoholism. He doesn't have anything really original in personality and no edge at all.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 08:47 AM
1. Source?
2. Seriously, stop hating on Louis XVI like that, he was just the wrong king at the wrong time.(Similar to Nicholas II, if you ask me)

You can read David P. Jordan's The King's Trial, David A. Bell's The First Total War, even Francois Furet's The French Revolution, a book critical of the revolutionary book on the whole doesn't deny that the King was culpable. You can look up on wikipedia or the internet, the "Flight to Varennes" the "Armoire de Fer"

As for the Queen's Treachery, this link to a book by Maria Linton shows it well:
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Sh2vu4mIOh4C&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Marie+Antoinette+war+Girondins&source=bl&ots=V8HxG46eCJ&sig=JZnBzM9CZfUx5ifDazTv2UZWkO0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=knl5VMS3Oo2ouwTIsIGgBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Marie%20Antoinette%20war%20Girondins&f=false

Derp43
11-29-2014, 09:27 AM
Elise was the main character instead of Arno. .

I actually agree with you on the point that Elise would make a better main character than Arno, but unfortunately she was sidelined to a book and thenkilled off in the crappy ending.

Also, I have heard several sources say that the King was sentenced to death by one vote, so I'm not sure who to believe here.

Anykeyer
11-29-2014, 10:15 AM
Also, maybe it's just me but listing something with "fullsync" requirements as "unique" is a terrible idea. As much as I like ACIII never again I want to trudge through the crowd running after Hickey where I need to kill two guards just because.

I fail to see how Unity is different. Its "challenges" dont make any sense. Usually they require you to do something completely unrelated to the mission.

Rafe Harwood
11-29-2014, 10:41 AM
I fail to see how Unity is different. Its "challenges" dont make any sense. Usually they require you to do something completely unrelated to the mission.

This cropped up earlier.

Don't forget, the challenges are things the ancestor did. Things that are needed to achieve total sync with the ancestor.

Anykeyer
11-29-2014, 10:49 AM
Even then this would have sense in ACB, maybe ACR... But since AC3 ancestors started to forget about their mission and doing weird things.

Rafe Harwood
11-29-2014, 10:56 AM
Even then this would have sense in ACB, maybe ACR... But since AC3 ancestors started to forget about their mission and doing weird things.

I can't think of any :/

Can you give an example?

Anykeyer
11-29-2014, 11:24 AM
Things like picking locks or hidden spots assassinations. In many missions this forces you to forget about your mission and search for opportunities to do those challenges. I would not complain if devs actually put everything close to your target. But no. You're often forced to go in another direction.

mmac900
11-29-2014, 12:16 PM
I am responding to both your OP and this post:
To be frank, I think that UNITY, with its phony history and all its issues could have been redeemed if Elise was the main character instead of Arno. From her perspective, the anti-revolutionary story makes sense since none of the major French Revolutionaries argued for women's rights consistently. Unity is her story, the plot is entirely about the Templars and their lore, she is the main character, and let me say, that Ubisoft deserves every little brick people hurl on it for its representation of women.


White knights to the rescue!

Elise was a very annoying character imo and she only cared about revenge.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 01:00 PM
White knights to the rescue!

Just what do you mean by that phrase?


Elise was a very annoying character imo and she only cared about revenge.

Like 95% of all game protagonists, its not a problem, the fact is it is ''her'' story and not Arno's and the only reason we don't play as her is because of timidity.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 01:32 PM
Agree with everything, OP. I love you... Eww! Get a room!

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 01:44 PM
...I kind of wish that they made a game entirely about popping in and out of Paris in different eras rather than the lying history, boring villains and repetitive missions we see here. I liked the opening with Jacques de Molay as well, I mean Molay came off as way more cool and interesting in his brief run-time than any of the villains did...

Hear here!


Ideally they could make interiors fun by going back to Sands of Time and introducing Wall-Running.

Please no. As soon as the wall running started in Sands of Time, I just couldn't play anymore. It just seemed ridiculous to me. Gravity is not a law that can be ignored for me - not even in games.


I think that UNITY, with its phony history and all its issues could have been redeemed if Elise was the main character instead of Arno. From her perspective, the anti-revolutionary story makes sense since none of the major French Revolutionaries argued for women's rights consistently. Unity is her story, the plot is entirely about the Templars and their lore, she is the main character, and let me say, that Ubisoft deserves every little brick people hurl on it for its representation of women.

Hear here again! But you can't say that without all the teenagers starting with the "Girls? Yuck!" nonsense and the older men accusing you of being a feminazi for even suggesting that having more women protagonists might not be such a bad idea. It's fricken stupid.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 01:52 PM
I mean isn't it sad that Ubisoft can show Blackbeard to be this nice guy who was not as violent as people believed, but they can't show Robespierre as anything other than a sadistic coward. At the end of the day, as amiable as he is, Blackbeard was a crook while Robespierre radically argued for fair rights for Jews, people of colour and actually abolished slavery for the first time in the history of the world. The only acknowledgement of this is is Eseosa's Codex in the Initiates Website, which actually made me wonder if they'll give us something accurate this time. I don't mind Robespierre being a villain or even a Templar as long as they put across that ambiguity, but here they just slander him using out-of-date misinformation.

Absolutely right, and the superficiality, the egregious lying, the blatant bias are the things I can never forgive Alex Amancio and Travis Stout for. The whole point of Assassin's Creed in terms of philosophy is that the Templars are NOT evil. They are working towards the same end the Assassins desire. When AC gets all one dimensional on us, it betrays the player and it betrays the whole idea behind these games. It would have been so easy to show Robespierre & Co. as they were - flawed but honest people trying to retain control (control - that's what makes them Templars, not evil) over a revolution that was beyond their powers to control. Instead they chose to create a simplistic and deeply biased story based on an outright lie.

Just imagine how great this game would have been if Robespierre was a Templar trying to control the revolution to guarantee the freedoms the real Robespierre was fighting for. And hey, if they wanted a more obvious villain, Saint-Just is the guy - the historical Saint-Just was not evil, but he was certainly tyrannical in terms of what he was willing to do to reach his goals. And just imagine how much better the game might have been if Elise was the main character, torn by her Templar allegiance and her desire for true freedom for ALL citizens. Elise could have ended up siding with the Assassins after seeing that the Templars were never going to support her ideals.

There is not even any need for Arno in Unity - his whole story is superfluous, which is one reason this game is so bad.

Assassin's Creed should be FAR better than this.

mmac900
11-29-2014, 02:04 PM
Just what do you mean by that phrase?



Like 95% of all game protagonists, its not a problem, the fact is it is ''her'' story and not Arno's and the only reason we don't play as her is because of timidity.

You are using the internet to post this so you can easily find out what white knight means.

As for Elise, she is very short-sighted and the reason she is not the main character is because she is annoying. Thank god we wont be seeing her again.

Also, we already had a game with a woman assassin, and it is considered the worst ac game by the majority of people.

mmac900
11-29-2014, 02:07 PM
Absolutely right, and the superficiality, the egregious lying, the blatant bias are the things I can never forgive Alex Amancio and Travis Stout for. The whole point of Assassin's Creed in terms of philosophy is that the Templars are NOT evil. They are working towards the same end the Assassin's desire. When AC gets all one dimensional on us, it betrays the player and it betrays the whole idea behind these games. It would have been so easy to show Robespierre & Co. as they were - flawed but honest people trying to retain control (control - that's what makes them Templars, not evil) over a revolution that was beyond their powers to control. Instead they chose to create a simplistic and deeply biased story based on an outright lie.

Assassin's Creed should be FAR better than this.

Then you clearly dont understand this game at all. Templars are bad because they want order at any cost, and they want their order, to control people. Assassins want people to be free.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 02:16 PM
Please no. As soon as the wall running started in Sands of Time, I just couldn't play anymore. It just seemed ridiculous to me. Gravity is not a law that can be ignored for me - not even in games.

Where would Super Mario be without that then. I proposed wall running as one idea not necessarily the best. I think the interiors was a great idea but they should have modified it, introduced the concept of acoustics(which with the importance of architecture) should have been very great.


...accusing you of being a feminazi for even suggesting that having more women protagonists might not be such a bad idea. It's fricken stupid.

You know Ubisoft put out a great game with a woman single player character - Beyond Good & Evil and that sequel is still stuck in development. That one I played this year(the HD remake) and it's awesome. Portal likewise has a female protagonist. But you know Ubisoft only gives women as protagonists for side games - Aveline for Liberation and Shao Jun for this 2D Platform game.

You know ideally what UNITY should have done is make Arno and Elise both playable, introduce two new protagonists in the same game. GTAV, gave us three, two is slightly less ambitious - one map, different set of missions and side missions, with some missions(and side missions) they do jointly(and which you can integrate with drop-in/drop-out co-op as well where one friend plays as Arno and another as Elise, they can even attract couples who knows, Portal 2 Co-Op is popular with couples or so I hear). A game where you play both as an Assassin and a Templar. It also solves the gump issue since some incidents Arno can cover while others Elise can see and participate with. It also gives re playability and all that. And for the ending,

Arno dies instead

I think the next games if they retain co-op, they might go that direction since GTAV came and went last year.


The whole point of Assassin's Creed in terms of philosophy is that the Templars are NOT evil. They are working towards the same end the Assassin's desire. When AC gets all one dimensional on us, it betrays the player and it betrays the whole idea behind these games. It would have been so easy to show Robespierre & Co. as they were - flawed but honest people trying to retain control (control - that's what makes them Templars, not evil) over a revolution that was beyond their powers to control. Instead they chose to create a simplistic and deeply biased story based on an outright lie.

The thing is Robespierre makes no sense as a Templar, he was a paranoid man obsessed with transparency, he insisted on debates with audiences, allowed people to attend political meetings(insisted on it even). A realistic Robespierre would ideally persecute both Templars and Assassins for the sane reason that they are anti-state organizations with secret agendas who subvert laws and institutions with impunity, and we should have both Assassins and Templars on the same cart going to the guillotine, unified at last.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 02:27 PM
You are using the internet to post this so you can easily find out what white knight means.

If I had to search the internet for every petty new phrase people come up with, I would get fewer things done than I already do.


As for Elise, she is very short-sighted and the reason she is not the main character is because she is annoying.

Yes, because unlike women in other games she doesn't show her cleavage all the time.


Also, we already had a game with a woman assassin, and it is considered the worst ac game by the majority of people.

Look, the word majority on an online debate is meaningless, if you can cite particular polls that stated this or sales figures than it might help. I know for a fact that it won awards for its writing and that Aveline tends to be reused in promotion more than Connor does and later even got an XBOX Arcade release. All of which indicates that a lot of people liked her a lot.

In any case, UNITY is the worst Assassin's Creed game.

Shahkulu101
11-29-2014, 02:31 PM
@Llama

I'll definitely admit Unity's story is lackluster, but not half as bad as the Ezio trilogy (barring Prince Ahmet) in the way the Templar's are portrayed as one sided mustache twirling guys. And if you're going to use the excuse saying that made sense because it was the dark period for the Templar's, then I could justify Unity's Templar's by saying they too aren't 'true' Templar's because they are conspirators plotting against their own, lead by someone who wants to take them in a darker direction. Heck, the 'real' Templar's are portrayed in a very balanced way - Elise's father taking in an orphan whose father happened to be an Assassin. He and Elise were normal, moderate human beings. Same goes for Lanfaniere, another member of the old guard of the Templars who tried to warn Elise's father. So a few balanced and sane Templar's offset by a majority of in-genuine Templar's versus the Ezio Trilogies whole cast of entirely evil, cliched and stereotyped villains. I know which one I prefer. As for historical inaccuracy, Cesare is a prime example. An intelligent, shrewd, and brilliant general reduced to crying man-baby shouting on his 'GUARDS! GUARDS! I hardly think that's any worse than Unity.

EDIT: Oh and Unity is the best Assassin's Creed game by and large. Perhaps not the best historical GTA but that's only a good thing. ;)

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 02:33 PM
You know ideally what UNITY should have done is make Arno and Elise both playable, introduce two new protagonists in the same game. GTAV, gave us three, two is slightly less ambitious - one map, different set of missions and side missions, with some missions(and side missions) they do jointly(and which you can integrate with drop-in/drop-out co-op as well where one friend plays as Arno and another as Elise...

Yeah, but that would require the "creators" of Unity to be creative and imaginative, and all those other "-tives" that used to go along with being a game developer, like innovative. That way, they could have made the game distinctive, reformative - maybe even effective, rather than restrictive. :D


The thing is Robespierre makes no sense as a Templar, he was a paranoid man obsessed with transparency, he insisted on debates with audiences, allowed people to attend political meetings(insisted on it even).

Well, at first, yes. But for a transparent guy, he seemed to abandon the transparency thing at about the time that the historical records about his activities dry up, which is possibly why no one really knows for sure whether or not he supported all the decapitations that went on during the Terror.

Maybe they could have him being seduced into joining the Templars - the Templars are rich, and Robespierre was very frightened of the foreign powers lurking on France's doorstep. All that Templar money buys a lot of cannons.

RinoTheBouncer
11-29-2014, 02:37 PM
By the way, is it just me or the “save someone from the guillotine” missions from the E3 demo are not available in the game?

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 03:22 PM
@Llama

As for historical inaccuracy, Cesare is a prime example. An intelligent, shrewd, and brilliant general reduced to crying man-baby shouting on his 'GUARDS! GUARDS! I hardly think that's any worse than Unity.


I said repeatedly that the Borgia got a rough but as I said, it didn't matter because those games got many of the other details right in the Ezio games.

It's not that Unity gets one character wrong, its not that it messes up one particular date or that it misses this detail, no. I wouldn't even mention it if that was the case. The game screws up on every concievable front on the history, I mean basic details are messed around. It's that rotten and deceitful. I mean Black Flag put actual recorded dialogues in the speeches of the characters and had antique sea shanties with old fashioned locution(with one or two anachronisms), how they went from that to this is appalling.


Well, at first, yes. But for a transparent guy, he seemed to abandon the transparency thing at about the time that the historical records about his activities dry up, which is possibly why no one really knows for sure whether or not he supported all the decapitations that went on during the Terror.

Actually, one of the things Robespierre was responsible for was maintaining paperwork and tallies. The fact is we know a lot about the Terror because the Jacobins recorded all their executions in detail and they were quite efficient and rigid about the paperwork and bureaucracy during the year of the Terror. It was why Napoleon called them the only real government of the Revolution. The Terror was widely supported and wasn't especially uncontroversial until France had finished winning the wars and secured borders. Most of France was unaffected by it, executions were restricted to areas in borders(with enemies at the doorstep) and the ones that rose in civil war and insurrection. Robespierre's signature is quite rare on official execution orders and it was non-existent in the final month of the Terror (the "Great Terror") when he was confined to his house and sickbed. In any case, Robespierre is no innocent and he did make many terrible mistakes. By modern definitions he would qualify as a war criminal but then the same is true for William Pitt, the British Prime Minister who put a blockade on food imports with the intention of starving the French people. Or the British who committed atrocities in Ireland in the 1798 Rebellion where they killed 50,000 people(more than the Terror). He is a controversial figure, like John Brown in America or even Lincoln in his lifetime(during the Civil War, he abolished habeas corpus and unleashed massive surveillance on newspapers and posts) and he should be treated as such. There was no good or bad person in the Revolution, just young people with no political experience in a nation that had no experience with even rudimentary forms of democracy(unlike England), all called upon to meet challenges that experienced politicians broke their skulls handling.


Maybe they could have him being seduced into joining the Templars - the Templars are rich, and Robespierre was very frightened of the foreign powers lurking on France's doorstep. All that Templar money buys a lot of cannons.

Actually the Revolutionary government had no problems with money(France was very rich even then) or with cannons or weapons. The problem was about politics and government, and food most of all(with the English blockade especially). Robespierre was mainly paranoid about a military dictator using the victories of the army to pull a coup on the fragile government, and either reinstate the Ancien Regime or bring military dictatorship. He was obsessed with Brutus and Cromwell and not repeating that mistake. The Committee did this by constant surveillance of the army, instituting meritocracy, and purging aristocratic and noble officers(In one year nobility dropped from 90%-3%). The cruel irony of all this is that this resulted in a Corsican Refugee and Jacobin named Napoleon, whose house was burnt down by royalists back home, getting his first real promotion. Napoleon would have never have gotten anywhere without the Commitee's army reforms. That's the tragedy, that somehow Robespierre ended up creating the very thing he did his best to avoid.

EmptyCrustacean
11-29-2014, 03:44 PM
If by "very few" you mean about half the people posting on the forums since the game's release.

I'm waving off the technical side because that is not my focus here. My focus is on gameplay elements IN GENERAL. It's a valid point to say "the improvements to combat would be great if only the game worked properly". But the majority of combat complaints that I have seen isn't about the bugs, it's about the very fact that they even attempted to make combat harder. Some people (forumers) say they dislike the harder combat not because it doesn't work properly but because they don't want AC to be difficult. I'm not exaggerating, that is literally what they are saying. They want a game where they can just storll through historical vistas without breaking a sweat. To which I would suggest they go play Civilization, not ask the devs of an action-adventure game to dumb down one of its core mechanics.

Well, I have rarely seen the combat complaints on most forums; in fact I've seen people praising the new difficulty for the most part.


Yes, you can. I've done it, and I know others who have. Then your point is moot. If you can't do it, get better.

I haven't actually attempted any of the co-op missions and don't plan to so don't make assumptions. But common sense dictates that it's not going to be any fun to do 5 star co-op mission alone.


I've been on these forums a lot longer than you.

Irrelevant point because I was previously a lurker for a long time.


Trust me, I've seen enough threads where people begged for co-op. I was never one of them, I'm more of a single-player person myself, but Unity's co-op is more fun than I expected. And again, your point about PS+ is invalid, since the game does not require you to play with other people to complete the co-op missions.

And I've seen people dread it and fear that the other players would ruin for them, me included. We can do this all day. The fan base varies from person to person. You can't assume they're all the same.


Whistling was in two games before Unity. Hardly a core mechanic. That's like saying the rope dart was a core mechanic. Whistling was an element of one core mechanic, aka stealth. The function of whistling was luring enemies to a given spot. Now it's been replaced with cherry bombs. So the mechanic is still there, it's just called something different. Whether it functions as well as it did before is another issue.

Yes, it became a central part of the core mechanic. It was an evolution of stealth so to remove that kind of makes its addition in the first place rather pointless. Cherry bombs add nothing to the game other than make you waste money on them. In fact there was a mission constraint in which I was required to use the cherry bomb to lure a guard before escaping... except it was kind of dumb since there was a window right near me where I could have made a clean escape without having to involve any guards. I did it all the same but it was so pointless. Missions constraints are supposed to go with the flow of the mission not disrupt it. The cherry bomb IS a gimmick because it adds nothing. It kind of reminds me of the bomb making nonsense in Revelations (the worst AC game in my opinion) which they swiftly abandoned for ACIII.


Not all changes are good, but if Unity was just another reskin of old games like Rogue was, I don't think I would have been as receptive to it. I'm very 'meh' about Rogue at this point, gameplay-wise.

Haven't played Rogue.


Forumers, mostly. Many threads have been made about the complaint that AC is too afraid to remove mechanics that serve no real purpose. Things like the assassin recruits in AC3, who were just kind of there and in a way undermined the idea that Connor was the last hope of the assassins. But the mechanic had been there since ACB (2010) and devs were reluctant to let go of it, even though it didn't really add anything meaningful to the game. The same complaints surfaced with Black Flag when some people felt Ubi was just piling new features on top of a broken core to distract fans from the big problems. Enemies are still stupid after 6 years? Ah, we're too busy to fix that, but LOOK, you can go whalehunting! Combat still too easy? Ehh, whatever, here's a ship, go sail on the open seas! Stealth is still laughably easy? What if give you these shiny new berserk darts that make the game even easier, will that help?

Brotherhood utilised recruits extremely well because they would help out on tough stealth missions. ACIII recruits were useless. I can't even remember using them for stealth missions. And again, the operative word being SOME.


Fair enough. The OP was mostly based on threads I've seen from both newbies and seasoned veterans here, some of whom I have seen request certain things for years, but when Unity came out and had all those things, they barely even acknowledged it and went "eh, whatever, I'mma go play Shadow of Mordor".

Could that be because the French Revolution setting wasn't executed very well? Again, it's not enough to just put things in there; it has to be done properly in order to be considered wish fulfilment. You said yourself that many were disappointed that the historical setting didn't factor more into Arno's personal story. If you make every historical setting a mere backdrop it defeats the entire purpose because Arno's story could have been told in any other time period.


Fair enough. I can respect that opinion, even though I disagree that the solution is to not do something at all if you can't do it perfectly. The interiors in Unity would be better if they removed the ability to parkour inside (so you don't accidentally climb on tables and stuff). Climbing in windows definitely needs tweaking, but at least the game gives you tips on how to do it effectively, which means they know it's a problem.

Yes, all of these things would be great in theory but Ubisoft have not done that. They have not proven that the can do it so until they work out how to do it correctly they shouldn't do it all. You don't foist an unfinished game on people and expect them to like it simply because it includes something they wanted... done sloppily.


As much as I love AC1, I don't know that I would agree that the story is incredibly well-paced. Try replaying a mission a few times and listen to Al Mualim's unskippable speeches a few times and you start to notice how jarring the pacing can be.

But that's more about Ubisoft not being meticulous. Pacing refers to the way the story itself moves from major event to event. The story doesn't drag nor does it feel rushed. You get to know all the characters Altair interacts with intimately. Unity feels like a couple of bullet points never fully developed. For instance, Arno's love for his adoptive father is strange because we never saw even a glimpse of their relationship. In fact we only ever saw him ban Arno from the party and refuse him access to Paris. Some dad. We only got a fraction of Arno and Elise being couply before they called it quits and her being so quick to blame him only made their 'relationship' seem hollow. Bellec was supposed to be a 'shocker! Al Muliam betrayed us!' moment but I felt no impact because their relationship was never really developed. I never felt the bond and so the betrayal meant nothing; it wasn't earned.


I guess this is down to opinion. I like Unity's story and I love Arno. I like that he questions the brotherhood and makes sarcastic remarks on their pompous ways. His loyalty is to Élise, she's the reason he joins the order. I like how the council brings that loyalty into question often - it's perfectly understandable from both sides. Arno admits he didn't join because of some noble philosophy, he joined because of a personal vendetta (just like Ezio).

Yes but Ezio's was gradual throughout the game and by Brotherhood and Revelations he was a true Assassin. I want an Assassin that respects the Brotherhood. The whole time Unity think it's going back to its roots. It even thinks it has the self awareness that AC3 lacked - that is, an assassin joining the ranks for his own personal goals. In this game it acknowledges this character flaw, tries to act as if it's part of Arno's arc. But he doesn't get his priorities right until the very, very end when he's already lost everything. It's entirely pretentious.


Fair enough, but once again, I've seen people (forumers and reviewers) who used to dislike modern day and after Unity, admitted: "No, wait! I didn't mean I wanted it GONE-gone, I just wanted it to be better". Which, okay, how were the devs supposed to know that after all the complaints that modern day should be buried forever?

And who are these people? Can you link a post or review where somebody who despised the MD scenes are now begging for it?


http://kotaku.com/5958941/how-has-assassins-creed-iii-disappointed-me-let-me-count-the-ways

http://kotaku.com/5959845/assassins-creed-iii-is-a-bummer-no-its-not-lets-talk-this-out

Keep in mind Kotaku has more than one reviewer and their opinions often vary wildly.

But that only proves my point LOL! Your original argument on this subject matter was that the people who complained about the rigid mission structure of ACIII now miss it and then you posted the review by Stephen Totilo as an example. HE was the reviewer you used in your original point. But Stephen Totilo liked ACIII and did not like Unity so he has been totally consistent. The other reviewers didn't like ACIII (I have no idea what their views on Unity are) but that just goes to show you can't assume that the entire fan base is the same.


He didn't, I was pointing to the part where he says the assassin council in Unity is poncey and aloof.

But your original point was about customisation was it not?


Look, I don't keep data handy on how many numbers of people have said or not said things. If I see enough complaints about the same issue, I will note it. I don't always know if it reflects the opinion of the majority of players or not.

And that's precisely why one shouldn't make a thread tarring everyone with the same brush.


I'm not saying ALL players are saying this or that. I'm just noting trends in the complaints that have surfaced about Unity's gameplay and reflecting them against my years of experience here on the forums.

But that's precisely what you're saying. If you acknowledged it was a select minority then this thread wouldn't even need to exist but you were quite clearly talking about the core demographic as if we all want the same thing. We don't.


You said: "All anyone has ever spoken about is the glitches, the bugs and the dodgy mechanics" (emphasis mine). I pointed out that this was false.

I said 95% of the conversations - which is a huge amount. I don't even know how you were able to pluck out the posts criticising the new gameplay amongst all the threads about glitches and bugs. It was totally out of control at one point.

SixKeys
11-29-2014, 03:49 PM
The Templars in Revelations weren't Evil. The Prince Ahmet(I hope I can put him outside spoiler tags) was actually a great character and the Assassins do end up enabling his more dangerous and cruel brother. If they had characterization like that for the Revolutionary Templars within the same schema, I wouldn't complain. The fact is within the fictional schema of Byzantine-Ottoman stuff, the background of Istanbul, the portrayal of Suleiman and Piri Reis was quite fair and respectful. The Ottoman Turks have been demonized so often in popular Western media that the fact that they made a game where they were shown to be something outside of harem girls and religious fanaticism is refreshing, even if the plot is not historical, the background is fair.

I was talking about the factions. One side (Ottomans, I think) were just like Unity's blue enemies - basically just the police who would only punish you if you did something bad. The other side (Byzantines) were red enemies, paid by the Templars according to the game's lore, and were always suspicious of you and ready to attack unprovoked. That's just as inaccurate and one-sided as Unity's portrayal of historical figures as either being good guys or corrupt Templars.


The Borgia got a bad deal in the Ezio games, but in any case, the way the games portray them (Corrupt, Decadent, Murderous, Incestuous) is not unfair, they were definitely all or some of those things.

Yes, the Borgia were corrupt but to say their portrayal was "fair" is to ignore the fact that Cesare wasn't a whiny manchild but a respected and brilliant tactician. As for "murderous", we're talking about games where the so-called good guys are assassins who hang out with thieves and mercenaries, so I wouldn't really count that against the Borgias. http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/rolleyes.png http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/wink.png The point is that people are arguing that Unity's portrayal of history is inaccurate and one-sided while ignoring that so were the previous games.


In either case, they made memorable, entertaining villains which cannot be said about UNITY's Templars.

Opinions. I liked LaTouche and the King of Thieves.


Likewise AC3 which had the most history, showed the American Revolution as this gray conflict where everybody loses, even if the Assassins defeat the Templars.

Correction: it tried to portray it as a gray conflict. What actually ended up happening was that Connor spent the entire game kissing up to Washington and the Patriots, even after they betrayed him.


I mean isn't it sad that Ubisoft can show Blackbeard to be this nice guy who was not as violent as people believed, but they can't show Robespierre as anything other than a sadistic coward.

Likewise, isn't it sad that Cesare Borgia, master tactician, is only portrayed as a cowardly crybaby? Or that Machiavelli and Lorenzo de Medici, noted for their ruthlessness, are shown only as pure and noble?

Robespierre was portrayed as evil, but Marquis de Sade, another much-maligned historical character known for his debauchery, was portrayed in a more positive light. So it's not all as cut and dry as you claim.


At the end of the day, as amiable as he is, Blackbeard was a crook while Robespierre radically argued for fair rights for Jews, people of colour and actually abolished slavery for the first time in the history of the world. The only acknowledgement of this is is Eseosa's Codex in the Initiates Website, which actually made me wonder if they'll give us something accurate this time. I don't mind Robespierre being a villain or even a Templar as long as they put across that ambiguity, but here they just slander him using out-of-date misinformation.

Charles Lee was married to a native woman and fathered two children with her, yet in the game he's a racist d-bag. In the end, these remain fictional games and sometimes historical complexities will be ignored for the sake of the narrative.

D.I.D.
11-29-2014, 03:54 PM
Please no. As soon as the wall running started in Sands of Time, I just couldn't play anymore. It just seemed ridiculous to me. Gravity is not a law that can be ignored for me - not even in games.

You coped with games ignoring gravity in eight Assassin's Creed games prior to this one, at an average of 15 hours each!

Fair enough if it doesn't work for you, but the fact is people can wall-run in real life. Watching the absolute best people doing well-running bends your mind a bit, because it looks beyond possibility. You feel a strange wince of "wrongness" that amplifies towards the end of the run, which makes it entertaining to witness.

Nobody can do as many steps as The Prince does in SoT, but that's the point. They needed wall-running to look exciting throughout many hours of the game, hundreds of times, so their animation takes it to the point where it would make your brain buzz in real life, and then took it a couple of steps beyond that. This keeps the action thrilling despite the repetition.

SixKeys
11-29-2014, 04:00 PM
I like how PoP has demons and magic and time-winding objects, but wall-running is where willing suspension of disbelief meets its match. :rolleyes:

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 04:04 PM
Can you link a post or review where somebody who despised the MD scenes are now begging for it?

Actually, I'm one of them. I wanted Desmond dead so badly, and I was so happy when they killed the whiny ungrateful brat. But if I'd known they were going to replace the modern day Desmond stuff with the "You are the modern day protagonist" stupidity, I would have argued to keep Desmond alive, or better still give him a personality transplant.


You coped with games ignoring gravity in eight Assassin's Creed games prior to this one, at an average of 15 hours each!.

They don't "ignore" gravity. They tweak it. Wall running in PoP ignores it. I've seen real wall running and it doesn't seem wrong at all to me. There's gravity there. PoP has no gravity acting upon the guy - it looks stupid to me.

D.I.D.
11-29-2014, 04:08 PM
You are using the internet to post this so you can easily find out what white knight means.

As for Elise, she is very short-sighted and the reason she is not the main character is because she is annoying. Thank god we wont be seeing her again.

Also, we already had a game with a woman assassin, and it is considered the worst ac game by the majority of people.

I don't think the relationship was built well, and I don't think the characters were established quite as well as they could have been, but Élise's motivations and ambitions are fine. She has vowed to kill the people responsible for her father's death, even if she dies in the process. Arno promises to help her, and messes it all up because of his patronising need to rescue her when she doesn't need rescuing, and he does that because at least part of him wants (or expects) to be rewarded with her love for doing so.

For all Ubisoft's weirdness around the issues of investing in a proper female protagonist in a game they actually care about, that's actually very refreshing. For once, the female love interest has her own agenda and is the truly focussed, selfless, heroic one, while the male of the pair is the clumsy, morally muddled but basically well-meaning naïf.

The idea that Liberation, a Vita game with a tragically under-optimised, under-promoted late console version is the test that eliminates all future women assassins is ridiculous. For all its faults, Liberation was still a lot more fun than Revelations or III. I'd like to see you try and make the same argument about her race when Liberation failed to set the world on fire: "Blah blah, we already had a black assassin, so never do it again, blah". You'd be laughed out of here, at best.

lukazdragon
11-29-2014, 04:09 PM
They don't "ignore" gravity. They tweak it. Wall running ignores it.

And you ignored the rest of his post because it was inconvenient for you to try and argue with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsuvx-T2M5k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPj9kigf8Zg

It doesn't need to be 7 steps wall running, you know? I think a short one would be fun in AC.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 04:12 PM
Likewise, isn't it sad that Cesare Borgia, master tactician, is only portrayed as a cowardly crybaby? Or that Machiavelli and Lorenzo de Medici, noted for their ruthlessness, are shown only as pure and noble?

Machiavelli wasn't ruthless at all. He formed Florence's City Army under its Republic, and ran the only non-corrupt government of his age. When the Medici came back, they tortured him for three whole weeks before kicking him out the city in 1512. It was with pain in his arms that he wrote The Prince. Machiavelli wrote about how politics worked out of bitterness and disillusionment and sarcastic humour and he wrote it in everyday language so that people could know how politics work. Machiavelli inspired the American and French Revolutions, all of them saw him as the father of political science and republicanism.

"The plan of the French Revolution was written large in the books of Machiavelli".
— Maximilien Robespierre
(Another missed opportunity in connecting Lore with Real History).

Lorenzo il Magnifico on the other hand, well, he was nicer than the Pazzi on the whole(who killed his brother in front of him), and Caterina Sforza was subject to a lot of undeserved slander being a woman, so I don't think those positive portrayals were wrong in any way. I think the historical part in the background was very much fair and correct.


Robespierre was portrayed as evil, but Marquis de Sade, another much-maligned historical character known for his debauchery, was portrayed in a more positive light. So it's not all as cut and dry as you claim.

Sade is barely in the game and hardly does anything than be a stereotype of eccentric French sex-maniac. If they wanted something realistic, he should have submitted Arno to date rape and have sex with him while he sleeps. There's nothing positive or negative in his portrayal altogether..


In the end, these remain fictional games and sometimes historical complexities will be ignored for the sake of the narrative.

Again you miss my argument by latching on obvious failings. Just because Charles Lee is a caricature you miss the other details and research in AC3, just because Rodrigo Borgia is shown as Emperor Palpatine, you ignore the other aspects which the game got right and recieved praise for by historians. It was because of AC2 and Brotherhood that people realized that the games were something special and it made people discover history. Same with Black Flag.

The fact is UNITY gets absolutely nothing right.

mmac900
11-29-2014, 04:19 PM
I don't think the relationship was built well, and I don't think the characters were established quite as well as they could have been, but Élise's motivations and ambitions are fine. She has vowed to kill the people responsible for her father's death, even if she dies in the process. Arno promises to help her, and messes it all up because of his patronising need to rescue her when she doesn't need rescuing, and he does that because at least part of him wants (or expects) to be rewarded with her love for doing so.

For all Ubisoft's weirdness around the issues of investing in a proper female protagonist in a game they actually care about, that's actually very refreshing. For once, the female love interest has her own agenda and is the truly focussed, selfless, heroic one, while the male of the pair is the clumsy, morally muddled but basically well-meaning naïf.

The idea that Liberation, a Vita game with a tragically under-optimised, under-promoted late console version is the test that eliminates all future women assassins is ridiculous. For all its faults, Liberation was still a lot more fun than Revelations or III. I'd like to see you try and make the same argument about her race when Liberation failed to set the world on fire: "Blah blah, we already had a black assassin, so never do it again, blah". You'd be laughed out of here, at best.

This is about as far from the truth as it gets. She is not selfless, she s the very definition of selfish! All she cares about is avenging her father, how is that selfless? Arno actually cares about the cause, and Elise is a ******* distraction and gets herself killed by her blind hatred. Arno is the calm and colleted one of out the two and this game would be a lot better if Elise was never in it, or played a more minor role.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 04:23 PM
And you ignored the rest of his post because it was inconvenient for you to try and argue with it..

Or I just don't care about it. It wasn't worth discussing. Why should I care to argue whether wall running is a real life thing that looks amazing? I don't care, because I think it has nothing to do with PoP wall running.

And as I added to my previous reply, wall running just ain't that exciting for me. Whoop-de-fricken-do, a guy can run on a wall. Get my camera while I alert the media. Unlike many folks, I took physics in school - it ain't that surprising that exerting force towards a wall allows a person to bounce off it while running on it for a bit.

All I'm saying is that in my opinion, PoP-style wall running has no place in AC. PoP is much more fantasy-physics-based than AC.

And if I argued every point that I didn't care about, but that someone else felt was essential, I'd be here till the crack of doomsday arguing this one issue. Life's too short.

That's also why I don't spend any time arguing with folks who vociferously disagree with me. By the time I post an opinion, I've already considered it a lot. I don't see the point of reviving those considerations for the benefit of folks who don't intend to change their minds anyway. And I'm certainly not interested in pursuing the points of people who use sophistry and ad hominem arguments and who construct straw men, like the many many Unity apologists who frequent the forums and who want everyone to agree with them. I just don't have the time or the patience to be stroking the egos of those who can't even argue competently or respectfully.

FatiguedEnigma
11-29-2014, 04:24 PM
My friend, you are right.. personally i loved this game..EVERYTHING its given us.. i'm impressed.. I Hate co-op only because NOBODY does stealth; just run kill and keep running.. die expect me to heal you ( Because of being a complete waste of time i wont heal you, )I'm grateful for what they have given us.. as I NEVER complain about something unless i;m stopped by a bug that wont let me play anymore... But all in all. i believe Ubisoft SHOULD Not be rubbing our feet instead Giving us a game that THEY WANT!! thats when you'll see a great game

SixKeys
11-29-2014, 04:34 PM
Again you miss my argument by latching on obvious failings. Just because Charles Lee is a caricature you miss the other details and research in AC3, just because Rodrigo Borgia is shown as Emperor Palpatine, you ignore the other aspects which the game got right and recieved praise for by historians. It was because of AC2 and Brotherhood that people realized that the games were something special and it made people discover history. Same with Black Flag.

Oh, so it's only okay to ignore history when it's YOU who does it? Charles Lee and De Medici's portrayals deserve to be ignored because they're "obvious failings" and therefore irrelevant (?) but Marquis de Sade doesn't count because his real life persona was too close to the game's portrayal. :rolleyes: (Some stereotypes aren't actually stereotypes. Marquis de Sade really was an eccentric sex-maniac.)

Earlier you accused me of making generalizations yet here you are saying: "It was because of AC2 and Brotherhood that people realized that the games were something special and it made people discover history."

Who are these 'people' of which you speak?

D.I.D.
11-29-2014, 04:34 PM
They don't "ignore" gravity. They tweak it. Wall running ignores it.

Yes they do. There are physics controls for the objects, but the character is not affected in the same way at all, and it's not a tweak. The games play ridiculously fast and loose with all kinds of physics, but when it comes to the behaviour of the assassin, it's off the charts. And that's fine, because it's fun.

If the assassin's physics are a "tweak", then so is PoP's wall run:


http://youtu.be/TIx4AT5mcx4

By the same token, your daily chant is that everyone defending Unity is lying to themselves about the supposed awfulness of the game, which is remarkable when you champion the old games over this one. To me, this sounds like a dramatic case of rose-tinted spectacles. I literally cannot make myself play the pre-Black Flag games anymore, and I use the word "literally" advisedly; I have tried, and I can't do it. Those games will never be installed on my computer again, but I have good memories of how much fun most of them were in their day for the first time. Unity can be improved, but the old design model clearly could not and it hit its limit in ACIV, FC and Rogue.

Every single Assassin's Creed player is an apologist. We have spent years pretending that AC games are just as good, or just as much fun, as any other game out there, that they deserve GOTY awards and so on. This is never true. We make incredibly generous allowances for the shortfalls of AC, because we love some other elements so much, and because we want so much for them to be unequivocally world-beating. There's a remarkable amount of joyless busywork in any AC, but especially so in the Ezio trilogy which is lousy with filler, ditto ACIII. Many of the main missions are filler. We put up with so much glitchiness, bugs, design faults, linear gameplay in an allegedly open world, and years and years when there was absolutely minimal opportunity to inject any of one's own skill or judgement into the proceedings. Most of the new games that have sprung up to share in AC's market for open world stealth and/or assassination simulation have easily found ways to exceed those games. I'm very happy to see AC becoming truly creative in its gameplay, because it was in severe danger of being eclipsed by Dishonored, Watch Dogs, the new Middle Earth series, MGS, Deus Ex, and others. It doesn't hit the mark on every point, but it needs to be Unity and more so, not to retreat into some supposed golden age that never really was.

SixKeys
11-29-2014, 04:36 PM
All I'm saying is that in my opinion, PoP-style wall running has no place in AC. PoP is much more fantasy-physics-based than AC.

Right, which is why it makes total sense that one game features people leaping into haybales from 200 feet and surviving. Physics!

D.I.D.
11-29-2014, 04:40 PM
This is about as far from the truth as it gets. She is not selfless, she s the very definition of selfish! All she cares about is avenging her father, how is that selfless? Arno actually cares about the cause, and Elise is a ******* distraction and gets herself killed by her blind hatred. Arno is the calm and colleted one of out the two and this game would be a lot better if Elise was never in it, or played a more minor role.

Why is she selfish? Because she doesn't obligingly fall into line with Arno's plans for their relationship?

She's selfless in that she's erased her need to survive this. Arno is desperate for them both to survive, because he wants her, and that taints his ability to tell the truth when he agrees to do whatever it takes to complete the revenge.

Arno doesn't care about the revolution, or the assassins. He's the same as Élise, in that he's out for revenge for his father's murder, except he has one more concern and that's "winning" Élise. This compromises him, and he almost ruins everything. It's Élise's tenacity that keeps the plan on track.


Right, which is why it makes total sense that one game features people leaping into haybales from 200 feet and surviving. Physics!

If I leap from a 100ft building across a gap in the street from a standing start, further than gravity could possibly allow, it will be fine as long as I grab a 2cm ledge 7ft from the ground with my fingertips.

SixKeys
11-29-2014, 04:44 PM
Why is she selfish? Because she doesn't obligingly fall into line with Arno's plans for their relationship?

She's selfless in that she's erased her need to survive this. Arno is desperate for them both to survive, because he wants her, and that taints his ability to tell the truth when he agrees to do whatever it takes to complete the revenge.

Arno doesn't care about the revolution, or the assassins. He's the same as Élise, in that he's out for revenge for his father's murder, except he has one more concern and that's "winning" Élise. This compromises him, and he almost ruins everything. It's Élise's tenacity that keeps the plan on track.

I liked Élise's comment in the mission where Arno tells her he was trying to save her life. "It's not yours to save!" (or something like that). She's clearly made her choice - she values her goals more than she does their personal relationship. That might be considered a personality flaw, but not the mark of a bad character.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 04:50 PM
Oh, so it's only okay to ignore history when it's YOU who does it? Charles Lee and De Medici's portrayals deserve to be ignored because they're "obvious failings" and therefore irrelevant (?)...

The point is you are trying to diffuse any criticisms of the game's treatment of the historical background by pointing out how other portrayals were in the past, ignoring the stuff that those games got right while ignoring my detailed point-by-point rebuttal of how biased the depiction is in total.

It's not just that Robespierre is a bad guy, he is a controversial figure and he appears that way in earlier books, plays and movies, including a good one made in 1985(DANTON) which went a good way to showing him in a complex way, barring some inaccuracies, it did show him in a manner that was fair and took him seriously. The fact is even those earlier works, even a work as anti-revolutionary as A TALE OF TWO CITIES or SCARLET PIMPERNEL is still more faithful to history than the train wreck that is Unity which is just drivel. I mean that is a new low in representation for AC.

As I wrote before:

To people who bring the "this is a game" card, I am going to quote an interview by Alex Amancio himself:
http://time.com/3471390/assassins-creed-unity/

What we actually try to do, and I think this is just a personal belief that we have, is to avoid reducing history. You can’t start taking sides, because that makes it biased, and what we’re really trying to do is expose every slice of history in the most unbiased way possible. It’s obviously incredibly difficult. History is always subjective, because it’s written by people, and no matter how objective you try to be, human nature makes it subjective. We try very hard to portray things as factually as possible.

This is why I use the word "lie", a very serious word for me. The game is full of a pack of demonstrable lies(Simply match it with wikipedia), slander and misinformation. The game is seriously biased. The game does reduce history. I made a detailed list of the inaccuracies of this game in both the Single Player Campaign, the Brotherhood Missions and the Paris Side Stories/Murder Mysteries. I have actually found more since then, and maybe I'll add that here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/954025-ACU-History-A-list-of-demonstrable-lies-and-inaccuracies-SPOILERS

If reading that long series of posts is cumbersome, and it is most likely, than you can see something more concise here:


*The game repeats the famous apocryphal story that Louis XVI's death was Decided By One Vote. It comes down to an even split between clemency and execution with Templar puppet and patriot, Louis Michel Le Peletier casting the deciding vote. In actual fact, of the 721 available and eligible voters, 321 voted for imprisonment and/or banishment but a decent majority agreed on the execution. Off the 394 who voted for death, 34 voted for death with delaying conditions, while the majority wanted immediate summary execution. It also rehashes, for more understandable reasons, the apocryphal quote of "Jacques de Molay, vous êtes vengé!".

* The Reign of Terror and the Revolution as a whole is presented without the political context of the 1792 Revolutionary Wars. Namely the fact that the chaotic situation created by early defeats led to the September Massacres, a paranoid over-reaction that political prisoners would betray soldiers on the frontlines, whereas here its presented as a Templar plot to sow chaos. The Terror, far from being the work of a few individuals, had wide public support and political bi-partistan agreement about its status as emergency laws to meet the challenges of civil war, invasion and deprivations. The game presents it as an excess of ideology or fanaticism and the work of Templars. Likewise, the game shows a bloodbath on the part of Robespierre's faction in the streets on the night of his downfall, when there was no violence at all that day from his side. Indeed, Robespierre was reluctant to order attacks on the National Convention and fatally delayed taking action.

* The game's Brotherhood Missions and the Side Missions severely falsifies the lives and personalities of the likes of Jean-Paul Marat, Saint-Just, the Jacobin Club and the Enrages. The Jacobins are depicted as a bunch of crypto-Nazis who whip radical women like Theroigne de Mericourt for daring to ask for their rights, when in real life she was attacked by a radical faction of Revolutionary Women and was rescued by Marat. Likewise, Saint-Just and Jacques Roux are described to be psychopaths, with the overall negative depiction being informed by 19th Century royalist Malicious Slander rather than actual historical research.

* A lot of the Paris Side Stories, Social Club Missions and the DLC exclusives "Chemical Revolution" and "American Prisoner" are filled with numerous basic errors in facts, including several anachronistic events and characters. Champollion, the famous Egyptologist, appears as an adult when he was born in 1790. Likewise Josephine describes herself as a divorcee when her husband was guillotined (The man who signed his execution order was none other than the painter Jacques-Louis David, future friend and collaborator of Napoleon, who quite obviously was grateful for the assist) and she was herself imprisoned during the Terror. Arno is tasked by Thomas Paine to rescue The Rights of Man from the Warden's custody, a book that was already widely published before he arrived in Paris (indeed the reason why he was invited in the first place), while the book Paine was working on was The Age of Reason, his Deist critique of Christianity.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 05:24 PM
If I leap from a 100ft building across a gap in the street from a standing start, further than gravity could possibly allow, it will be fine as long as I grab a 2cm ledge 7ft from the ground with my fingertips.

No one's arguing AC should have real world physics. The point is, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I'd just rather have that line drawn somewhere closer to the Earth, than out in space where there's no gravity at all. Not sure why you keep ignoring that point. I mean, I get that you like PoP style wall running. I also know that I don't. Not sure why there needs to be all the straw-man-construction, sophistry and ridicule. Again, you remind me of that quote about Saint-Just. The fact that you like wall running does not mean that everyone who doesn't is betraying your revolutionary vision. Let's get a grip.

lukazdragon
11-29-2014, 05:46 PM
No one's arguing AC should have real world physics. The point is, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I'd just rather have that line drawn somewhere closer to the Earth, than out in space where there's no gravity at all. Not sure why you keep ignoring that point. I mean, I get that you like PoP style wall running. I also know that I don't. Not sure why there needs to be all the straw-man-construction, sophistry and ridicule. Again, you remind me of that quote about Saint-Just. The fact that you like wall running does not mean that everyone who doesn't is betraying your revolutionary vision. Let's get a grip.

If that line is drawn after the example he mentioned, then a short wall running like the ones we have mentiones and showed is even more acceptable than most of the things that already exist in assassins creed:

*the grabbing on ledges after falling several feet, that he talked about
*the absurd falls on haystacks from gigantic buildings

These two examples alone are more impossible than a simple wall-running, considering the videos we showed you.

And there's no problem with you not wanting wall-running. But at least defend your point reasonably. If you had said it was because of stylistic reasons, okay, I understand, but saying that a line has to be drawn somewhere close to earth and not outter space is not close to being a strong argument, since we just showed that it's a completely believable and possible movement on itself, and even more acceptable compared to the things already allowed in the franchise.

mmac900
11-29-2014, 05:53 PM
Why is she selfish? Because she doesn't obligingly fall into line with Arno's plans for their relationship?

She's selfless in that she's erased her need to survive this. Arno is desperate for them both to survive, because he wants her, and that taints his ability to tell the truth when he agrees to do whatever it takes to complete the revenge.

Arno doesn't care about the revolution, or the assassins. He's the same as Élise, in that he's out for revenge for his father's murder, except he has one more concern and that's "winning" Élise. This compromises him, and he almost ruins everything. It's Élise's tenacity that keeps the plan on track.



If I leap from a 100ft building across a gap in the street from a standing start, further than gravity could possibly allow, it will be fine as long as I grab a 2cm ledge 7ft from the ground with my fingertips.

Why do you people keep saing stuff that has nothing to do with anything, its like im arguing with teenagers or pmsing women here!

To the guy who said I dont like her cuz she doesnt show her tits, get over yourself, I dont give a a flying **** about that, I already said why i dont like her.

To D.I.D. she is a distraction to Arno, and the main story wouldve been better if she wasnt in it,but their stupid forced relationship takes away from the game. For example Ezio's girl, I forgot her name, was part of brotherhood but in a way that didnt distract Ezio from the main story, and it was amazingly well done.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 05:58 PM
These two examples alone are more impossible than a simple wall-running...

Again, and for the last time, I've not been talking about "simple wall running". If that was what was in PoP, I'd be fine with it appearing in AC (if there were any point in it).

Why do you consistently misrepresent my position? Oh never mind, I know - it's because you'd rather debate what you'd like me to be saying rather than what I am saying. So why do I keep thinking you're actually trying to engage in a debate?

It's because I'm a fricken idiot.

lukazdragon
11-29-2014, 06:04 PM
Again, and for the last time, I've not been talking about "simple wall running". If that was what was in PoP, I'd be fine with it appearing in AC (if there were any point in it).

Why do you consistently misrepresent my position? Oh never mind, I know - it's because you'd rather debate what you'd like me to be saying rather than what I am saying. So why do I keep thinking you're actually trying to engage in a debate?

It's because I'm a fricken idiot.

Well, I've previously proposed a common wall-running and you ignored that post and repeated the realism matter.

If you would be okay with simple wall-running, then we truly have no reason to be discussing. I do apologize if I thought you were against even this kind of wall running, but you honestly looked very much like you were.

Edit: Now I've found your answer. It was right behind someone's gigantic post with letters of the size of 5 lines, probably that's why I did not see it. My bad.

Xstantin
11-29-2014, 06:56 PM
I fail to see how Unity is different. Its "challenges" dont make any sense. Usually they require you to do something completely unrelated to the mission.

The person I was talking to was saying that some full sync requirements in ACIII and BF added 'uniqueness' to the kills (I'm too lazy to look now but I think they listed Hickey and some benchkill mission). I'm not a fan of fullsync in any of the games anyway.

VestigialLlama4
11-29-2014, 07:17 PM
The person I was talking to was saying that some full sync requirements in ACIII and BF added 'uniqueness' to the kills (I'm too lazy to look now but I think they listed Hickey and some benchkill mission). I'm not a fan of fullsync in any of the games anyway.

What I meant was that it managed to differentiate each assassination mission from each other. They did that by sacrificing non-linearity. In unity they created the same method of approach for all targets which made it less distinctive altogether.

Megas_Doux
11-29-2014, 07:51 PM
Oh, so it's only okay to ignore history when it's YOU who does it? Charles Lee and De Medici's portrayals deserve to be ignored because they're "obvious failings" and therefore irrelevant (?) but Marquis de Sade doesn't count because his real life persona was too close to the game's portrayal. :rolleyes: (Some stereotypes aren't actually stereotypes. Marquis de Sade really was an eccentric sex-maniac.)

Earlier you accused me of making generalizations yet here you are saying: "It was because of AC2 and Brotherhood that people realized that the games were something special and it made people discover history."

Who are these 'people' of which you speak?

Grab a chair, take a sit and "wait" like Altair for Ezio to arrive, he will continue ignoring you, no matter what you do. He does that whevever he is "outplayed", which happens quite frequently.

In regards of the new complaint about Unity being bad because of the parkour is "not realistic"...Yeah!!!!! Jumping from a 50 meters tower to a haystack has always been uber realistic, so does climbing it that fast while even missing a finger....

SlyTrooper
11-29-2014, 08:27 PM
I'm kind of late to this, but I agree with the op. People don't know what they want. People just want to hate on Ubi, so if it isn't perfect the first time trying then they want them to stop trying completely. Ungrateful sods. When the next game turns out to fix all these issues they'll all come flooding back; just you wait.

Journey93
11-29-2014, 08:50 PM
and I have concluded that you are a naive fanboy I mean did you even listen to what people criticized??
Just because the assassins are more significant doesn't mean the story is good
its probably the worst so far (except Liberation) and the glitches and bugs on launch were unbearable

Paris is definitely done very well one of the best AC cities but the **** story + ****tier protagonist and the performance problems make the game just bad

And I understand that people have different opinions and if you like the game thats ok but making just a thread and claiming that people don't know what they want and somehow you understand all the problems is just being a huge asskisser but I suppose Ubi can use those right now

Derp43
11-29-2014, 08:57 PM
Personally, I find AC: Unity the best AC so far for a variety of reasons. Of course it has it's problems, like how it relies to much on co-op and side missions to inform the player about history. But overall it's a solid 9/10 in my book.

Xstantin
11-29-2014, 08:59 PM
Paris is definitely done very well one of the best AC cities but the **** story + ****tier protagonist and the performance problems make the game just bad

And I understand that people have different opinions and if you like the game thats ok but making just a thread and claiming that people don't know what they want and somehow you understand all the problems is just being a huge asskisser but I suppose Ubi can use those right now

Nice. You understand people have different opinions yet call people names :rolleyes:
I like Arno more than I liked some of the older protags, what exactly makes him so bad as you think? I hope it's not "lack of charisma"

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2014, 09:17 PM
I'm kind of late to this, but I agree with the op. People don't know what they want. People just want to hate on Ubi, so if it isn't perfect the first time trying then they want them to stop trying completely. Ungrateful sods. When the next game turns out to fix all these issues they'll all come flooding back; just you wait.

"Not perfect"? How close to "perfect" do you think this game is? Have you played any other games? Because I guarantee you, some of them are a LOT closer.

And the whole point of us complaining about how imperfect it is is to get them to make games that are BETTER. That's how criticism works.

Do you really think, for one second, that pretending a game as imperfect as this is nearly perfect is likely to get Ubisoft to make better games? I mean, really? How do you expect that will happen? Do you think Ubisoft will say "Oh look, everyone was happy with that garbage called Unity that we shoved into the marketplace back in 2014. Because everyone was so happy with it, let's work harder next time because they don't care how bad our games are and working harder to make the game better when people don't care makes erm... sense, I think."

Call me crazy, but I don't think that will work. Why not? Because however much we might think Ubisoft is run by a bunch of nutcases and mental inebriates, it is actually run by hard-headed businesspeople, and if a hardheaded businessperson figures out that he can make even more money by cutting development costs and playing on your naivete and blind love for the franchise, he'll do that every day and twice on a Sunday.

I must admit, I considered that accepting mediocrity might make them do better next time, because I'm a drooling moron, but then I thought a bit longer and realized it probably wouldn't work.

Rafe Harwood
11-29-2014, 09:22 PM
Just to point out, although the thread title had 'no spoilers' in it, even before playing the darn game (which will be delivered sometime before I hit 43 with luck), I now know most of what goes on because of this thread.

Use the bloody spoiler tag for Lord sakes!

rprkjj
11-29-2014, 11:46 PM
This is about as far from the truth as it gets. She is not selfless, she s the very definition of selfish! All she cares about is avenging her father, how is that selfless? Arno actually cares about the cause, and Elise is a ******* distraction and gets herself killed by her blind hatred. Arno is the calm and colleted one of out the two and this game would be a lot better if Elise was never in it, or played a more minor role.

I think Elise is alright, but she's far from selfless. Also, pretty sure she would have died if Arno hadn't saved her.

rprkjj
11-29-2014, 11:49 PM
"Not perfect"? How close to "perfect" do you think this game is? Have you played any other games? Because I guarantee you, some of them are a LOT closer.

And the whole point of us complaining about how imperfect it is is to get them to make games that are BETTER. That's how criticism works.

Do you really think, for one second, that pretending a game as imperfect as this is nearly perfect is likely to get Ubisoft to make better games? I mean, really? How do you expect that will happen? Do you think Ubisoft will say "Oh look, everyone was happy with that garbage called Unity that we shoved into the marketplace back in 2014. Because everyone was so happy with it, let's work harder next time because they don't care how bad our games are and working harder to make the game better when people don't care makes erm... sense, I think."

Call me crazy, but I don't think that will work. Why not? Because however much we might think Ubisoft is run by a bunch of nutcases and mental inebriates, it is actually run by hard-headed businesspeople, and if a hardheaded businessperson figures out that he can make even more money by cutting development costs and playing on your naivete and blind love for the franchise, he'll do that every day and twice on a Sunday.

I must admit, I considered that accepting mediocrity might make them do better next time, because I'm a drooling moron, but then I thought a bit longer and realized it probably wouldn't work.

Eh, that's kind of just like, your opinion, man. Many, myself included, really like the game, unless you'd like to convince that we actually don't. :rolleyes:

rob1990312
11-29-2014, 11:51 PM
its actually a near perfect game

rprkjj
11-30-2014, 12:49 AM
Why is she selfish? Because she doesn't obligingly fall into line with Arno's plans for their relationship?

She's selfless in that she's erased her need to survive this. Arno is desperate for them both to survive, because he wants her, and that taints his ability to tell the truth when he agrees to do whatever it takes to complete the revenge.

Arno doesn't care about the revolution, or the assassins. He's the same as Élise, in that he's out for revenge for his father's murder, except he has one more concern and that's "winning" Élise. This compromises him, and he almost ruins everything. It's Élise's tenacity that keeps the plan on track.



If I leap from a 100ft building across a gap in the street from a standing start, further than gravity could possibly allow, it will be fine as long as I grab a 2cm ledge 7ft from the ground with my fingertips.

*SPOILERS*


I would consider the disregard for one's self and others for the sake of achieving a goal as desperation, naivete, and obsession. It sounds like you're just giving her the benefit of the doubt when there's nothing there that actually supports it. I would consider Arno's cause to be one of redemption, as opposed to revenge. He's trying to right his wrong, because he blames himself for inadvertently causing De La Serres' death. Elise is just out for blood, and, fittingly, it's her end.

Shahkulu101
11-30-2014, 12:53 AM
This thread labelled 'no spoilers' has managed to spoil three or four major things for me, and I'm exceptionally pissed of at the one above.

How hard is it it use spoiler tags? FFS.

rprkjj
11-30-2014, 01:09 AM
This thread labelled 'no spoilers' has managed to spoil three or four major things for me, and I'm exceptionally pissed of at the one above.

How hard is it it use spoiler tags? FFS.

Sorry, the flood gates had opened.

Shahkulu101
11-30-2014, 01:12 AM
Sorry, the flood gates had opened.

Errr...honest mistake. It's sort of my fault for browsing here when I haven't completed it, but it is still early days and the rules require you all to use spoiler tags - so I've a right to be annoyed too. Should have went dark, but I have succumbed to boredom.

mmac900
11-30-2014, 01:31 AM
I would consider the disregard for one's self and others for the sake of achieving a goal as desperation, naivete, and obsession. It sounds like you're just giving her the benefit of the doubt when there's nothing there that actually supports it. I would consider Arno's cause to be one of redemption, as opposed to revenge. He's trying to right his wrong, because he blames himself for inadvertently causing De La Serres' death. Elise is just out for blood, and, fittingly, it's her end.

You put it better then me :)

But get ready to be flamed by the "we need more wimminz brigade" and anything they do is amazing and your just a hater.

I dont care if my character is a guy or a girl, as long as they are someone I can root for. I could not root for Elise.

GoldenBoy9999
11-30-2014, 02:29 AM
Sorry, the flood gates had opened.

Would you mind putting it in spoiler tags now please?

JAC072
11-30-2014, 05:42 AM
EmptyCrustacean made a good response in the first page to every claim you made. If we complaint it's because of the many bugs and the game wasn't ready for launch, not because it is harder. Many times Arno does not respond as he should, and I have noticed the same thing happening on AC Black Flag, while fighting on ships. Going into windows to enter a building most times takes several tries for Arno to do it. it should be more fluent. Supposedly pressing left ctrl Arno should enter a building but it takes way too many tries to do so.

You should read EmptyCrustacean responses he gave on ths first page.

VestigialLlama4
11-30-2014, 06:40 AM
Nice. You understand people have different opinions yet call people names :rolleyes:
I like Arno more than I liked some of the older protags, what exactly makes him so bad as you think? I hope it's not "lack of charisma"

I'll break it down quite simply. When we first meet Arno, in Sequence One and Two(Most of which were in Promos, so hopefully don't count as spoilers), we come across this:
1) We see Arno as an adorable little boy(we saw Connor as an adorable little boy too)
2) We see Arno as this adolescent rogue who's into gambling, cheats into cards and picks fights with local thugs only to be bailed out by his rich superiors. (Ezio at the start of AC2). Arno when we first meet him even looks like Ezio he wears the same white shirt-black-vest outfit he wore in the First Sequence of AC2.
3) Arno is a wisecracker, makes jokes about the Assassins being a cult, is an alcoholic and in love with a red-headed woman (just like Edward Kenway) and she's a Templar while he's an Assassin (just like Altair).
4) Arno's initiation comes with a vision quest (again like Connor's Juno Vision in AC3).

In other words, from the very beginning what we see is less a distinct character that fits the time period, like all the earlier Assassin protagonists, and more a character type with the distilled pick-and-mix of traits from all earlier Assassin Heroes shoehorned in the French Revolution solely with the aim of building a franchise around him. A lot of people wanted a character more like Pierre Bellec, this Assassin fanatic/revolutionary who makes sense as a character and feels logical to his time period and who's way more interesting than Arno ever is.

But then more than that, when Arno becomes an Assassin there is another reason people don't like him, he's incompetent.

He goes on his own after Lafreniere. His idea of investigation is telepathly imbuing the memories of his dead victims(a touch I actually like in the game) and he keeps pissing off the Assassin Council. The one time they give him a job of major responsibility, infiltrating the Tuileries and stealing those documents that prove Mirabeau's corruption, he fails big time. Why? Because a bunch of guards are coming in his way and Napoleon has a secret passage. Oh and Napoleon - "let's see dude in a room, absolute nobody searching around the King's office, nothing suspicious at all about that, I'll just turn my back and let this guy steal an Apple of Eden because I'm that much of a complete moron". I mean I liked the scene on the whole and its funny watching Napoleon make Arno his b-tch but to expect people to still take him as seriously as he takes himself (preaching about fanaticism and dogma at the end) after that is asking too much of players. Later, when the Assassins finally chuck him out, what does Arno do, go back to Versailles, get drunk off his mind, pining about his childhood when he was spoiled and well-taken care of. A drunk level that pretty much serves no purpose other than to remind us of that awesome sequence in Black Flag only Edward was poor and desperate for the only fortune that he ever could acquire in his lifetime, so more sympathetic/tragic there than this crybaby who had stuff handed to him and come his way, but can't look after himself.

That's the main problem, we have a character who's presented as this only-sane-man type man-of-peace complaining about people being obsessed, even fanatical about changing society, defeating feudalism and building other things we take for gratned today, so all in all not very simpatico. He's basically there as an audience surrogate and he personally has nothing at stake other than coming out of the Revolution without too much fuss and going beyond first base with Elise. I mean Connor makes sense in AC3 regardless of whether people like him or not or if they overdid the Forrest Gump factor, since he has literally no one to turn to other than them, when his village gets burned down. Edward being a Pirate makes sense for him to be skeptical and irreverent to the Assassins (When he calls them, funnily, "a cheery bunch of bravos"). Ezio's equation with the Renaissance makes sense since his revenge plot fits the vendetta culture of that era. When Arno becomes an Assassin and makes these little supposedly witty roguish quips it doesn't feel funny, it feels like a fanboy's observations put into a character on screen.

VestigialLlama4
11-30-2014, 07:37 AM
*SPOILERS*


I would consider the disregard for one's self and others for the sake of achieving a goal as desperation, naivete, and obsession. It sounds like you're just giving her the benefit of the doubt when there's nothing there that actually supports it. I would consider Arno's cause to be one of redemption, as opposed to revenge. He's trying to right his wrong, because he blames himself for inadvertently causing De La Serres' death. Elise is just out for blood, and, fittingly, it's her end.

Look Ezio was out of blood and he wasn't punished especially for it. Taking revenge is understandable and logical and human. I don't see why that's a flaw in Elise and not in other characters who wanted revenge.

Arno's motivation is inconsistent. Initally he wants to atone so he joins the Assassins, then Elise gets back together and forgives him and they are closer, so that's no longer a huge deal to him. Then Bellec betrays Mirabeau and he chooses Elise over the Assassins essentially, so there's no conflict between relationship and affiliation. After that Arno's motivation is whatever gets him through the mission and I guess, trying to save Elise from herself, since that's what heroes do to impress chicks. Then he gets kicked out of the Assassins and becomes a drunken loser until Elise gives the crybaby's Daddy's watch. This is lamentable writing by any standards since you have a hero who's not heroic at all but still treated and presented as a hero and not a moron.

If they wanted to make a game about the dangers of revenge and narrow-mindedness, they should have Arno die at Germain's hands and Elise find her vengeance hollow and empty. We can even have Elise put his blood in a vial after he dies, that is both romantic(if creepy, but something people did), it will also explain how we can revisit his memories by Animus in the present day since the blood vials(introduced in Black Flag) allow you to do that. Elise dying as a martyr doesn't give any message other than the fact that she's a remarkable character and its a shame we play as her loser boyfriend.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-30-2014, 09:10 AM
Look Ezio was out of blood and he wasn't punished especially for it. Taking revenge is understandable and logical and human. I don't see why that's a flaw in Elise and not in other characters who wanted revenge.

I don't think that's her flaw. I think it's a lot more basic than that. She's an independent woman who berates Arno for not being committed enough to their goal. Her flaw is that she doesn't take Arno seriously - i.e. she's too damned uppity.

mmac900
11-30-2014, 01:37 PM
I don't think that's her flaw. I think it's a lot more basic than that. She's an independent woman who berates Arno for not being committed enough to their goal. Her flaw is that she doesn't take Arno seriously - i.e. she's too damned uppity.

First time I agree with this guy

Jackdaw951
11-30-2014, 03:28 PM
I have concluded.... that people don't actually know what they want from AC anymore.


For years, people complained about the combat being easy to the point of boredom.

So Unity made combat harder.

Now people complain the combat is too hard.


For years, people begged for co-op.

Unity gave us co-op.

People complain that co-op isn't fun unless you play with friends instead of randoms. (Which is totally not a complaint you can make about literally every single co-op game ever made.)


For years, people complained that the stealth was too simplistic and practically nonexistent.

. . . [etc]

What you forget is that the people complaining about different things are themselves different individuals. For example, I could not care less about any kind of multiplayer. I play immersive fantasy-world games like AC strictly solo. Always have; always will. So it follows that I have never complained about how multiplayer works. However, I do complain bitterly when online multiplayer is forced upon me if I want access to everything in the game I bought. The multiplayer fans, on the other hand, would welcome this. See? Different groups, different complaints.

No matter what the developer does, someone will be unhappy with it, because we are all individuals with widely different likes and dislikes, not cells in a hive mind.

bitebug2003
11-30-2014, 08:34 PM
The huge crowds can also be a hindrance in trying to escape from an area

I think they ARE gimmicky and I stand by it.

Also 54 guards in one area is overdoing it

I absolutely detest the Eagle Vision - not the cool down - but that after a few seconds it wears off

Stealth is just poorly executed - dropping useful features for a silly cover mechanic that doesn't work properly - can't even shift around a corner without getting out of cover first

Combat is clunky and I miss the item selection ring - I've died more times trying to select the correct item (mostly picking the wrong bomb) in real-time than I have from the actual fighting

Checkpoint system is half-hearted at best

I have a sneaking suspicion this was going to be a purely co-operative/online game but for some reason it was changed

There are elements (enemy numbers/crowd numbers and just the overall feel of the game - including our ID at the top) that suggest they belong more at home in an online environment.

Those are my thoughts and I will stick by them.

zzcool500
12-11-2014, 10:48 PM
i don't know about anyone else but personally i liked the game being easy it was fun to plow through enemies like flys

story wise i fell for the deeper story if you saw the puzzles for ac 2 etc you will know that the pieces of eden goes even deeper than the games jesus using one hitler using one edison being part of the templars

it goes really deep and thats what i loved i also loved desmond

unity it had no meaning too me

SolidSage
12-11-2014, 11:43 PM
I have concluded.... that people don't actually know what they want from AC anymore.


For years, people complained about the combat being easy to the point of boredom.

So Unity made combat harder.

Now people complain the combat is too hard.


For years, people begged for co-op.

Unity gave us co-op.

People complain that co-op isn't fun unless you play with friends instead of randoms. (Which is totally not a complaint you can make about literally every single co-op game ever made.)


For years, people complained that the stealth was too simplistic and practically nonexistent.

Unity made stealth more challenging and rewarding, and gave us both a cover system and a dedicated crouch button. Guards now remember you after a fight and the "last known position" mechanic draws them towards your position.

People complain that stealth is now too hard.


For years, people complained that the series is too stale and afraid to let go of existing systems.

Unity gave us dedicated buttons for crouching and cover and removed things like whistling and picking up bodies which would likely have messed with the renewed aspects of stealth. In the old games it was already annoying when Ezio started to pick up a body in the middle of a fight. Imagine that being a factor in Unity with the crouch and cover buttons.

Now people complain that Unity didn't bring back enough old systems. To recap: AC doesn't do enough to reinvent itself, but when it does, people say it doesn't play the same way it has since 2007.


For years, people begged for a French Revolution setting.

Unity took us there.

People complain about being confined to Paris instead of sailing the open seas (http://img.444.hu/jackie.gif).


For years, people begged for the ability to go inside buildings.

Unity allows you to enter buildings.

People complain it's "too hard" to enter windows.


For years, people complained about "the Gump factor", about the protagonist being conveniently thrown into every major historical event.

Unity makes the historical era more of a backdrop for a personal story.

People complain that the protagonist isn't involved enough in every major historical event.


For years, people complained about Desmond being boring and telling Ubi to just scrap modern day altogether. "Just make it a historical adventure with no Animus stuff", they said.

Unity makes modern day almost entirely nonexistent.

People complain that Ubi needs to bring modern day back.


For years, people asked for a return of open-ended assassinations like in the early games.

Unity's assassinations are more open than ever before.

People complain that mission design sucks and they should go back to a more cinematic approach.


For years, people begged for more in-depth character customization.

Unity has literally hundreds of customization combinations.

People complain that after buying the costliest pieces armor, there's no reason to get the lower-stats armor anymore. (Which....is kind of how armor works in every game?)


For years, people complained they wanted livelier NPCs, with random events, bigger crowds and natural involvement with their environment.

Unity has all of that.

People complain that the large crowds are a "gimmick", that random events get boring fast, and nobody seems to care or notice that NPCs now do things like draw attention to a commotion, recognize and greet Arno, have their own routines and actually interact with each other instead of just being stock animations.


For years, people complained that the assassin order didn't feel like a real order anymore - that instead of being a "proper" secret society with robes and ceremonies like in Altaïr and Ezio's time, it had become too mundane.

Unity made the assassin brotherhood more pompous and ceremonial than ever before. The council wore fancy robes, they had a gold-plated, secret underground lair with assassin insignia plastered all over the place. The ultimate armor is basically a black version of Altaïr's robes which is something modders have been dreaming of for ages. Statues of historical assassins line up every hallway.

People complain that the assassins are now too poncey and aloof.



In summary: for years, people have cried out for an AC game that brings back urban gameplay, renews parkour, has dynamic weather, more rewarding stealth, more challenging combat, more advanced AI, open-ended assassinations, co-op (including freeroam), animals, distraction tools, a meaningful brotherhood, disguise system, weapon and armor stats, natural crowds, multiple time eras within one game, meaty side content, reinvented modern day, etc. etc.

Unity has all of that. And what's been the fan response?

"Too little, too late."


Jesus H. Christ, you people really don't know what you want anymore, do you?



NOTE: I'm only talking about gameplay and story elements, not the technical issues or social connectivity BS. Those things deserve every criticism. But apparently even if the game worked exactly as intended for everyone, it still would be regarded as a failure, despite delivering everything the previews promised.

Totally agree, people just like to complain. Unity is the best AC I've ever played, it delivers on so many things I've wanted from AC for years. It's simply a great achievement.

The bugs and glitches do suck, but patience really IS a virtue, and the game plays very well as is. I have high hopes for the evolution of THIS path. Some minor tweaks and adaption will certainly improve upon what we have now.

"Note enough ships" come on, there's 3 games for you to choose from.
"Parkour is too difficult" please, you could fall asleep parkouring in AC3 and still not make an error.

Unity reigns supreme...until next year I suppose :)

Hrafnagud72
12-14-2014, 10:20 AM
I love threads with people complaining about complainers, makes you sound so petty. And I love that you generalize, makes you sound even more arrogant and pompous. You need to realize that the people wanting change and the people complaining about the change are two entirely different groups. So there really is no "people can't decide what they want." It's really just some people like it one way and some people like it another way.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-14-2014, 11:44 AM
Totally agree, people just like to complain...

Yeah, it's amazing how so many people complain when a game is so bug-ridden that they have to issue three patches in a month and the game is still not fixed. Those people must just enjoy complaining. I'll bet those folks only buy the worst games, just so they can complain about them. I mean, the fact that you're enjoying the game must mean that all those people and all the reviewers who have panned the game must be mistaken. Heck, Ubisoft didn't even need to release all those patches, and maybe they should stop working on patch 4. After all, the bugs suck, but the game is fine, right. People just need to have patience, because if they just wait long enough - maybe a few more months - they will forget that Ubisoft fooled them into paying full price for a half-finished game.

Seriously, what are folks like you smoking?