PDA

View Full Version : Rogue or Unity?



CapitalJJ
04-03-2015, 03:27 PM
Which game is better? Unity has higher critic reviews, but Rogue seems to have higher user reviews.

wvstolzing
04-03-2015, 04:03 PM
'higher user reviews' where?

*Here*, while some people like this or that aspect of Rogue better, the consensus seems to be that overall, Unity is a better game.

I've only watched a full let's play of Rogue; but for me there's no comparison -- Unity is superior in pretty much every way.

Namikaze_17
04-03-2015, 04:20 PM
Victory. :rolleyes:

CapitalJJ
04-03-2015, 04:54 PM
'higher user reviews' where?

*Here*, while some people like this or that aspect of Rogue better, the consensus seems to be that overall, Unity is a better game.

I've only watched a full let's play of Rogue; but for me there's no comparison -- Unity is superior in pretty much every way.

Unity is the next-gen game, so I'm sure it definitely has some features that rogue doesn't, but the user ratings on a lot of sites are higher than the critic rating, and on some, higher than unity. That's why I asked on here, to see what AC fans think. Some people may just prefer one or the other because of the setting, or maybe some people like the naval warfare in Rogue.

Matknapers18
04-03-2015, 04:58 PM
Its not really logical for me to make a judgement since I haven't played Rogue yet. But based on footage and reviews, I'll say Unity. It would be unfair to punish Ubisoft for trying to innovate and try something new in Unity, and then reward them for playing it safe and creating a recycled game in Rogue. As bad as Unity was, it is a step in the right direction. Combat is so much better (in my opinion) and more focus on stealth is good progress. And like I said, Rogue should not be recompensed for being a copy and paste job. That is exactly what the franchise NEEDS to avoid in order to remain stable and maintain the annual releases. We should give Ubisoft some respect for at least attempting to innovate and bring something fresh with Unity.

Shahkulu101
04-03-2015, 05:35 PM
Unity. Rogue's story was serviceable and Unity's was less than satisfactory, but Rogue is a shameless copy/paste job.

Megas_Doux
04-03-2015, 05:42 PM
Despite my love/hate relationship with it thanks to overall wasted potential on both story and gameplay, I pick Unity. I´m just in love with every single corner of Paris and its 1:1 grandeur. I also enjoy the fact there is somewhat of a challenge regarding combat and that finally after many years and releases they tried to make stealth decent, I love customization as well.

About Rogue, well, naval is cool and so is the North Atlantic, however mechanics like parkour and combat, although obviously based on AC III and AC IV, feel WAY clunkier. It´s like Shay waist had a joint malfunction or something. Plus having NY again, its subpar graphics, etc, etc, etc. I was biased since the very beginning, but Rogue feels like a poor man´s AC IV by ALL accounts to me.

Gosh, Unity could have been my all time favorite AC game....Why Ubi, why did you have push it out the door like that?????? And also, why the story was written that way??????


Meh :(

Defalt221
04-03-2015, 06:02 PM
Victory. :rolleyes:

No. The Japan game on 2017.

SixKeys
04-03-2015, 06:38 PM
Unity by far. Rogue did pull off a miracle of sorts by making North America's environment look and feel appealing compared to AC3, but it's just more of the same as AC4 and Freedom Cry.

EmptyCrustacean
04-03-2015, 06:42 PM
Victory. :rolleyes:

Well done. You've finally made me laugh. Here, have a cookie.

EmptyCrustacean
04-03-2015, 06:47 PM
Its not really logical for me to make a judgement since I haven't played Rogue yet. But based on footage and reviews, I'll say Unity. It would be unfair to punish Ubisoft for trying to innovate and try something new in Unity, and then reward them for playing it safe and creating a recycled game in Rogue. As bad as Unity was, it is a step in the right direction. Combat is so much better (in my opinion) and more focus on stealth is good progress. And like I said, Rogue should not be recompensed for being a copy and paste job. That is exactly what the franchise NEEDS to avoid in order to remain stable and maintain the annual releases. We should give Ubisoft some respect for at least attempting to innovate and bring something fresh with Unity.

Whilst I totally see your point, you don't get points for failed innovation.
You can introduce a lot of forward thinking elements intro a game but if you're lazy about it and you don't take the time to execute it well then it means nothing.
And I would respect it if Unity was simply a bad game but it's also an unfinished one. How can you judge a game that isn't even whole?
It's just as lazy and cynical as Rogue is except Rogue is actually fun and was always intended as filler rather than as the main attraction.

Minsooky
04-03-2015, 07:04 PM
I feel the same way about Unity as I do about FF13.

Great graphics, different gameplay (I actually liked combat/assassinations), but incredibly unenjoyable, not fun to play, storyline isn't good etc.

Whereas Rogue may look like AC3 + AC4 smashed together and the storyline is short, but I had lots of fun playing it.

Matknapers18
04-03-2015, 07:20 PM
Whilst I totally see your point, you don't get points for failed innovation.
You can introduce a lot of forward thinking elements intro a game but if you're lazy about it and you don't take the time to execute it well then it means nothing.
And I would respect it if Unity was simply a bad game but it's also an unfinished one. How can you judge a game that isn't even whole?
It's just as lazy and cynical as Rogue is except Rogue is actually fun and was always intended as filler rather than as the main attraction.

I agree with you. But I'd rather see failed innovation, as oppose to no innovation at all. At the critical point of moving to new hardware, Ubisoft had to really overhaul Assassins Creed, completely rebuild mechanics and gameplay. It was a necessity, anything remotely similar to Black Flag would have been torn apart. I didn't expect things to go smoothly. I didn't expect every new feature to be perfect. I just wanted to sense some form of alteration because, for the last 3 games, everything has felt so similar. I was desperate for change. Gameplay had gone stale, and Unity really needed to be different. Ultimately, I wanted Ubi to listen and, in some sense, they sort of did. Co-op, character customisation, a sprawling urban centre. Its everything we've been asking for since AC1.

You are right, it was lazy execution and the game was unfinished. But, its the first time experimenting with a completely new generation of software and engine. I am by no means, defending the laziness on Ubisoft's part, or the poor game that was created, but simply stating that perfection should not have been expected. You expected Ubisoft to nail all of these new features first time? On brand new hardware, with a brand new engine?

If anything, its the marketing that killed Unity. Once again, the hype overshadowing the final product. One of the reasons why Rogue was surprisingly well received was because it got NO marketing. No one expecting anything from Rogue, no one cared about Rogue. So the lack of marketing made for a surprisingly good game. Now, imagine if Rogue received equal marketing as Unity. It would get absolutely ripped to shreds. Ubisoft really shot themselves in the foot with Unity's marketing. They never seem to learn on the advertisement side of things.

SixKeys
04-03-2015, 07:28 PM
Whilst I totally see your point, you don't get points for failed innovation.
You can introduce a lot of forward thinking elements intro a game but if you're lazy about it and you don't take the time to execute it well then it means nothing.
And I would respect it if Unity was simply a bad game but it's also an unfinished one. How can you judge a game that isn't even whole?
It's just as lazy and cynical as Rogue is except Rogue is actually fun and was always intended as filler rather than as the main attraction.

Unity is more fun than Rogue, and let's face it, this isn't the first time Ubi has brought out an unfinished AC game.

AssassinHMS
04-03-2015, 08:51 PM
Whilst I totally see your point, you don't get points for failed innovation.
You can introduce a lot of forward thinking elements intro a game but if you're lazy about it and you don't take the time to execute it well then it means nothing.
After 5 games copy pasting the same decadent core mechanics without any shame whatsoever, I think it’s a big step forward when the devs finally start to realize they need to do something about it.
Sure, Unity’s core mechanics may not be flawless, but to disregard the attempt to change what’s wrong with the franchise and say that “it means nothing” is mind boggling. Hopefuly everyone thinks like you do and the devs will stop trying to innovate so we can get back to the good old ****ty core that, might I say, won’t fail since it has been perfected over the last 7 years!
I mean, if your ideas of innovation have the slightest chance of failure then you shouldn’t try to innovate at all! You don’t get points for failed innovation you know.

Seriously though, anyone who claims to like Assassin’s Creed should be praising the fact Unity’s devs did what they did to the core, regardless of whether they personally see them as a failure or not.






It's just as lazy and cynical as Rogue is except Rogue is actually fun and was always intended as filler rather than as the main attraction.

So Rogue is actually fun, hmm? Wow, that’s a meaningful argument.
And it was intended as a filler. Oh, so it’s ok to make a filler game as long as you have a “so called” main attraction…sure. And it was sold at a “filler” price too, right? Or did it cost nearly as much as a main attraction?

EmptyCrustacean
04-03-2015, 09:50 PM
Unity is more fun than Rogue, and let's face it, this isn't the first time Ubi has brought out an unfinished AC game.

The first half of your sentence is debatable. Unfinished in terms of technical hiccups, yes. AC3 had a few minor bugs but nothing game breaking like Unity which had bugs so widely reported it even made the BBC news. It started a discussion about gaming ethnics in the area of devs releasing games for full price that wasn't actually finished. Unity wasn't just unfinished in terms of bugs and glitches but in terms of the actual mechanics i.e. the gameplay itself. That, of course, is one of the core aspects of any game. So yes, I'd take a finished copy and paste job over a barely functioning campaign any day. You knew what you were getting into with Rogue. The game was marketed as having the same mechanics and gameplay as Black Flag so that last gen users who like Black Flag could have something to keep them going until they get next gen. Ubisoft hid the flaws of Unity until it was too late for most consumers. I'm not saying I don't want something new and fresh but to release a game in that state is unacceptable.


I agree with you. But I'd rather see failed innovation, as oppose to no innovation at all. At the critical point of moving to new hardware, Ubisoft had to really overhaul Assassins Creed, completely rebuild mechanics and gameplay. It was a necessity, anything remotely similar to Black Flag would have been torn apart. I didn't expect things to go smoothly. I didn't expect every new feature to be perfect. I just wanted to sense some form of alteration because, for the last 3 games, everything has felt so similar. I was desperate for change. Gameplay had gone stale, and Unity really needed to be different. Ultimately, I wanted Ubi to listen and, in some sense, they sort of did. Co-op, character customisation, a sprawling urban centre. Its everything we've been asking for since AC1.

Co-op was terrible. Why lock single player content within and behind multiplayer? That makes no sense. The character customisation broke game immersion - I miss unlocking shops so that you could make the town better and purchase items directly from there.


You are right, it was lazy execution and the game was unfinished. But, its the first time experimenting with a completely new generation of software and engine. I am by no means, defending the laziness on Ubisoft's part, or the poor game that was created, but simply stating that perfection should not have been expected. You expected Ubisoft to nail all of these new features first time? On brand new hardware, with a brand new engine?

Why not? GTA5 and GTA 4 nailed all their new features and that's because they took their time. From watching the E3 trailers from Ubisoft it was clear they cut out a lot of features from the game for the sake of time and budget. Like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns_HWrK4BPI

Where is this mission? And I don't recall Arno providing commentary on the daily dramas on the Parisian streets when I played. He also seems like a more ruthless Assassin, more Altair, less Ezio. Additionally, a lot of the stuff you call innovation aren't actually innovation but mere replacements - chery bombs replace whistling, cover - which should have been implemented long ago in a supposed stealth game. Even Arno himself is a poor man's Ezio. Plus a lot of the features within the game is just gimmicks - the Nomad app was so pointless especially when they managed to expand upon Brotherhood with sending recruits on missions by using Uplay to save progress even when you weren't playing the game. Kenway's fleet actually added to the game because you got most of your money from it.


If anything, its the marketing that killed Unity. Once again, the hype overshadowing the final product. One of the reasons why Rogue was surprisingly well received was because it got NO marketing. No one expecting anything from Rogue, no one cared about Rogue. So the lack of marketing made for a surprisingly good game. Now, imagine if Rogue received equal marketing as Unity. It would get absolutely ripped to shreds. Ubisoft really shot themselves in the foot with Unity's marketing. They never seem to learn on the advertisement side of things.

GTA5 and Arkham City was hyped too and the both lived up to it. In Ubisoft's case, they created the hype as a front for the ugly truth. Like I said, I can forgive failed innovation when its sincere and thoroughly considered. I do not accept it when ideas are done half assed. "Trying something new" is undermined when you rush stuff out for the sake of making as much money as possible.

I will always love Ubisoft for bringing me this wonderful franchise but it's clear they've sold out.

EmptyCrustacean
04-03-2015, 10:12 PM
After 5 games copy pasting the same decadent core mechanics without any shame whatsoever, I think it’s a big step forward when the devs finally start to realize they need to do something about it.
Sure, Unity’s core mechanics may not be flawless, but to disregard the attempt to change what’s wrong with the franchise and say that “it means nothing” is mind boggling. Hopefuly everyone thinks like you do and the devs will stop trying to innovate so we can get back to the good old ****ty core that, might I say, won’t fail since it has been perfected over the last 7 years! I mean, if your ideas of innovation have the slightest chance of failure then you shouldn’t try to innovate at all! You don’t get points for failed innovation you know.

What are you talking about? Unity didn't fail because it was some off the wall experiement, it failed precisely because they didn't give it enough time for their ideas to actually flourish due to wanting more money! Their marketing heads took priority over their creative ones. That's anti-innovation. And stop putting words into my mouth. I never said they shouldn't try to innovate at all if it stands the risk of failing; I said they should concentrate on making sure those ideas are FINISHED.


Seriously though, anyone who claims to like Assassin’s Creed should be praising the fact Unity’s devs did what they did to the core, regardless of whether they personally see them as a failure or not.

Good. If you're willing to be Ubisoft's loyal dog whilst you lick up the unfinished crap they put out just because "at least they tried something different, man!", go ahead. You deserve everything you get.


So Rogue is actually fun, hmm? Wow, that’s a meaningful argument.

It is - you play games to have fun. NEXT.


And it was intended as a filler. Oh, so it’s ok to make a filler game as long as you have a “so called” main attraction…sure. And it was sold at a “filler” price too, right? Or did it cost nearly as much as a main attraction?

Why? Were you expecting to get it for free? Again, Rogue was never marketed as being something it wasn't. They didn't leave out entire chunks of gameplay but act as if they would be in there. They straight up said that anybody that loved Black Flag could experience it all over again in Rogue. People who bought the game knew what they were getting and weren't let down that's why there's no animosity towards it.

AssassinHMS
04-03-2015, 11:07 PM
What are you talking about? Unity didn't fail because it was some off the wall experiement, it failed precisely because they didn't give it enough time for their ideas to actually flourish due to wanting more money! Their marketing heads took priority over their creative ones. That's anti-innovation. And stop putting words into my mouth. I never said they shouldn't try to innovate at all if it stands the risk of failing; I said they should concentrate on making sure those ideas are FINISHED.
Right because the other AC devs made sure their ideas were finished. That is no excuse to target Unity’s devs. AC3 was basically a pile of unfinished ideas and ACB, ACR and AC4 (apart from naval free roam) brought no innovation. None of the other devs showed any interest in the core mechanics.
AC Unity was the first time Ubisoft touched the core in a meaningful way, after so many years. Before that, they were just releasing the same copy pasted core with a different coat and THAT’S anti-innovation.
Unity, along with AC3, is the most innovative and risk-taking AC title since AC1.



Good. If you're willing to be Ubisoft's loyal dog whilst you lick up the unfinished crap they put out just because "at least they tried something different, man!", go ahead. You deserve everything you get.
Lol. This “something different” you speak of, is none other than improving the core so yeah, it’s a very positive thing and worthy of recognition.
On the other hand, if you want to ignore Unity’s devs' efforts simply because you think their ideas were left unfinished, and keep dissing Unity, then you are basically saying you prefer the older, far worse gameplay and that is admitting you want to eat the same crap Ubisoft has been defecating for the last few years.

Compared to AC2, ACB, ACR and AC4, Unity is innovation when it comes to the core, finished or not.





It is - you play games to have fun. NEXT.
You say “NEXT” but you should really stop. Fun is subjective. You having more fun playing Rogue doesn’t say anything about the game, only about yourself.




Why? Were you expecting to get it for free? Again, Rogue was never marketed as being something it wasn't. They didn't leave out entire chunks of gameplay but act as if they would be in there. They straight up said that anybody that loved Black Flag could experience it all over again in Rogue. People who bought the game knew what they were getting and weren't let down that's why there's no animosity towards it.
Aside from the glitches, I always knew what I was getting with Unity.
But it's ok for Rogue to be “lazy and cynical” (as you put it) because it was advertised that way…ok.

Matknapers18
04-03-2015, 11:07 PM
Co-op was terrible. Why lock single player content within and behind multiplayer? That makes no sense. The character customisation broke game immersion - I miss unlocking shops so that you could make the town better and purchase items directly from there.

I completely agree. Co-op did suck. I hated it. I never said I liked it. I said that the implementation of Co-op is solid evidence that Ubisoft are actually listening to the fans, which is a promising sign. People have been been desperate for co-op so they added it, sure it sucked, but the fact that Ubisoft are at least trying to fulfil our requests, changing the standard AC formula, is encouraging. And I actually disagree about the Character customisation, I quite liked it.



Why not? GTA5 and GTA 4 nailed all their new features and that's because they took their time. From watching the E3 trailers from Ubisoft it was clear they cut out a lot of features from the game for the sake of time and budget. Like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns_HWrK4BPI

Where is this mission? And I don't recall Arno providing commentary on the daily dramas on the Parisian streets when I played. He also seems like a more ruthless Assassin, more Altair, less Ezio.

Im sorry but seriously trusting AC E3 footage as an accurate representation of the final product is just pure naïvety. Sorry if that was harsh, but its true. E3 Demo's are complete marketing stunts, created in order to display what the Devs want the game to be like. The mission shown in the AC2 E3 Demo isn't in the final game, yet I don't see many people bringing that up. Its the same every year I'm afraid and its not going to change. The E3 demo is always going to be better than the final product. Take a look at the AC3 E3 demo or the AC4 demo. They are completely different games. Which links back into my points on marketing which you dismissed.

And the fact that you thought Arno 'seemed' like a more ruthless assassin, is purely personal perception. I didn't conclude that Arno seemed more like Altair from a 7 minute demo in which he had 2 lines of dialogue. Do not speak for others.

And yes Rockstar did take their time on GTA and that may be why they nailed all their new features. But this is Rockstar we are talking about. When have they ever made a bad game? Ubisoft and Rockstar cannot be compared. And i actually agree with you, regarding annual releases. I think it really is a burden for the franchise and one of the reason why Unity suffered.



Additionally, a lot of the stuff you call innovation aren't actually innovation but mere replacements - chery bombs replace whistling
I did not call Cherry Bombs innovation.


cover - which should have been implemented long ago in a supposed stealth game.
I did not call cover innovation.


Even Arno himself is a poor man's Ezio.
I didn't even mention Arno. And I actually disagree. I liked Arno, i just didn't like his writing. Despite being quite a likeable character, he was provided with a lacklustre script and story. But this is all personal perforce, so best not dwell on that.



Plus a lot of the features within the game is just gimmicks - the Nomad app was so pointless especially when they managed to expand upon Brotherhood with sending recruits on missions by using Uplay to save progress even when you weren't playing the game. Kenway's fleet actually added to the game because you got most of your money from it.

Never used the Nomad App and never used Kenway's Fleet. They are not really what I meant when I described innovative changes in Unity. So I would argue that Kenways fleet is just as pointless as the Nomad app. I did not get most of my money from Kenways fleet, so, I must say once again, speak for yourself. I was more or less talking about the new Parkour mechanics, 1 to 1 scale cities, as well as the seamless building interiors. And the combat which I personally liked.



GTA5 and Arkham City was hyped too and the both lived up to it. In Ubisoft's case, they created the hype as a front for the ugly truth. Like I said, I can forgive failed innovation when its sincere and thoroughly considered. I do not accept it when ideas are done half assed. "Trying something new" is undermined when you rush stuff out for the sake of making as much money as possible.

I will always love Ubisoft for bringing me this wonderful franchise but it's clear they've sold out.

I actually can agree with a lot you have said here. And i think you are perhaps correct. What i was said about marketing was more concentrated on the relationship with Unity and Rogue and how Rogue automatically received the advantage due to the minimal advertising and promotion it received.

But Unity had the biggest jump in Gameplay since the start of the series. It felt like a different franchise. And no, that isn't a negative. You may disagree, but regardless of how well it was pulled off, this game has set the series template for another 4-5 years. Its positive innovation in my opinion. Regardless of how well it was executed.
It just seems so wrong to give Rogue the praise here. Especially when we are always nagging Ubisoft to try something different with every new release. Its almost hypocritical saying, "Yeah make the new game different from the last, don't copy and paste" and then saying "Rogue was better than Unity". I don't know, Im guess Im not fit to comment on Rogue since I am yet to play it.

SixKeys
04-04-2015, 12:52 AM
The first half of your sentence is debatable. Unfinished in terms of technical hiccups, yes. AC3 had a few minor bugs but nothing game breaking like Unity which had bugs so widely reported it even made the BBC news. It started a discussion about gaming ethnics in the area of devs releasing games for full price that wasn't actually finished. Unity wasn't just unfinished in terms of bugs and glitches but in terms of the actual mechanics i.e. the gameplay itself. That, of course, is one of the core aspects of any game. So yes, I'd take a finished copy and paste job over a barely functioning campaign any day. You knew what you were getting into with Rogue. The game was marketed as having the same mechanics and gameplay as Black Flag so that last gen users who like Black Flag could have something to keep them going until they get next gen. Ubisoft hid the flaws of Unity until it was too late for most consumers. I'm not saying I don't want something new and fresh but to release a game in that state is unacceptable.

All of what you describe about Unity was my experience with AC3. I didn't just experience minor issues, I had major game-breaking bugs which turned me off from the experience. Unity had lots of issues, no denying that, but overall I'd still choose it over AC3, warts and all. When Unity glitches out, it's not nearly as frustrating to me as AC3's glitches. I'll take broken textures over being unable to complete a mission due to glitched out checkpoints and game crashing on me whenever I try to complete one of its 100% sync objectives.

I knew what I was getting with Rogue, I went in with low expectations yet I still ended up disappointed. Obviously there are less bugs since it's based on the same engine and gameplay as two of its predecessors, but there's a sense of "been-there-done-that" permeating the whole experience. Unity, for all its flaws, did take the series' back to its roots with its approach to stealth and harder combat. Two things we had been promised for years with each new game yet Unity finally delivered. Rogue, rather than trying to challenge the player, just keeps piling more distractions to cover up the flawed core pillars underneath. "Okay, yes, we know the combat is really easy but here! Look at this shiny new air rifle that makes it even easier!"


Co-op was terrible. Why lock single player content within and behind multiplayer? That makes no sense. The character customisation broke game immersion - I miss unlocking shops so that you could make the town better and purchase items directly from there.

Co-op is great. Not as great as the old PvP multiplayer, but still good. I can agree about locking SP content behind MP though.
Customization is better than it's ever been. No more running halfway through the city to multiple different shops to buy everything you need. In Rogue I'm constantly annoyed when my ship runs out of ammo and I can't directly buy more from the captain's cabin, I have to sail all the way across the ocean to the nearest city (because most of the smaller islands don't have shops, unlike in AC4).

Renovations stopped making sense after ACB. ACR's Constantinople was thriving before Ezio arrived, it didn't need his money. AC3's renovations were terrible because you had to run around helping those annoying Homestead people and for what? So you could get some wood to build barrels. AC4's made more sense because almost all renovations were about upgrading your ship, but the Great Inagua hideout was pretty much useless. In Rogue they're entirely pointless again and you end up with more money than you can spend.


Why not? GTA5 and GTA 4 nailed all their new features and that's because they took their time. From watching the E3 trailers from Ubisoft it was clear they cut out a lot of features from the game for the sake of time and budget. Like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns_HWrK4BPI

Where is this mission?

Good question. Where is this mission?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZrklEy9ohQ

Or this one?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YmJ89YwZms


And I don't recall Arno providing commentary on the daily dramas on the Parisian streets when I played. He also seems like a more ruthless Assassin, more Altair, less Ezio.

Ezio is more ruthless than Altaïr actually. If you look at their kill animations, Altaïr is quick and efficient, making sure to minimize his target's suffering. Ezio has some unnecessarily brutal kill moves, especially in AC2 and ACR. He seems to take pleasure in killing people, evident in the animation where he bashes a guard to death and then gently nudges him over with a humorous pose. Altaïr would never be so callous and nonchalant about death.

Arno talks quite a bit to the people he helps. During murder mysteries and Paris stories he often has entire conversations with people.


I will always love Ubisoft for bringing me this wonderful franchise but it's clear they've sold out.

Yup. They sold out back in 2009, when they turned AC into GTA: Renaissance Edition.

EmptyCrustacean
04-04-2015, 12:53 AM
Right because the other AC devs made sure their ideas were finished. That is no excuse to target Unity’s devs. AC3 was basically a pile of unfinished ideas and ACB, ACR and AC4 (apart from naval free roam) brought no innovation. None of the other devs showed any interest in the core mechanics.
AC Unity was the first time Ubisoft touched the core in a meaningful way, after so many years. Before that, they were just releasing the same copy pasted core with a different coat and THAT’S anti-innovation.
Unity, along with AC3, is the most innovative and risk-taking AC title since AC1.

Um, why are you bringing up the other instalments which - with the exception of Revelations - are far superior to Unity? If you're having to bring up the faults of other games (that were generally well received) in order to make Unity look good then you've lost this argument already. Stop comparing and judge Unity on its own merits - oh yeah, you can't because it has none lol. Unity was a failure, hated by hardcore fans and casual AC fans alike. Dissing the more beloved games won't change that fact.


Lol. This “something different” you speak of, is none other than improving the core so yeah, it’s a very positive thing and worthy of recognition.
On the other hand, if you want to ignore Unity’s devs' efforts simply because you think their ideas were left unfinished, and keep dissing Unity, then you are basically saying you prefer the older, far worse gameplay and that is admitting you want to eat the same crap Ubisoft has been defecating for the last few years.

Compared to AC2, ACB, ACR and AC4, Unity is innovation when it comes to the core, finished or not.

No. Unity is not superior to any games you have mentioned apart from Revelations which is slightly more horrible. Ignoring all of Unity's unfinished mechanics its story is terrible, sloppy, cliche and a near copy and paste job from AC2 - not innovative. The combat being difficult makes sense if you want to encourage stealth but is undermined by the customisation system which allows players to upgrade their combat yet gives a false sense of hope for such players because the combat is still hard. Are you a stealth game or a game that allows players to choose their play style? Which is it, Amancio? Horrible mircotransactions which meant the pacing of achievements was all over the place to encourage extra purchase. Gimmicky transmedia that added nothing to the game but sync issues - nothing innovative about putting content on an iphone that should just be available on the main platform i.e. the consoleyou paid for. Locking single player content behind multiplayer thus almost guaranteeing that players won't work as a team. Nonsensical upgrades: making me unlock double assassination - a feature that has been standard to the Assassins since AC2. So essentially they made the player go back in order to go forward (kind of like Ubisoft's success rate, itself) Immersion breaking disguise skill to combat the bad stealth. Large crowds to encourage players to roof travel even though running on the ground is way more faster which defeats the entire point. Giving all the characters English accents and making the historical element of the game completely disconnected from the story thus rendering its setting completely pointless. Open ended missions that somehow managed to be repetitive given that every single assassin mission had no suprises. Do you remember the masquerade party in Venice in AC2? Unity could never be that dynamic. No, Unity should not be commended for such incompetence.


You say “NEXT” but you should really stop. Fun is subjective. You having more fun playing Rogue doesn’t say anything about the game, only about yourself.

I could say the same thing about you, babe.


Aside from the glitches, I always knew what I was getting with Unity.
But it's ok for Rogue to be “lazy and cynical” (as you put it) because it was advertised that way…ok.

If you're having to put words in my mouth and then argue against things that I haven't said then again you've lost this argument.
Rogue is a game that works. There was nothing deceptive about it. Yes, it's essentially filler but that's precisely what fans were expecting to get them through not having a next gen console. The game was good filler. Did you honestly expect them to use all their resources into the previosu gen game? otherwise why not bring it to next gen.

Altair1789
04-04-2015, 01:39 AM
Rogue had a better story, Unity had better gameplay

SixKeys
04-04-2015, 01:55 AM
I'm in sequence 4 right now and so far I haven't been impressed by Rogue's story.

Namikaze_17
04-04-2015, 02:00 AM
Both are pretty meh in the story department anyway.


Rogue is your straight to DVD fanfic that comes to life, and Unity is your generic MUST SEE MOVIE OF THE YEAR that's really predictable. :rolleyes:

AssassinHMS
04-04-2015, 02:05 AM
Um, why are you bringing up the other instalments which - with the exception of Revelations - are far superior to Unity? If you're having to bring up the faults of other games (that were generally well received) in order to make Unity look good then you've lost this argument already. Stop comparing and judge Unity on its own merits - oh yeah, you can't because it has none lol. Unity was a failure, hated by hardcore fans and casual AC fans alike. Dissing the more beloved games won't change that fact.
You claim your problem with Unity’s gameplay are the unfinished ideas. Because, as you said, the marketing heads took priority over the creative ones which you deemed to be “anti-innovation”.
So I compared Unity to older titles to show you just how innovative it actually is.
Supporting the old gameplay, on the other hand, is “anti-innovation”. Unity’s devs focused on the core and improved it, yet you don’t seem to acknowledge any of that.
Even if the execution wasn’t flawless, it doesn’t take any of the merit.

Unity is, without a doubt, innovative and a step in the right direction (regarding AC’s core).

And if you think the “creative heads” lost in Unity’s case, just think about previous ACs where the core stayed exactly the same and where the gameplay was copy pasted.
Shouldn’t you complain about that instead of targeting the first AC developers that refrained from adding more side mechanics to hide the same old shameful core? They didn’t try to hide them with naval and whatnot, they stripped AC from all those needless additions and focused on the single most important thing that had been left to rot since AC1. Now that deserves some praise.




No. Unity is not superior to any games you have mentioned apart from Revelations which is slightly more horrible. Ignoring all of Unity's unfinished mechanics its story is terrible, sloppy, cliche and a near copy and paste job from AC2 - not innovative. The combat being difficult makes sense if you want to encourage stealth but is undermined by the customisation system which allows players to upgrade their combat yet gives a false sense of hope for such players because the combat is still hard. Are you a stealth game or a game that allows players to choose their play style? Which is it, Amancio? Horrible mircotransactions which meant the pacing of achievements was all over the place to encourage extra purchase. Gimmicky transmedia that added nothing to the game but sync issues - nothing innovative about putting content on an iphone that should just be available on the main platform i.e. the consoleyou paid for. Locking single player content behind multiplayer thus almost guaranteeing that players won't work as a team. Nonsensical upgrades: making me unlock double assassination - a feature that has been standard to the Assassins since AC2. So essentially they made the player go back in order to go forward (kind of like Ubisoft's success rate, itself) Immersion breaking disguise skill to combat the bad stealth. Large crowds to encourage players to roof travel even though running on the ground is way more faster which defeats the entire point. Giving all the characters English accents and making the historical element of the game completely disconnected from the story thus rendering its setting completely pointless. Open ended missions that somehow managed to be repetitive given that every single assassin mission had no suprises. Do you remember the masquerade party in Venice in AC2? Unity could never be that dynamic. No, Unity should not be commended for such incompetence.
I didn’t find Unity’s combat hard at all with or without upgrades. I did find it more balanced than ever though.
Also, if you were expecting upgrades to ruin the balance and make you over powered like in previous games, then I’m afraid that false sense of hope is yours to blame, although it’s also the previous AC games’ fault for having such an unbalanced combat system.
And Unity embraces the stealth game genre more than any of the previous ACs which couldn’t even decide what they were. I don’t see you complaining about that either.
The rest of your complaints are based solely on opinion. I don't share the same opinions with the exception of the one regarding the disguise skill (which was done totally wrong).
I also liked Unity’s assassination missions as opposed to AC2’s which I disliked for the most part (mostly due to their linearity).




I could say the same thing about you, babe.
Babe? ...Really?



If you're having to put words in my mouth and then argue against things that I haven't said then again you've lost this argument.
Rogue is a game that works. There was nothing deceptive about it. Yes, it's essentially filler but that's precisely what fans were expecting to get them through not having a next gen console. The game was good filler. Did you honestly expect them to use all their resources into the previosu gen game? otherwise why not bring it to next gen.
As for putting word in your mouth:

It's just as lazy and cynical as Rogue is except Rogue (...) was always intended as filler

And I expect to get the main attraction when I pay the “main attraction” price. If the price tag doesn’t care whether the game is a main attraction or a lazy filler, then neither should the customer.

Altair1789
04-04-2015, 06:06 AM
I'm in sequence 4 right now and so far I haven't been impressed by Rogue's story.

Eh, maybe it didn't have a particularly "good" story, but it was better than Unity in my opinion

SixKeys
04-04-2015, 08:45 AM
Rogue is your straight to DVD fanfic that comes to life, and Unity is your generic MUST SEE MOVIE OF THE YEAR that's really predictable. :rolleyes:

Not even. We all thought Unity would be predictable, but the predictions fans were making based on trailers were much better than what the final story ended up being.

Like, we all thought the name "Unity" meant it would be about Templars and assassins having to unite temporarily, and Arno ultimately having to choose between the assassins and Templars, due to his love for Elise. That would have been predictable, but could have been so good. But none of that ended up happening.
Instead we get this random intro with Thomas de Carneillon that never goes anywhere and doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the plot, then a bit where Elise is suspected of betraying Arno for all of 0.5 seconds until that is resolved, then the Sword of Eden at the end which just pops up out of freaking nowhere, the randomness of modern day etc. It's almost like the devs were deliberately putting in twists and turns so as not to seem predictable, but the story ended up neither here nor there because of it.

VestigialLlama4
04-04-2015, 03:18 PM
I am late to this party. Let me quote William Faulkner, "between grief and nothing, I will choose grief" so between Unity and Rogue, I will choose Unity.

Hans684
04-04-2015, 05:41 PM
Rogue has a relevant story and Unity(a poor fan fiction version of Romeo & Juliet with no story reason to exist(even the game itself agree, ask Bishop how "important" Arno's life is.)) is a bigger filler than Liberation. The only good thing about Unity is the gameplay. So I vote Rogue.

I-Like-Pie45
04-04-2015, 05:45 PM
omg hans are you the hans von hozel

Hans684
04-04-2015, 05:54 PM
omg hans are you the hans von hozel

Spiritualy, a future successor in making.

Megas_Doux
04-04-2015, 06:01 PM
Yup. They sold out back in 2009, when they turned AC into GTA: Renaissance Edition.

This indeed......

GunnerGalactico
04-04-2015, 06:25 PM
I'm in sequence 4 right now and so far I haven't been impressed by Rogue's story.

I also wasn't very taken by Rogue's story either.

Defalt221
04-04-2015, 06:33 PM
The first half of your sentence is debatable. Unfinished in terms of technical hiccups, yes. AC3 had a few minor bugs but nothing game breaking like Unity which had bugs so widely reported it even made the BBC news. It started a discussion about gaming ethnics in the area of devs releasing games for full price that wasn't actually finished. Unity wasn't just unfinished in terms of bugs and glitches but in terms of the actual mechanics i.e. the gameplay itself. That, of course, is one of the core aspects of any game. So yes, I'd take a finished copy and paste job over a barely functioning campaign any day. You knew what you were getting into with Rogue. The game was marketed as having the same mechanics and gameplay as Black Flag so that last gen users who like Black Flag could have something to keep them going until they get next gen. Ubisoft hid the flaws of Unity until it was too late for most consumers. I'm not saying I don't want something new and fresh but to release a game in that state is unacceptable.



Co-op was terrible. Why lock single player content within and behind multiplayer? That makes no sense. The character customisation broke game immersion - I miss unlocking shops so that you could make the town better and purchase items directly from there.



Why not? GTA5 and GTA 4 nailed all their new features and that's because they took their time. From watching the E3 trailers from Ubisoft it was clear they cut out a lot of features from the game for the sake of time and budget. Like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns_HWrK4BPI

Where is this mission? And I don't recall Arno providing commentary on the daily dramas on the Parisian streets when I played. He also seems like a more ruthless Assassin, more Altair, less Ezio. Additionally, a lot of the stuff you call innovation aren't actually innovation but mere replacements - chery bombs replace whistling, cover - which should have been implemented long ago in a supposed stealth game. Even Arno himself is a poor man's Ezio. Plus a lot of the features within the game is just gimmicks - the Nomad app was so pointless especially when they managed to expand upon Brotherhood with sending recruits on missions by using Uplay to save progress even when you weren't playing the game. Kenway's fleet actually added to the game because you got most of your money from it.



GTA5 and Arkham City was hyped too and the both lived up to it. In Ubisoft's case, they created the hype as a front for the ugly truth. Like I said, I can forgive failed innovation when its sincere and thoroughly considered. I do not accept it when ideas are done half assed. "Trying something new" is undermined when you rush stuff out for the sake of making as much money as possible.

I will always love Ubisoft for bringing me this wonderful franchise but it's clear they've sold out.

I'm wondering though. If Unity was so much hyped why didn't it break sales records?

Megas_Doux
04-04-2015, 06:38 PM
I'm wondering though. If Unity was so much hyped why didn't it break sales records?

1 Unity´s marketing was not that big. It pales in comparison to the "always, everywhere" approach of AC III, for instance.
2 The fact it was released in the beginning of the new generation of consoles and PC. Many still have their PS3/Xbox 360´s .
3 The "Watch Dogs" effect.
4 AC Rogue.

EmptyCrustacean
04-04-2015, 08:51 PM
I completely agree. Co-op did suck. I hated it. I never said I liked it. I said that the implementation of Co-op is solid evidence that Ubisoft are actually listening to the fans, which is a promising sign. People have been been desperate for co-op so they added it, sure it sucked, but the fact that Ubisoft are at least trying to fulfil our requests, changing the standard AC formula, is encouraging. And I actually disagree about the Character customisation, I quite liked it.

Fair enough, that they're listening to the fans but they've always listened to the fans. Some fans whined about climbing so they msde that easy as hell in AC3. Some fans complained about unskippable cutscenes so they introduced that in Brotherhood. Fans complained about modern day so they reduced that in AC4. They've always listened to fans. That's not just exclusive to Unity.



Im sorry but seriously trusting AC E3 footage as an accurate representation of the final product is just pure naïvety. Sorry if that was harsh, but its true. E3 Demo's are complete marketing stunts, created in order to display what the Devs want the game to be like. The mission shown in the AC2 E3 Demo isn't in the final game, yet I don't see many people bringing that up. Its the same every year I'm afraid and its not going to change. The E3 demo is always going to be better than the final product. Take a look at the AC3 E3 demo or the AC4 demo. They are completely different games. Which links back into my points on marketing which you dismissed.

Good. So you're admitting that Ubisoft didn't put much effort into this supposed innovation and was always intending to release a product half assed under a deceptive markerting campaign. Glad we agree.


And the fact that you thought Arno 'seemed' like a more ruthless assassin, is purely personal perception. I didn't conclude that Arno seemed more like Altair from a 7 minute demo in which he had 2 lines of dialogue. Do not speak for others.

Um, how am I speaking for others? It goes without saying that is my perception.


And yes Rockstar did take their time on GTA and that may be why they nailed all their new features. But this is Rockstar we are talking about. When have they ever made a bad game? Ubisoft and Rockstar cannot be compared. And i actually agree with you, regarding annual releases. I think it really is a burden for the franchise and one of the reason why Unity suffered.

What kind of logic is that? So what if R* are more competent than Ubisoft? So because Ubisoft are a bunch of talentless hacks they shouldn't be expected todeliver good products? 'cause that's absically what you're saying. Ubisoft are more than capable of putting out good quality when they get their act together. If you're not at a standard where you can't delivered a fully functioning game on time then you shouldn't be in the industry. Period.


I did not call Cherry Bombs innovation.

So what is?


I did not call cover innovation.

So what is?


I didn't even mention Arno. And I actually disagree. I liked Arno, i just didn't like his writing. Despite being quite a likeable character, he was provided with a lacklustre script and story. But this is all personal perforce, so best not dwell on that.

I liked Arno too but his character arc was weak.


Never used the Nomad App

So you haven't even dwelved into every aspect of the game and yet here you are passing judgement on it.


and never used Kenway's Fleet.

See above.


They are not really what I meant when I described innovative changes in Unity. So I would argue that Kenways fleet is just as pointless as the Nomad app.

You never played them. Your point is invalid.


I did not get most of my money from Kenways fleet, so, I must say once again, speak for yourself.

Yeah, that's because you didn't play it! And my point is Kenway's fleet was good because it was a way of getting money without actually having to turn on the console. It also served the narrative as it made sense of Edward as a captain to be sending off captured ships to make sure him and his crew were living the high life.
Nomad is not. It served only to lock things that really should have just been made available from the start and there was never any indication that Arno had followers. He was a novice through and through. It was a gimmick.


I was more or less talking about the new Parkour mechanics,

Um, then you owe that to AC1 and AC2 for truly shaping the parkour mechanics. As the parkour mechanics in Unity offers very little that's new other than farther jumps and controlled descent. In fact it even undoes some stuff as the backwards eject is horrid. It certainly LOOKED more realistic but that's it. They reworked the parkour from the ground up only to make the same thing that wasn't even as good.


1 to 1 scale cities, as well as the seamless building interiors.

I'll give you that. Because that's the only thing Ubisoft nailed in Unity.


And the combat which I personally liked.

I actually liked the combat too but I felt like Unity doesn't know if it wants to be a stealth game or a combat one so the two end up cannabilising one another. They treated combat as a failed state and then had certain missions that forced you into combat which wasn't very fair if you deliberately kept your health and armour low to be stealth player. Sometimes the game would even take you out of cover when it sensed that your allies were in a scrap.


But Unity had the biggest jump in Gameplay since the start of the series. It felt like a different franchise. And no, that isn't a negative.

Never said it was. Change is good. When done right. I loved the first few hours of the game precisely because it felt different. I loved the graphics and the fact that stealth was almost imperative but as the gameplay went on the flaws became more apparent and the "ooh shiny!" wore thin once "eww, buggy!" took over.


You may disagree, but regardless of how well it was pulled off, this game has set the series template for another 4-5 years. Its positive innovation in my opinion. Regardless of how well it was executed.

It has and it will be interesting to witness when it's done right.

It just seems so wrong to give Rogue the praise here. Especially when we are always nagging Ubisoft to try something different with every new release. Its almost hypocritical saying, "Yeah make the new game different from the last, don't copy and paste" and then saying "Rogue was better than Unity". I don't know, Im guess Im not fit to comment on Rogue since I am yet to play it.[/QUOTE]

So you haven't even played Rogue. Thanks for wasting my time debating this with you.

EmptyCrustacean
04-04-2015, 08:52 PM
I'm wondering though. If Unity was so much hyped why didn't it break sales records?

Bad word of mouth. They made the mistake of making UK and the rest of Europe wait which by then people had heard about the bugs and boring story line.

Matknapers18
04-04-2015, 09:44 PM
So you haven't even played Rogue. Thanks for wasting my time debating this with you.

I haven't wasted your time. You have wasted your own, Im afraid. I said that I hadn't played Rogue on my first post on the first page of the thread. Ya see:


Its not really logical for me to make a judgement since I haven't played Rogue yet. But based on footage and reviews, I'll say Unity.

Nevertheless, probably best that I don't waste anymore of your time. You're right, I do need to play Rogue and I can't make a valid judgment until I have. Gonna wait until i catch it on sale or something. Hope this didn't get too hostile between us, any aggression wasn't my intention.

EmptyCrustacean
04-05-2015, 01:30 AM
You claim your problem with Unity’s gameplay are the unfinished ideas. Because, as you said, the marketing heads took priority over the creative ones which you deemed to be “anti-innovation”. So I compared Unity to older titles to show you just how innovative it actually is.

Comparing to older games is useless because, naturally, all of the games add something that the previous games did not – they have to in order to stop the franchise from becoming stale. But while we're on the subkect... Brotherhood added the ability to train recruits and have them help you out - that's why it's called Brotherhood. Its unique selling point was marketed in all of the trailers and its very title. It also added ‘liberation areas’ which has become another staple of the franchise even when it’s dressed up as something else be it fort liberation or whatnot. This provided a challenge in opening up playable items on the map rather than just running from viewpoint to viewpoint which could become tedious. Brotherhood also added the mission constraints that wonderfully made the game harder and easier at the same time depending on whether you’re a completionist or not. The purpose was that the constraints were hard to complete but ultimately made the mission, itself, easier. It also added to MD element, remind you that this all memory simulation. All these ideas have gone on to stay with the franchise and expand until Unity which reworked those elements and then did them horribly. For instance, why would you make a mission constraint to a) not be detected and b) sabotage the alarm bells. You only sabotage alarm bells if you plan on getting caught. If you’re objective is to remain undetected sabotaging alarm bells is pointless. Why do I have to use a cherry bomb to lure a guard when the mission is over and I can simply make a smooth exit out the window on my right?

AC3 added the ability to hunt animals so you could upgrade weapons and other items. The purpose of this is to give you fun challenges that will ultimately upgrade you as a player. In Unity you wanna upgrade? Purchase them! And if you can’t, use your own real money! How creative. Not. AC3 also introduced dual combat – why did Unity get rid of this? Makes no sense. They could have made it more interactive by perhaps using the left and right triggers as the left and right hand. Could have been interesting. AC3 added naval combat mechanic which, much like Unity’s co-op, was undermined by reducing to tedious side missions. But then…

AC4 took naval combat to the next level and made you treat your ship like it was another player. Naval combat became a core element of the game. And much like what hunting was to AC 3, plundering ships was a fun activity that served to your ship. In fact, upgrading became so crucial that the game began recommending whether you should do a mission based on your stats which is something carried over in Unity but, again, upgrading in Unity is so unimaginative and dull.

Get where i'm going with this? Innovation is not about simply 'adding' something that other games didn't have; it's about engineering a mechanic that will become the staple of your franchise and influence other franchises to come. It evolves and influences. What about Unity is going to inspire other developers? What about Unity added anything to the franchise in a meaningful way? Co-op had potential especially as they promoted the co-op as being crucial to the game - hence why they called it ‘Unity’. It is the merging of single player and multiplayer. Yet they simply pushed it off to the side missions and made it as tedious and repetitive as hell. Sound familiar? (AC3)
The other big element was customisation which, unlike with previous, games they linked directly to the three core pillars of the game. The customisation could now be used to create a unique play style… except it couldn’t. (I will elaborate on this later when I get into stealth and combat). Additionally, making it so that it feels like Arno is actually you is stupid - this is a third person open world game where we’re supposed to follow another character on his journey. We are supposed to fall in love with the character and their story. Everything about the game play should be unique to the character (e.g. Connor and his ability to climb trees, choice of weapons e.g. bow-and-arrow is unique to his culture), not to the player. Arno has nothing unique about him because everybody’s interpretation of Arno is now different through customisation which is one of the reasons he fails as a character. He’s just a template. Whether you like it or not that’s not innovation, that’s simply change. You cannot make additions that break some of the core features of a franchise (such as character).


Supporting the old gameplay, on the other hand, is “anti-innovation”. Unity’s devs focused on the core and improved it, yet you don’t seem to acknowledge any of that. Even if the execution wasn’t flawless, it doesn’t take any of the merit. Unity is, without a doubt, innovative and a step in the right direction (regarding AC’s core).

No, your post operates on the assumption that the previous games weren’t innovative when this is simply false. Furthermore, how can you support something that even Ubi didn't have faith in? They took measures to ensure that the embargo wouldn't be lifted until the last minute. They pushed the release date back so that it wouldn't put people off buying Rogue. Ubisoft know they failed with Unity and even put out a free DLC to placate fans. They knew it was horrible. It is by no means a step in the right direction if they cannot get it right.


And if you think the “creative heads” lost in Unity’s case, just think about previous ACs where the core stayed exactly the same and where the gameplay was copy pasted.

But it wasn't copy and pasted. Each game with the exception of the piece of trash that was Revelations added something meaningful to the franchise. Unity strips them all away unnecessarily and then, in some cases, makes you upgrade for them.


Shouldn’t you complain about that instead of targeting the first AC developers that refrained from adding more side mechanics to hide the same old shameful core? They didn’t try to hide them with naval and whatnot, they stripped AC from all those needless additions and focused on the single most important thing that had been left to rot since AC1. Now that deserves some praise.

You seem to think that innovation is reworking everything from the ground up, taking everything away only to apply them later on. Unity is the first step for the new gen but it does too many things that are far inferior to previous games. What OF WORTH did Unity add really, other than harder combat (with unfinished mechanics) and deeper (immersion breaking) customisation that requires hoards of money? Big woop.


I didn’t find Unity’s combat hard at all with or without upgrades. I did find it more balanced than ever though.

It was harder in comparison to what came before, yes, that is undeniable and I would have welcomed it had Ubisoft resisted the urge to force players into combat. Also, it was not “balanced”. Ubisoft admitted that combat was a fail state – fail states aren’t balanced; they’re designed to make you feel like you messed up by getting caught and they succeeded in that aspect. That was a great idea. But then they couldn’t completely take it away because combat has always been one of the core pillars of the game so they had to provide a false sense of hope with combat upgrades and also create situations where combat was a requirement.


Also, if you were expecting upgrades to ruin the balance and make you over powered like in previous games, then I’m afraid that false sense of hope is yours to blame, although it’s also the previous AC games’ fault for having such an unbalanced combat system.

Then why offer combat upgrades at all? You're supposed to EARN those combat upgrades so you can be a badass fighter. That's the entire point. Just like you’re supposed to earn certain items to be good at stealth if you’re that type of player. So if a combat orientated person wanted they SHOULD be able to take out 20 guards out at the time because that is how they have chosen to play the game.


And Unity embraces the stealth game genre more than any of the previous ACs which couldn’t even decide what they were. I don’t see you complaining about that either.

Yes but it does stealth horribly. Firstly, any stealth that forces the player to use long range at nearly every opportunity is just lazy. In Brotherhood, you only used long range when there was simply no other option and if you squandered your crossbow ammo before then you were in trouble. Watching bunch of guards beserk kill each other for 10 minutes is dull. AC4 actually suffered a similar problem but nowhere near to the degree that Unity did. Especially because in AC4 using berserk could injure civilians too so you had to choose to use it wisely. Yes, Unity provides more opportunities for stealth than a game like Brotherhood but when you were required to be stealthy in Brotherhood it did it extremely well.

And the other games knew what they were. They were combination of both stealth and combat but never tried to be something they weren’t. Then they decided with Unity they wanted AC to be a stealth game only but they couldn’t break away from what came before without changing the entire feel of the franchise. A true stealth game offers very little combat upgrades and doesn't create situations where combat is inevitable. Unity suffers from a serious identity crisis where the core pillars are concerned.


The rest of your complaints are based solely on opinion. I don't share the same opinions with the exception of the one regarding the disguise skill (which was done totally wrong). I also liked Unity’s assassination missions as opposed to AC2’s which I disliked for the most part (mostly due to their linearity).

That works both ways then.


As for putting word in your mouth:

You made it sound like I was saying that it was OK. I wasn’t.

SixKeys
04-05-2015, 04:53 AM
Yes but it does stealth horribly. Firstly, any stealth that forces the player to use long range at nearly every opportunity is just lazy. In Brotherhood, you only used long range when there was simply no other option and if you squandered your crossbow ammo before then you were in trouble. Watching bunch of guards beserk kill each other for 10 minutes is dull. AC4 actually suffered a similar problem but nowhere near to the degree that Unity did. Especially because in AC4 using berserk could injure civilians too so you had to choose to use it wisely. Yes, Unity provides more opportunities for stealth than a game like Brotherhood but when you were required to be stealthy in Brotherhood it did it extremely well.


LMAO ahahaha yes, ACB, the Dark Souls of AC. :rolleyes: Where you have not one, not two, not three, not four, but five different long-range weapons - gun, crossbow, poison dart, throwing knives and assassin recruits - with the ability to carry at least 10 of each at a time, with the crossbow carrying up to 25 IIRC. You have to try really hard to ever run out of ammo, by which I mean you'd have to be shooting at thin air for five minutes and you'd still have enough to get rid of the maybe 20 guards guarding each location without ever getting your hands dirty.

Megas_Doux
04-05-2015, 06:31 AM
LMAO ahahaha yes, ACB, the Dark Souls of AC. :rolleyes: Where you have not one, not two, not three, not four, but five different long-range weapons - gun, crossbow, poison dart, throwing knives and assassin recruits - with the ability to carry at least 10 of each at a time, with the crossbow carrying up to 25 IIRC. You have to try really hard to ever run out of ammo, by which I mean you'd have to be shooting at thin air for five minutes and you'd still have enough to get rid of the maybe 20 guards guarding each location without ever getting your hands dirty.

Kinda off topic of what you just said, but AC II is probably the combat I enjoy the least. I know is pretty similar to AC I´s, however if feels clunkier and the animations worked better on Altair because he hit harder, really strange opinion, I know. ACB/ACR´s are easier than AC II -with the exception of Janissaries-, however the latter are more entertaining to me, plain and simple.

Then we have AC III and AC IV, in which "difficulty" is super easy once you master the double animation counter window. Thing is that, even though pretty over the top at times -mostly AC III- I had fut with those. Finally there´s Unity, which is my favorite because I enjoy Arno´s animations in the likes kicking the enemy after parrying and the incipient possibility of being killed in combat a welcome change after seven years.... All of that despite its restrictive nature, though

OH I forgot Rogue, that is pretty similar to AC III/AC IV obviously, but way clunkier.........

Shahkulu101
04-05-2015, 10:04 AM
LMAO ahahaha yes, ACB, the Dark Souls of AC. :rolleyes: Where you have not one, not two, not three, not four, but five different long-range weapons - gun, crossbow, poison dart, throwing knives and assassin recruits - with the ability to carry at least 10 of each at a time, with the crossbow carrying up to 25 IIRC. You have to try really hard to ever run out of ammo, by which I mean you'd have to be shooting at thin air for five minutes and you'd still have enough to get rid of the maybe 20 guards guarding each location without ever getting your hands dirty.

Sixkeys <3

LoyalACFan
04-05-2015, 11:15 AM
Unity, hands-f**king-down. Rogue was an absolutely shameless cash grab. It's literally the exact same game as AC4 with a different story (which at times felt more like a bad fanfic than actual canon). AC4 was great, yeah, but I don't want to buy its smaller, stupider little brother. "Oh, but, but, Puckle Guns! And, and burning oil!" :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Markaccus
04-05-2015, 12:41 PM
Unity, hands-f**king-down. Rogue was an absolutely shameless cash grab. It's literally the exact same game as AC4 with a different story (which at times felt more like a bad fanfic than actual canon). AC4 was great, yeah, but I don't want to buy its smaller, stupider little brother. "Oh, but, but, Puckle Guns! And, and burning oil!" :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Amen. The game should have been called "Assassins Creed 4.5: The Copying"

Played the first 3 sequences of Unity, and a few side quests, and already it feels more like an ac game than rogue. I know i have the advantage of starting it after 5 patches, but it simply is a better game.

Markaccus
04-05-2015, 12:54 PM
LMAO ahahaha yes, ACB, the Dark Souls of AC. :rolleyes: Where you have not one, not two, not three, not four, but five different long-range weapons - gun, crossbow, poison dart, throwing knives and assassin recruits - with the ability to carry at least 10 of each at a time, with the crossbow carrying up to 25 IIRC. You have to try really hard to ever run out of ammo, by which I mean you'd have to be shooting at thin air for five minutes and you'd still have enough to get rid of the maybe 20 guards guarding each location without ever getting your hands dirty.

I always think that this is the reason they didn't try to shoe-horn Leonardo into this game (albeit not long before he died). We no longer needed his crazy inventions, because Ezio could be transformed into some kind of ranged, semi-automatic blade gun, with an almost <Judge-Dredd-Law-Giver> selection of lethal rounds!

SixKeys
04-05-2015, 12:59 PM
I always think that this is the reason they didn't try to shoe-horn Leonardo into this game (albeit not long before he died). We no longer needed his crazy inventions, because Ezio could be transformed into some kind of ranged, semi-automatic blade gun, with an almost <Judge-Dredd-Law-Giver> selection of lethal rounds!

Well, they did shoehorn him in. We got to use all his war machines (which were never actually built, just designed) and Ezio bought a lot of upgrades from him, like the parachute.

Markaccus
04-05-2015, 01:01 PM
Well, they did shoehorn him in. We got to use all his war machines (which were never actually built, just designed) and Ezio bought a lot of upgrades from him, like the parachute.

I should have worn my glasses.... i thought it said ACR.

My mistake :-D

However, that remains the reason he wasnt in ACR imo lol

AssassinHMS
04-05-2015, 01:59 PM
Comparing to older games is useless because, naturally, all of the games add something that the previous games did not – they have to in order to stop the franchise from becoming stale. But while we're on the subkect... Brotherhood added the ability to train recruits and have them help you out - that's why it's called Brotherhood. Its unique selling point was marketed in all of the trailers and its very title. It also added ‘liberation areas’ which has become another staple of the franchise even when it’s dressed up as something else be it fort liberation or whatnot. This provided a challenge in opening up playable items on the map rather than just running from viewpoint to viewpoint which could become tedious. Brotherhood also added the mission constraints that wonderfully made the game harder and easier at the same time depending on whether you’re a completionist or not. The purpose was that the constraints were hard to complete but ultimately made the mission, itself, easier. It also added to MD element, remind you that this all memory simulation. All these ideas have gone on to stay with the franchise and expand until Unity which reworked those elements and then did them horribly. For instance, why would you make a mission constraint to a) not be detected and b) sabotage the alarm bells. You only sabotage alarm bells if you plan on getting caught. If you’re objective is to remain undetected sabotaging alarm bells is pointless. Why do I have to use a cherry bomb to lure a guard when the mission is over and I can simply make a smooth exit out the window on my right?

AC3 added the ability to hunt animals so you could upgrade weapons and other items. The purpose of this is to give you fun challenges that will ultimately upgrade you as a player. In Unity you wanna upgrade? Purchase them! And if you can’t, use your own real money! How creative. Not. AC3 also introduced dual combat – why did Unity get rid of this? Makes no sense. They could have made it more interactive by perhaps using the left and right triggers as the left and right hand. Could have been interesting. AC3 added naval combat mechanic which, much like Unity’s co-op, was undermined by reducing to tedious side missions. But then…

AC4 took naval combat to the next level and made you treat your ship like it was another player. Naval combat became a core element of the game. And much like what hunting was to AC 3, plundering ships was a fun activity that served to your ship. In fact, upgrading became so crucial that the game began recommending whether you should do a mission based on your stats which is something carried over in Unity but, again, upgrading in Unity is so unimaginative and dull.
While some of what you say is true (that every instalment brought something new to the series for example), you’re still deviating from my point.
True, every title has brought some innovation, heck I’d say AC3 was the most innovative AC to date and yet, it’s the one I dislike the most.
First of all, every AC game NEEDS to bring something new to the table, no matter how small or insignificant. It’s a yearly franchise, if the games don’t appear to be “evolving” or look different enough then customers won’t have any other choice but to notice and Ubisoft won’t have an excuse to make a new AC every year. As such, every AC game innovated in some way, there’s no question about it.
However, there are a few differences between the way in which Unity innovated and the way the others did and that makes all the difference.

Nothing introduced before Unity made the game BETTER. Here’s what I mean:
Like I said before, because the games are released on a yearly basis, Ubisoft has to make sure the games “feel” or, at least, appear to be different from each other. Usually a change in setting and protagonist helps but they still need to do something about the gameplay.

So, think with me, what would change the feel of the gameplay the most?
Option 1 – Improve core mechanics.
Option 2 – Copy paste the core and focus on creating new additions/features instead.

And the answer is “option 2” obviously. Improving the core does nothing to change the look of the gameplay. Heck, look at Unity. Reviewers thought Unity’s core gameplay felt too “samey” and blamed it for not taking any chances and shaking up the gameplay with new additions instead of relying on the core. They even said it was a step back because it ditched naval and other additions in favor of bringing back the old core mechanics to the spotlight.

But, as I was saying, what changes the “feel” of the gameplay the most are the additional features. “Assassin recruits”, “chain kills”, “hook blade”, “bombs”, “hunting”, “naval”, etc. This is just a small example of the ASTONISHING number of additions this franchise has seen throughout the years. Why so many? Because a yearly franchise demands it.
But while all these features came and went, the core stayed the same. The core, the foundation of the gameplay and the most important aspect of AC’s formula was completely neglected. All in favor of creating these additions to ensure each instalment felt different from the last, just to have an excuse to release so many games.

And what did these additions do? Did they help the core mechanics? No, they pulled the player’s attention from them. Because AC didn’t rely on the core anymore. The main attraction were the new additions and while they got more and more complex (with naval and all), the core remained shameful.
No one played AC because of the stealth, the combat or the parkour. Hell, all those features were subpar (at best) when compared to any other franchise.
People played AC for historical tourism and to feel like Hulk in a time machine. AC didn’t have any depth whatsoever because, while the additional features made the games bigger, they didn’t make them better. It was all about quantity. The core was obsolete and the additions were only there to ensure the core wasn’t missed.
AC wasn’t an Assassin simulator, it wasn’t even a good game (because a good game must have a good core), it was a casual historical tour.
And until Unity, the franchise was plagued by all these unnecessary additions that stole the spotlight from the core.

Unity was the first AC to truly innovate. It ditched all the parasitic additions and focused on the core. For the first time since AC1, AC’s main selling point was the core.
Unity made AC smaller but better unlike all of its predecessors.

You can complain about combat, stealth and navigation all you want, but there is no doubt they are better off now. And the fact most of those additions from previous instalments aren’t present in Unity, is a good thing.
Innovation isn’t about creating features for the sake of making the games larger and “different”, the point of innovation is to push the game forward and improve what’s already there, the actual game – the Assassin simulator.
That’s innovation, the rest is just a tall story to sell games faster.



Too bad optional objective remained though.




Innovation is not about simply 'adding' something that other games didn't have; it's about engineering a mechanic that will become the staple of your franchise and influence other franchises to come.

Exactly but those mechanics that you speak of already exist. They’re called core mechanics. Creating more mechanics will not help develop AC. Stealth, combat and navigation are already there and they are AC’s staples.

There is nothing more meaningful than improving the core of the game (especially in AC’s case) and that’s what Unity did.




So if a combat orientated person wanted they SHOULD be able to take out 20 guards out at the time because that is how they have chosen to play the game.

Nope, a stealth game has no such obligation. Players who want to do that chose the wrong genre.




You made it sound like I was saying that it was OK. I wasn’t.
Actually, it was you who made it sound that way:

It's just as lazy and cynical as Rogue is except Rogue is actually fun and was always intended as filler rather than as the main attraction.

Anykeyer
04-06-2015, 12:53 PM
AC3 innovated the core. It changed freerunning and climbing removing obvious game world grid. It changed stealth, it changed combat. All 3 "pilars".
Unity "innovations" were all about removing features. It didnt really add or change anything meaningfull.

EmptyCrustacean
04-06-2015, 01:27 PM
LMAO ahahaha yes, ACB, the Dark Souls of AC. :rolleyes: Where you have not one, not two, not three, not four, but five different long-range weapons - gun, crossbow, poison dart, throwing knives and assassin recruits - with the ability to carry at least 10 of each at a time, with the crossbow carrying up to 25 IIRC. You have to try really hard to ever run out of ammo, by which I mean you'd have to be shooting at thin air for five minutes and you'd still have enough to get rid of the maybe 20 guards guarding each location without ever getting your hands dirty.

I can tell it's been a while since you've played Brotherhood (if you have even played it at all) because you run down the specifications and don't give the context.

- i.e. you seem to leave out the fact that most of the long ranged weapons you mentioned would get you caught INSTANTLY. The throwing knife had to be thrown twice minimum to kill the target which means the target and other guards nearby would spot you before you threw the second one thus breaking your stealth.

- Guns, being loud, got you caught instantly thus also breaking your stealth.

- And as for the Assassin recruits, you could only use them after a certain period in the game so for large portion of the campaign you're on your own. There was also a timer/cool down period between calling recruits which meant they weren't readily available on the go like you're making out. And IIRC if they were on Brotherhood missions they weren't available at all. As you know, they needed to go on missions in order to level up so that would often be the case. They also weren't available underground or inside.

Furthermore, the amount of ammo means nothing in comparison to the amount of guards which is why the crossbow (the only long range weapon you could use in stealth) requires so much ammo in the first place. And like all the long ranged weapons, it often forced you to leave cover so again for the most part you could only use it on one guard per time when no other guards were around.

Brotherhood's stealth forced you to use all resources of stealth because it was well balanced. In Unity, it's mainly beserk darts because there are too many guards huddled together blocking your path. The structure and level design for stealth opportunties was messy. Beserks made it too simple and dull.

dimbismp
04-06-2015, 01:35 PM
Unity hands down.Especially if you have already played ACIV,because ACRo is just a reskin of that game.

Gameplay:ACU>>ACRo
Story:ACU<=ACRo
Setting:ACU>>>>>>>>>>>>ACRo
Graphics:ACU>>>>ACRo

Shahkulu101
04-06-2015, 01:36 PM
I can tell it's been a while since you've played Brotherhood (if you have even played it at all) because you run down the specifications and don't give the context.

- i.e. you seem to leave out the fact that most of the long ranged weapons you mentioned would get you caught INSTANTLY. The throwing knife had to be thrown twice minimum to kill the target which means the target and other guards nearby would spot you before you threw the second one thus breaking your stealth.

- Guns, being loud, got you caught instantly thus also breaking your stealth.

- And as for the Assassin recruits, you could only use them after a certain period in the game so for large portion of the campaign you're on your own. There was also a timer/cool down period between calling recruits which meant they weren't readily available on the go like you're making out. And IIRC if they were on Brotherhood missions they weren't available at all. As you know, they needed to go on missions in order to level up so that would often be the case. They also weren't available underground or inside.

Furthermore, the amount of ammo means nothing in comparison to the amount of guards which is why the crossbow (the only long range weapon you could use in stealth) requires so much ammo in the first place. And like all the long ranged weapons, it often forced you to leave cover so again for the most part you could only use it on one guard per time when no other guards were around.

Brotherhood's stealth forced you to use all resources of stealth because it was well balanced. In Unity, it's mainly beserk darts because there are too many guards huddled together blocking your path. The structure and level design for stealth opportunties was messy. Beserks made it too simple and dull.

You really don't need to use berserkers that much. That's just how you've chosen to play, there are multiple methods you can use. It might not make it obvious and lay the path out for you with obviously placed haystacks and looping guard routines, but that's a good thing since you actually need to figure it out. I was the same as you, each stealth missions I was like "Geez, I have no idea..." but as with any good video game I had to practice and get better at it. The big drawbacks for me where the poor controls and AI but it was still miles better than the other games. Brotherhood isn't well balanced, it's brain-dead easy (like all past AC's) and ultimately unnecessary since you can cut down enemies like butter in combat with zero effort. I mean there's a bloody mechanic where you press one button and kill every guard in the area regardless of rank, cool down time or not (it's a very small window btw - for how powerful the mechanic is) that's just ridiculous.

The only time when I've felt berserkers were absolutely necessary was during the co-op missions I played solo, and that's because they're designed for multiple players so it makes sense.

pirate1802
04-06-2015, 01:40 PM
Chronicles. :)

EmptyCrustacean
04-06-2015, 01:46 PM
You really don't need to use berserkers that much. That's just how you've chosen to play, there are multiple methods you can use. It might not make it obvious and lay the path out for you with obviously placed haystacks and looping guard routines, but that's a good thing since you actually need to figure it out. I was the same as you, each stealth missions I was like "Geez, I have no idea..." but as with any good video game I had to practice and get better at it. The big drawbacks for me where the poor controls and AI but it was still miles better than the other games. Brotherhood isn't well balanced, it's brain-dead easy (like all past AC's) and ultimately unnecessary since you can cut down enemies like butter in combat with zero effort. I mean there's a bloody mechanic where you press one button and kill every guard in the area regardless of rank, cool down time or not (it's a very small window btw - for how powerful the mechanic is) that's just ridiculous.

The only time when I've felt berserkers were absolutely necessary was during the co-op missions I played solo, and that's because they're designed for multiple players so it makes sense.

Don't try to make out that I suck at the game just because I disagree with you, and don't put words into my mouth. I never said stealth in Unity was hard - hard would imply that I couldn't do the missions without being detected and I wouldn't have a 100% completion if that was true. My point is the stealth was sloppily conceived. It's not about "laying the path out for you" it's about allowing the player to create opportunities for swift, clean takedowns. Most of the 4 star/5 star Paris Story missions (which I chose to play stealthy) required beserk darts. There were too many guards huddled around one another that you could very rarely pluck them off one by one either via air assassination, double assassination or cover take down and the phantom blade seem to be inconsistent in terms of detection.

Shahkulu101
04-06-2015, 02:03 PM
Don't try to make out that I suck at the game just because I disagree with you, and don't put words into my mouth. I never said stealth in Unity was hard - hard would imply that I couldn't do the missions without being detected and I wouldn't have a 100% completion if that was true. My point is the stealth was sloppily conceived. It's not about "laying the path out for you" it's about allowing the player to create opportunities for swift, clean takedowns. Most of the 4 star/5 star Paris Story missions (which I chose to play stealthy) required beserk darts. There were too many guards huddled around one another that you could very rarely pluck them off one by one either via air assassination, double assassination or cover take down and the phantom blade seem to be inconsistent in terms of detection.

Never said you sucked and never put any words your mouth, calm down. I'm just saying I hardly used berserk darts at all, not bigging myself up, because I'm not that good at the game to be honest but I managed just fine hardly using them. Berserk darts are rarely absolutely necessary - there's maybe a few side missions that I remember but not much and certainly never in main assassinations. That was the point I was making, nothing about player ability.

And as I said, the player can create opportunities for swift takedowns - it's just not immediately obvious and there's actually a certain risk factor to stealth. The AI is irritatingly inconsistent and stealth in ACU is not very good at all but it is an improvement as well as a step in the right direction. You say they tried and failed to improve the core, I vehemently disagree with that even though I wish they had made greater strides.

EmptyCrustacean
04-06-2015, 03:51 PM
While some of what you say is true (that every instalment brought something new to the series for example), you’re still deviating from my point. True, every title has brought some innovation, heck I’d say AC3 was the most innovative AC to date and yet, it’s the one I dislike the most. First of all, every AC game NEEDS to bring something new to the table, no matter how small or insignificant. It’s a yearly franchise, if the games don’t appear to be “evolving” or look different enough then customers won’t have any other choice but to notice and Ubisoft won’t have an excuse to make a new AC every year. As such, every AC game innovated in some way, there’s no question about it. However, there are a few differences between the way in which Unity innovated and the way the others did and that makes all the difference.

Nothing introduced before Unity made the game BETTER.

Ok, right there, 'better' is a subjective opinion. We were originally talking about the objective facts - you said Unity was the only game that innovated anything. I proved that was not true by listing what each game has brought. Now you're changing it to being about the core only and whether or not that's better which makes this argument pointless because then it becomes a case of personal preference.


Here’s what I mean: Like I said before, because the games are released on a yearly basis, Ubisoft has to make sure the games “feel” or, at least, appear to be different from each other. Usually a change in setting and protagonist helps but they still need to do something about the gameplay.

So, think with me, what would change the feel of the gameplay the most?
Option 1 – Improve core mechanics.
Option 2 – Copy paste the core and focus on creating new additions/features instead.
And the answer is “option 2” obviously. Improving the core does nothing to change the look of the gameplay.

This is completely debateble. Changing the core mechanics every single year won't necessarily improve the game and, in fact, it will just take away much of the game's identity. It's like taking away driving and shooting from GTA. You can certainly REFINE it but changing it makes it a different game - which is only a good thing if you do not like AC. Also, if you say that the new additions/features is what changes the look and feel of the game then aren't you admitting that is where the innovation comes from? Naval traversing practically replaced parkour in AC4. The mistake AC3 made is making all the buildings low (due to its time period) and giving you no real benefit to running on rooftops. This completely changed the navigation element. It took away (sound familiar?)

AC4 did the same but because you spend so much time at sea it broke up navigation if you ever got bored of one setting. It also added cool little items to the islands like treasure hunting and shanty chasing etc so that ground travelling wouldn't be dull. They actively combated what could have potentially been the downsides of having low buildings by making it no longer about "travelling" but about EXPLORING. Now, I know what you're going to say - that instead of adding naval they should have just focused on making the parkour better; that this is a prime example of new additions over improving exist core etc etc However, there was nowhere to go. AC2 was the peak of parkour so the developers had no choice but to reduce it, making it simpler and adding another feature to counter this problem. The problem is with naval is that it only worked for AC3 and AC4 because of the story and time period. It had no place going forward which is why they didn't bring it back in AC Unity and HAD to go back to refining the parkour. Cool, works for me. Except the parkour is unfinished and brings nothing new apart from controlled descent and the (shaky) ability to climb in windows so it doesn't feel as great as when you were traversing in AC1. So they went back to basics and added nothing new. Not innovation.

And where combat is concerned, this is a prime example of how Ubisoft confused 'improving' with taking stuff away. They already increased the AI responsiveness and agressiveness which is the most important element when making combat harder. NOT how you, as a player, performs but how your enemies do becuase you cannot PREDICT your enemies' moves. This is great. But then they took away features in combat that was fun. What they could have done, for instance, with the ability to grab an enemy when another enemy is shooting is not display a red target mark on screen to let us know when an enemy is shooting. And why not have another enemy attack you when you attempt to grab an enemy? That way you maintain the difficulty but you don't lose the features that have shaped the combat thus far. That's basically what the Arkham games do. Batman can do all kinds of stuff but because the enemies all attack at once you have to find ways of outsmarting them with gadgets and strategy. Don't just hack away at features of the core, refine them.

Also, the core mechanics used to be character specific - Ezio could parkour because he used to do so with his brother, Connor used a bow and arrow because that's part of his culture, Altair approached situations stealthily because he was raised to never compromise the Brotherhood. Unity makes the mistake of relating the core directly to personal customisation which took away from Arno's character. You may argue that's a good thing - but because of what I explained about the confused identity of whether it's a stealth game or not the idea of a 'unique play style', as Amancio puts it, never reaches its potential anyway. That's another example of taking something away and then reworking it badly.


Heck, look at Unity. Reviewers thought Unity’s core gameplay felt too “samey” and blamed it for not taking any chances and shaking up the gameplay with new additions instead of relying on the core. They even said it was a step back because it ditched naval and other additions in favor of bringing back the old core mechanics to the spotlight.

It was a step back because it took away many of the things that AC3 introduced (hunting, dual weilding, crafting) and then wrecked its core mechanics at the same time.


But, as I was saying, what changes the “feel” of the gameplay the most are the additional features. “Assassin recruits”, “chain kills”, “hook blade”, “bombs”, “hunting”, “naval”, etc. This is just a small example of the ASTONISHING number of additions this franchise has seen throughout the years. Why so many? Because a yearly franchise demands it. But while all these features came and went, the core stayed the same. The core, the foundation of the gameplay and the most important aspect of AC’s formula was completely neglected. All in favor of creating these additions to ensure each instalment felt different from the last, just to have an excuse to release so many games.

And what's wrong with keeping the core the same? There's a reason why it's called the core. Because it is the thing that gives the game its identity. It is the core essential element. Unity didn't improve the core, it stripped things away and was unfinished thus creating some problems of its own. That is precisely what I've been trying to tell you - change doesn't necessarily mean 'better' unless the change is complete and successful. You would have a point if that was the case.


And what did these additions do? Did they help the core mechanics? No, they pulled the player’s attention from them. Because AC didn’t rely on the core anymore. The main attraction were the new additions and while they got more and more complex (with naval and all), the core remained shameful.
No one played AC because of the stealth, the combat or the parkour. Hell, all those features were subpar (at best) when compared to any other franchise.
People played AC for historical tourism and to feel like Hulk in a time machine.

So then why is copying and pasting the core mechanics a bad thing if you say that it's not even the selling point for the franchise? This is just your personal preference.


AC didn’t have any depth whatsoever because, while the additional features made the games bigger, they didn’t make them better.

I've already explained how Black Flag used additional features to directly turn what could have been problems with the parkour mechanic and make it a strength/asset to the gameplay.


It was all about quantity. The core was obsolete and the additions were only there to ensure the core wasn’t missed.
AC wasn’t an Assassin simulator, it wasn’t even a good game (because a good game must have a good core), it was a casual historical tour.
And until Unity, the franchise was plagued by all these unnecessary additions that stole the spotlight from the core. Unity was the first AC to truly innovate. It ditched all the parasitic additions and focused on the core. For the first time since AC1, AC’s main selling point was the core.
Unity made AC smaller but better unlike all of its predecessors.

It didn't innovate. It just went backwards whilst bringing nothing new which is the opposite of innovation. My point is, failed innovation isn't innovation. Innovation is defined by how successful this new idea takes shape. Innovation has to influence, evolve, and improve upon what is there. Unity fails at all of those things. So it's not innovation, it's just change. A common complaint about AC1 is that they actually spent so much time trying to refine the core that they couldn't make the campaign and its features more dynamic so the game ended up bein repetitive hence why AC2 was so radically different in that area whilst keeping the core - and was better received. The difference between Unity and AC1 was that AC1 was still innovative because parkour had never been done that way before. But it's 2015 and we're 7 games in now so parkour is nothing new. If the only thing you can say about Unity is that it tweaked stuff that was already introduced ages ago then I think that says it all.

You said it yourself - AC's core has been done better in other games but what makes AC different is the additions and the historical settings. That is where the innovation comes from and that is what Ubisoft must focus on gameplaye wise along with a better story, campaign and side missions.


You can complain about combat, stealth and navigation all you want, but there is no doubt they are better off now. And the fact most of those additions from previous instalments aren’t present in Unity, is a good thing. Innovation isn’t about creating features for the sake of making the games larger and “different”, the point of innovation is to push the game forward and improve what’s already there, the actual game – the Assassin simulator. That’s innovation, the rest is just a tall story to sell games faster.

And Unity fails to do that.


Too bad optional objective remained though.

Optional objectives are great to provide a challenge but useless in a game that prides itself on being more open ended than previous instalments. Another reason why Unity is creatively confused.



Exactly but those mechanics that you speak of already exist. They’re called core mechanics. Creating more mechanics will not help develop AC. Stealth, combat and navigation are already there and they are AC’s staples. There is nothing more meaningful than improving the core of the game (especially in AC’s case) and that’s what Unity did.

But it didn't.


Nope, a stealth game has no such obligation. Players who want to do that chose the wrong genre.

I've already explained by Unity is not a true stealth game so that renders your point invalid.


Actually, it was you who made it sound that way:

No, it was you who misconstrued it that way.