View Full Version : Anyone else wish Ubisoft should just drop the Modern Day part completey?

10-07-2015, 03:58 PM
[Spoiler Alert]

Since Desmond died its really unnecessary and pointless (I actually liked it when Desmond was alive). I hated Black Flags and Rogue's MD part. Being dragged out of the Animus just so I could play as some random mute and walk around some boring building and talk with **** characters.

Unity was an improvement in that regard but still didn't feel needed.

Anyone else think they just drop it?

10-07-2015, 04:02 PM
I don't need it, but it's okay from time to time and I expect that's how we'll be encountering it from now on: sometimes in Unity's style, sometimes like IV/Rogue, maybe even like III at times.

The argument that the series needs the modern day seems spurious to me. Every era in which we play was the modern day, and the current events and the archaeology mattered to that time. It's hard to make the past and the present constantly urgent, but you can shift attention on different games to make one or the other dominant (or for the modern day to be entirely absent) as long as *something* mattered.

10-07-2015, 04:50 PM
I at least thought that Black Flag and Rogue were building to something.

Unity seems building to something too I guess, but by introducing a wholly new plot thread and basically ignoring the Abstergo Entertainment offices one, it felt more like a tug of war than storytelling.
If we're to have MD, please at least make it focused!

10-07-2015, 05:19 PM
if they are planning to keep it as it was in AC4/Unity then yes, it should be removed...

10-07-2015, 10:31 PM
We need a playable person to get invested in the Modern day,

Reading tons of documents is fast becoming quite laborious and the story appears to be turning into convoluted and incoherent mess

The mundane mini-games of AC4/AC: Rogue and to an extent AC Unity didn't quite hack it either.

10-07-2015, 11:46 PM
i wish they would drastically improve the now convoluted and increasingly incoherent modern day storyline. the mundane storyline is pretty much proof that they're milking the franchise.

the only ac games whose modern day segments i enjoyed were brotherhood and rogue.

yet, at the same time, i feel like the modern day storyline is the glue that holds together ac's lore.

either way, it should have ended with desmond (becoming the ultimate assassin and turning the tide of the assassin-templar war, not dying like a fodder).

10-08-2015, 12:02 AM
I'll just paste my post from reddit

Because I'v been going at this for a couple of days now, I feel like i'm pushed to make a post about what I think of the modern day and HOPEFULLY, people will promptly read before giving me replies about how I'm an idiot or not a true AC fan or how I want AC to lose its unique element.

First off, the decision to lessen the presence of modern day in the games. People keep saying that this goes against what fans want, yadda yadda and all that. People are saying that there's demand for modern day but Ubisoft is just ignoring it for.....reasons.

Ubisoft is a business. They're not idiots. If the demand for modern day was high enough, you can bet your noses they'd bring it back. Why would they NOT bother with it if there was money in it for them? You know Ubisoft, any cash well is RIGHT under their radar, like well...every other business, so why ignore the supposed cash cow that is modern day? Why ignore a profitable element? The answer is it's not as profitable as people think.

See, it's just like yearly releases. Am I fond of them? Heck no, but I understand why Ubisoft does it. It's profitable. People buy. No other brand currently has the marketability of AC. Yeah, we see the polls and the many upvotes calling for modern day, but unfortunately, we're just a speck in the wheel. Guys, pardon my language, but for fack's sake, why wouldn't they bring back modern day prominently if it wasn't profitable? They'v brought EVERYTHING that was profitable. Ezio, Sailing, Italy. Those were all profitable and popular elements and they were milked as much as they COULD be milked. So why on earth are you people saying that there's no reason for them NOT to bring back modern day?
The pattern is clear, like any business, Ubisoft sees what's profitable and they adapt towards that. What's so hard to see about that? Do I like it? Again, heck no, but I understand why it is so, which leads me RIGHT to my next point.

I LOVED modern day. If anyone here knows me from the Ubisoft forum, they'd know how much time I spent with the other old members there since 2009 debating and speculating about modern day. We made up so many theories and thought about so many mysteries, it was great. I'm all for a return to form for the modern day with quality storytelling and compelling twists, I would totally love that. Unfortunately, though, i'm a realist and here's reality.
Modern day pretty much flopped after the ending of AC II for three reasons:

1) They completely ignored the already introduced overarching conflict of the satellite launch because for some reason, they changed their minds and didn't like it and thought "bleeehhhh, it's just not.....as destructive, bleeeehhhh", so they introduced the solar flare plot. That's terrible writing, there's no two ways about it. It was the start of the mess.

2) They didn't salvage that mess by tying the two conflicts together. They COMPLETELY threw the launch to the side and it suddenly had NO consequence whatsoever. So that's a WHOLE game of build up to a grand revelation thrown to waste.

3) AC II only had 10-15 minutes of modern day. Literally, that's ALL there was. That's less than AC I. And you could only walk and read emails in AC I. What can a story tell in 15 minutes? How many characters can it develop? How many loose ends can it tie? How many plot points can it introduce promptly and tie it all up in the end? Did you honestly feel anything for Desmond, Rebecca, Shaun and Lucy compared to Ezio and his story? Were there any strong, memorable moments that you can recall from AC II's modern day comparable to say....Ezio's speech at the end of the bonfire of the vanities? I bet you can't. Because you can't do much in 15 minutes. You can't advance the romance between Desmond and Lucy convincingly, you can't explore these new characters, Shaun and Rebecca, you literally can't do anything meaningful to justify pulling you out of the animus, pulling you away from Renaissance Italy and the parkour and the combat and the compelling story.

AC II restarted EVERYTHING that was established in AC I for absolutely no reason, throwing it all to waste. AC I had everything set up that AC II RE-set up, instead of advancing and developing.

Here's where AC I stood:
Overarching conflict? Satellite Launch.
Mysterious, knowledgeable figure? Subject 16
Looming, impeding threat? Bleeding effect

Here's where we stood after AC II:
Overarching satellite plot? Uhhh...What's that?
Mysterious and knowledgeable subject 16? Story wrapped up.
Looming, impeding threat of the bleeding effect? Uhhh....cutscene....and a dialogue about it.

Then, where ACB stood:
Overarching Satellite plot? SOLAR FLARE!!
Mysterious and knowledgeable subject 16? Restart...for some reason.
Impeding and looming bleeding effect? Uhhh....a cutscene....and a few dialogues.

Brotherhood is where things became extremely convoluted. Why reintroduce subject 16 with more glyphs and a characterization that he knows all this cryptic ****? WE ALREADY DID THAT IN THE FIRST AC!!! He was introduced as a mysterious character who would guide Desmond and warn him of the impeding satellite launch. WHY redo that again? Because they made a NEW overarching conflict, the solar flare.

Subject 16's arc was COMPLETE by the end of AC II's glyphs. We pretty much knew everything about him at that point and there was NO need to continue his story. It ended up only making matters more complex. We knew that 16 was an Assassin agent, sent inside to gather intel about the animus. Great. He explored so many memories, ended up knowing soooo much stuff about the historical battle between Assassins and Templars, then he went bat**** crazy because of the bleeding effect but before he completely lost it, he decides to do one more act: Warn his successor about the Templars' plans. He was also a prelude to Desmond's inevitable bleeding effect kicking in. An example of what Desmond COULD become.

That was perfect. We have the overarching conflict, we have the mysterious figure who warned us about it, he should have just remained this mysterious figure. He already served the role he was meant to, but AGAIN, the writers decided to REDO 16 because obviously the satellite conflict was thrown to the side now, so they have to REMAKE 16 as a plot device. He now met Juno and she told him to do the things he did, and now he knows some weird **** about the sun, Eve and Desmond's son, but then that allllll gets thrown to the side....AGAIN. We already knew about the sun, Desmond's son was revealed in an optional recording to be just 16 being crazy and talking about other timelines, and Eve....well...that was nothing too. Happy days!

People can talk all they want about the twists, and the mind-blows but from the start of AC II, it was destined to flop because the writers did not have a focused vision and they did not stick to what they introduced. They instead trudged along and made it up as they went, losing confidence in their original vision and this resulted in what we have now. The unfortunate state of what could have been an amazing narrative.
Whenever I watch a complicated series or play games with overarching plots, I become so sad about the state of AC because some other games handled their plots EXTREMELY well. From the start of said series or games, everything was concise and focused, with pay offs given for the amazing set ups at the end. I could speculate, debate hints left by writers pointing to a certain thing happening or a revelation and it was all logical.

I don't think Syndicate will give people what they want from modern day, and at this point, I just stopped hoping anymore. I'm just here for the intrigue of exploring historical settings and as mundane as that may sound to some, it's just how it is to me, so.

10-08-2015, 12:03 AM
Ubisoft clearly moved away from MD in Unity and toned it down a little, which was IMO, a mistake since they listened to the historical aspect of core fan base and not the MD aspect of the fan base which was a shame, a damn shame. Modern Day/Present Day binds it together. Without that, it wouldn't survive. Plus they're not gonna ditch it now with all the backlash unity recieved with MD. And with Syndicate, well ;) I have a good feeling about it. Even reading this back in feb gave me hope http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-27-future-assassins-creed-games-will-have-more-robust-modern-day-than-unity

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's favourite part of the series, shoot me if you will, I don't care but I LOVE it MORE than the historical part of it. Problem? Plus they're HEAVILY invested in it now with the upcoming creed movie. It's part of it. The Animus, First-Civ, noooo way in hell are they gonna take that away now. No way.

10-08-2015, 12:12 AM
People can talk all they want about the twists, and the mind-blows but from the start of AC II, it was destined to flop because the writers did not have a focused vision and they did not stick to what they introduced. They instead trudged along and made it up as they went, losing confidence in their original vision and this resulted in what we have now. The unfortunate state of what could have been an amazing narrative.
pretty much the main problem with modern day, imo. it never felt planned or focused for me after ac ii/ac brotherhood, but rather shoehorned in to serve as the series' glue (since the animus has been established as the method of reliving the lives of these badasses throughout history).

ubisoft be like, "no turning back now."

10-08-2015, 12:31 AM
Hi, my name is Justin and i have been following the AC saga since its beginning, namely since Altairīs adventure.

In the first numbered games, the AC1, AC2 and AC3, the Desmond saga was esplendid and made perfect connection with the storylines "extracted" from Desmondīs DNA.
When Desmond died, the "real world" storyline was totally forgotten. Now, instead of Desmond, we have this "ghosts" that we control, only to connect with the animus and play the only storyline that matters.
I understand that they (directors and producers) want to focus their work on the "past" storyline. You can have a lot of fun in them, playing a past figure that takes part in the most intersting moments of world history. Nevertheless, the many storylines that we have acess are not enough to get us in the game. We need the plot that can assemble all the games together, and doing so, create the main purpose of the game.


Best Regards


10-08-2015, 12:36 AM
desmond was adam.

if ubisoft would introduce this eve character that subject 16 alluded to already, the modern day storyline might be reinvigorated.

10-08-2015, 01:44 AM
I think it's Eve's time to shine, wanna know why? Well in the vid that BPRGaming posted (which got taken down by the request of ubi), there was this time crack that evie went up too and Juno was there speaking and juno said this "Come closer, cipher. Perhaps we have met before. Perhaps not. You search for an artifact. Let me show you the truth" Soooo, maybe she's talking about Eve? The lady eve. Maybe Evie Frye IS eve (somehow, maybe an assassin sage like in Black Flag/Unity) It's possible, explains why Juno said the above. I did wonder why they chose the name Evie back when Syndicate was announced. I mean, it's kinda obvious but who knows.

10-08-2015, 08:20 AM
I play the games mostly for the historical part but I like the Modern Day as relief and distraction, and I think that basically the approach taken by Ubisoft where each succeeding game has the MD work as some kind of mini-game and distraction is essentially correct.