PDA

View Full Version : Really liking Syndicate.



SearStingray157
10-25-2015, 06:24 PM
I'm a huge Unity fan, in my opinion that is (was?) the bast AC game, that is until now, so far Syndicate is awesome. I'm still only 6 hours in, completed one borough and just started liberating the second one. Love it - good job Ubisoft

SofaJockey
10-25-2015, 08:08 PM
Liking Unity the best is not a common view, but I can respect that.
Like you, I'm really enjoying Syndicate.

SenseHomunculus
10-25-2015, 08:24 PM
I'm a huge Unity fan, in my opinion that is (was?) the bast AC game, that is until now, so far Syndicate is awesome. I'm still only 6 hours in, completed one borough and just started liberating the second one. Love it - good job Ubisoft

That is very unusual, at least in this community. Have you played all the AC games? What is it about Unity that makes you like it best of all of them?

I enjoyed Unity, all the technical stuff aside. I've really loving Syndicate after about 15 hours of play. To me, it does everything right that Unity tried to do, but didn't really succeed in executing well for whatever reason. London is one of my favorite cities in the world and being able to explore is something I really love about it. Climbing around on top of Parliament?? Are you kidding?? That's awesome.

whatr_those
10-25-2015, 08:55 PM
Unity is a game that's easy to like at a conceptual level if you liked what the first Assassin's Creed had to offer at a conceptual level; Unity is the game that actually returned to the series' roots.


A fully-functional, well-standing Assassin Brotherhood which you are actually a part of for most of the game was a nice return to form.
You were an Assassin and only an Assassin; no pirate or mercenary-esque work in-between; you felt like a fully integrated Assassin.
Like in Assassin's Creed, the combat was so difficult / bad (depending on your perspective) that being stealthy was actually encouraged.


Not to say that it was my fav (Black Flag and II were my personal faves), but I can easily see how one could like it, bugs aside.

ProdiGurl
10-25-2015, 11:39 PM
That is very unusual, at least in this community. Have you played all the AC games? What is it about Unity that makes you like it best of all of them?

I enjoyed Unity, all the technical stuff aside. I've really loving Syndicate after about 15 hours of play. To me, it does everything right that Unity tried to do, but didn't really succeed in executing well for whatever reason. London is one of my favorite cities in the world and being able to explore is something I really love about it. Climbing around on top of Parliament?? Are you kidding?? That's awesome.
Just finished my first meet with Green . . I'm Loving this game more and more. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop lol. I screwed up in the previous 2 missions because I was still learning things, not knowing my controls well enough & just having fun so I might restart the game to complete the missions properly since it's still early in the game.

I see we'll be recruiting here too, that was always one of my favorite parts in Ezio's trilogy. So far I like this better than the last 2 games combined. :cool:

Severion
10-26-2015, 12:05 AM
....so I might restart the game to complete the missions properly since it's still early in the game.

You don't need to restart, just go to the progress tracker thing from the pause menu and you can replay the missions and get the extra objectives done that way for missions done that way :)

LieutenantRex
10-26-2015, 12:20 AM
Evie is by far the best character in the AC series, and perhaps my favorite, tied with Connor. I'm glad that Ubisoft decided to ignore the sexist protests of the gaming community and do what they had to do to ensure fair representation in video games. Also, adventurewoman is lurking around somewhere. Lemme get in those breeches, gurl.

Wolfmeister1010
10-26-2015, 01:17 AM
I remember like within the first week of Unity releasing, most of us liked it. Then the internet sorta converged and started hating everything.

I still stand by my original review though.

The game is gorgeous, the city is the most detailed open world environment I have ever seen in a game, the combat was challenging and a big step up from AC3/4, the AI was improved (a little bit), the stealth mechanics, although inconsistent, were fresh, social stealth was actually viable, customization was great (even though most customization options were cringey) the parkour, although a bit floaty, was MUCH better. Parkour down was an amazing addition. Animations were amazing, Paris stories were for the most part decent, murder mysteries were a nice change of pace, main assassinations were the best in the series, heist missions were very good, random encounters were awesome, sound effects were very well done.

The only issues I had was the Co Op missions, the story, which was horrible, the lack of ambient music, some graphical irks, and the horrible story. But once it got patched, it was a great game in terms of gameplay, at least for me. The fact that Syndicate is apparently Unity but better in every way sound really promising to me.

Let's also not forget that for all the glitches and performance issues, Unity still runs twice as well on PC than Black Flag does.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 03:10 AM
I remember like within the first week of Unity releasing, most of us liked it. Then the internet sorta converged and started hating everything.

No, that was Assassin's Creed III.

Unity's reaction was "Meh". And then the glitchfest happened and it quickly became a highly disliked game. The early reviews by Eurogamer and other sites were highly lukewarm, they pointed out the story was bland, the background details were not very good and the accents were ropey.

Wolfmeister1010
10-26-2015, 03:33 AM
No, that was Assassin's Creed III.

Unity's reaction was "Meh". And then the glitchfest happened and it quickly became a highly disliked game. The early reviews by Eurogamer and other sites were highly lukewarm, they pointed out the story was bland, the background details were not very good and the accents were ropey.


No, I really do remember people praising the hell out of it for the things it excelled at

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 03:44 AM
No, I really do remember people praising the hell out of it for the things it excelled at

Yeah everyone praised Paris' recreations and the new Parkour and the like, but this itself didn't mean that the whole game was regarded as successful. It was seen as a highly unambitious game that didn't have the same sophistication and characterization as earlier games. Nobody liked Arno, the villains were bland.

AC is primarily a story-driven game and the weakness of the story kind of mars the rest of the game.

SixKeys
10-26-2015, 04:55 AM
Yeah everyone praised Paris' recreations and the new Parkour and the like, but this itself didn't mean that the whole game was regarded as successful. It was seen as a highly unambitious game that didn't have the same sophistication and characterization as earlier games. Nobody liked Arno, the villains were bland.

AC is primarily a story-driven game and the weakness of the story kind of mars the rest of the game.

There's a difference between people praising a game for what they think are valid reasons and people considering a game "successful". AC4 had bland villains too, but that didn't make it a bad game. Connor was very unpopular when AC3 came out, but that didn't stop his game from being successful.

I, too, remember people here praising Unity for things like more challenging combat, customization variety, the freedom to tackle missions any way you like, the NPC animations/interactions and the emphasis on stealth. Co-op had its fans too. Obviously not everyone agreed on the same things, but it's just plain dishonest to claim that Unity didn't have its fans.

Wolfmeister1010
10-26-2015, 05:08 AM
On the contrary, I thought it was extremely ambitious. TOO ambitious. That's why it "failed"

SixKeys
10-26-2015, 05:11 AM
Just to prove a point, found these couple of threads with a quick search. Lots of critical feedback in both, but also lots of people who were really positive about Unity:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/948059-I-m-convinced-all-of-these-Unity-reviews-were-made-by-incompetent-monkeys
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/961577-I-have-come-to-a-conclusion-about-Unity-(no-spoilers)

HDinHB
10-26-2015, 05:23 AM
On the contrary, I thought it was extremely ambitious. TOO ambitious. That's why it "failed"

It tried to do too many things--too many collectibles, too many kinds of collectibles, too many customizations, too much club competition, too much connection too Initiates, too much connection to the companion app--and they weren't able to do any of them well. Worse, they were juggling so many balls they fell on their *** on the fundamentals--like story. I had fun playing Unity, didn't have many bugs, and don't hate it like many people do, but it should be a textbook example of biting off more than you can chew.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 05:55 AM
There's a difference between people praising a game for what they think are valid reasons and people considering a game "successful". AC4 had bland villains too...

Black Flag bland villains? It had Black Bart, one of the greatest in the series, and in any case, it's not about "bland" villains so much as having villains who are one-dimensional psychos which is what Unity had, after the advertising promised and the director told us that it would be the grayest game in the series. Then after misinforming people, which Syndicate did not do, they feature one-dimensional villains who don't even have the charisma of the Borgias or the Syndicate Templars.


I, too, remember people here praising Unity for things like more challenging combat, customization variety, the freedom to tackle missions any way you like, the NPC animations/interactions and the emphasis on stealth. Co-op had its fans too. Obviously not everyone agreed on the same things, but it's just plain dishonest to claim that Unity didn't have its fans.

I never said Unity didn't have fans, I did say that it was not a game that was generally liked and then gradually dipped. Even admirers said that it was an average game, all the top gaming sites basically rated it as lower and less ambitious entry than earlier titles, the story was universally seen as weak and Arno was widely regarded as "Meh". There are exceptions of course but that was generally the case.


On the contrary, I thought it was extremely ambitious. TOO ambitious. That's why it "failed"


It tried to do too many things--too many collectibles, too many kinds of collectibles, too many customizations, too much club competition, too much connection too Initiates, too much connection to the companion app--and they weren't able to do any of them well. Worse, they were juggling so many balls they fell on their *** on the fundamentals--like story. I had fun playing Unity, didn't have many bugs, and don't hate it like many people do, but it should be a textbook example of biting off more than you can chew.

Unity WASN'T and ISN'T an ambitious game. The only new quality was Co-Op and that it was Next-Gen and HD and since Ubisoft did not invent Next-Gen, it cannot claim any credit on this front. Yes the interior gameplay was nice, as was the large map or giant buildings and the new Parkour but these are logical, necessary changes, essentially re-inventing the wheel for a new engine. Not anything truly new.

On the single player campaigns, its bread-and-butter, Unity was a major step-back on nearly every front. It borrowed all its ideas from earlier games (Stealth Rooms from Black Flag, and Assassination style from AC1), Firecrackers from Freedom Cry, without any real addition. Even the disguise comes from AC multiplayer. In terms of open-world design, you have very few unique character models and most of the side missions are basic activity-dispensers, nothing like the integrated and expansive mechanics you had in Brotherhood, AC3, and Black Flag. The only new thing was the Time Anomalies (a.ka. the mechanic UNITY was originally supposed to revolve around before Ubisoft lost its nerve and chickened out). As for story, some people are under the misapprehension that AC is Half-Life or Dark Souls where the story doesn't get in the way of gameplay and you can enjoy the latter without any reference to the former. It's not true, if Unity has to be defended, you have to make a case for the story being good. If that case can't be made then Unity can't be considered ambitious or redeemable on any level.

The other thing about Unity and ambition, Unity was promoted as a minor game. Amancio and others were saying that they decided to "go back to basics" and pull back from some of the open-world stuff in the earlier games, which to many sounded like AC was going all "Ico" (a game Amancio cited as an inspiration for Arno and Elise's romance), but in the context of the final game must be seen as Ubisoft dialling things down to a basic template until they feel confident about the Next-Gen hardware, which is clear in the case of Syndicate, a minor game that has no illusions about being anything else, which makes it more forgivable than Unity, a deeply pretentious title.

So let's not talk about ambition and Unity, because it does no credit to the truly ambitious games in the franchise, whether AC1, AC2. AC3 or even Black Flag, to be put in the same sentence as overstuffed mediocrities.

HDinHB
10-26-2015, 06:14 AM
Unity WASN'T and ISN'T an ambitious game.

What? I don't know what dictionary you are using, but according to all of mine, Unity meets the definition.


The other thing about Unity and ambition, Unity was promoted as a minor game.

What? What promotion was that? I missed the trailer that bragged about "AC Unity, the first minor next-gen AC game." Even Rogue wasn't promoted as a "minor game."


So let's not talk about ambition and Unity...

This is supposed to be a thread about liking Syndicate, which I do, so we can stop bashing Unity here. You should learn how to have a reasonable discussion with people without telling them what they felt or what to talk about. It makes it unpleasant to have a conversation with you, and sometimes you have something worth saying.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 06:32 AM
What? I don't know what dictionary you are using, but according to all of mine, Unity meets the definition.

Ambition is in the eye of beholder and it varies as per genre, that's true. But in terms of new kinds of stories, innovation in mission design, new gameplay, more immersive open world, stuff on which games like Red Dead Redemption, GTA-V, Arkham Games rank high, and in which AC1-to-Black Flag is included, then Unity does not measure up.

It also betrays many of the aesthetic qualities of its previous games to a ridiculous degree and generally is quite an incompetent product, not in terms of glitches, but in story, setting and character development. And these things are essential features of the kind of games AC are. UNITY's target audience is people who play AC for the first time and who won't play any of the earlier titles and who won't bother to think deeply about the story and setting. It appeals to ignorance and that cannot be regarded as anything but "easy mode".


What promotion was that?

Read all of Unity's pre-launch Interviews. I don't know why I say pre-launch since the developers never gave any interviews after the game came out, leaving it to Loomer to do their job for them to understand how this game was made.

Right throughout, Amancio said that with Unity, they're going back to AC1, that they're avoiding the features of earlier games, that they're not going to do the Gump factor of earlier games and so on and so forth. He said this repatedly in terms of what Unity "is not going to do". That is was systemic, "seamless" and focused on the "core". I don't want to scapegoat him, since obviously these interviews are representative of groupthink, and I do like Revelations a lot, but when the game came out, these statements must be understood as essentially Ubisoft "pulling its punches" for a safe Template for the next few titles, especially since as Loomer found out from Jeffrey Yohalem, this was not what Unity was originally about. It was about Paris in Multiple Eras but they backed out and chose the French Revolution setting to pare it down to managable goals.


This is supposed to be a thread about liking Syndicate, which I do, so we can stop bashing Unity here. You should learn how to have a reasonable discussion with people without telling them what they felt or what to talk about. It makes it unpleasant to have a conversation with you, and sometimes you have something worth saying.

I was correcting people trying to rewrite memories about Unity, people do that all the time on forums, and they did that with AC3. Likewise, Ubisoft is now using the "we are too ambitious" canard which they put in their retrospective videos and in Yohalem's interview as well. I don't think we should accept such statements at face value.

cawatrooper9
10-26-2015, 02:54 PM
Personally, I think Unity gets far more hate than it deserves. It's bad, sure, but I think before anything else it's forgettable- hardly the trainwreck some people claim.

Syndicate seems to improve on Unity while incorporating the soul of the AC series back into the game, making for the best AC experience to date.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 03:13 PM
Personally, I think Unity gets far more hate than it deserves. It's bad, sure, but I think before anything else it's forgettable- hardly the trainwreck some people claim.

Syndicate seems to improve on Unity while incorporating the soul of the AC series back into the game, making for the best AC experience to date.

Not so sure about that, it's just that Syndicate is a game that knows what it's doing and is fully aware of itself and it has some interesting elements in the background, unlike Unity. It's got some of the classic Assassin "grace notes" which Unity did not have anywhere, so it is more admirable.

But on the whole, I don't think it's the fabled return to glory, it just achieves what Unity set out to achieve and did it better than Unity did. Provide a nice simple Next-Gen Annual Title as cheaply and simply as possible. My one regret is that none of the more interesting parts of English history will ever be depicted in AC. That regret was stronger with Unity since the French Revolution was a setting I was passionate about unlike Victorian London, which I like but I don't really feel a strong attachment for and indeed I would have preferred a more critical look than what the game does. For me Elizabethan England is my favorite era of English history and I would have been really mad if they tackled that the way they did Victorian England in Syndicate.

Journey93
10-26-2015, 03:21 PM
Well if you liked Unity the most then your standards aren't very high...
No wonder you are also liking Syndicate then

cawatrooper9
10-26-2015, 03:23 PM
Not so sure about that, it's just that Syndicate is a game that knows what it's doing and is fully aware of itself and it has some interesting elements in the background, unlike Unity. It's got some of the classic Assassin "grace notes" which Unity did not have anywhere, so it is more admirable.


Could you explain what you mean? I get that it's certainly a different AC game, and that's to be expected given the drastically more modern era, but I think most of the changes are welcome.

Is there anything specifically missing from it? Or any unwelcome changes?

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 03:57 PM
Could you explain what you mean? I get that it's certainly a different AC game, and that's to be expected given the drastically more modern era, but I think most of the changes are welcome.

Is there anything specifically missing from it? Or any unwelcome changes?

My main beef with Syndicate is what everybody likes about it: The Rope Launcher and the carriages. It destroys Parkour completely. The horse carriages are GTA cars, run into trees, lamp-posts and can dash other vehicles like it's no big thing. These aren't animals, they are just the front-end of cars disguises as horses. So to me that kind of removes the believability, it removes the whole reason why we are in the past and not the present. Obviously, since they worked on Tyranny King Washington DLC and developed Eagle Flight, obviously they wanted to import the same fast pace to their Victorian London. To me, its just a fundamental betrayal of one of the essential pillars that made AC what it was, and you know I think the series is on its way to become Arkham/Mordor.

The other thing is that having introduced the grappling hook, they make it into a simple traversal tool rather than a multi-purpose tool like Hookblade in Revelations (which I really like a lot). There's nothing like say using it to pull things to you, disarm objects like in Arkham, or swing across buildings like the swing mechanic in Black Flag, or use it like the Rope Dart, pull people to you or hang them and the like. So the lack of cohesiveness and merging with other similar mechanics, means that the Rope Launcher is there just to make traversal easier and I have problems with this on aesthetic grounds.

In terms of story, the interesting part is that it actually deals with some fundamental aspects of Assasins and Templars which was touched on a bit in AC1, and talked about a lot in Unity, but something which Syndicate actually shows. I'm not going to spoil it because you haven't fully played the game yet, but it's similar to AC1 where Altair attacks Garnier de Naplouse and finds out that by taking him out, he has lunatics across the cities to deal with. So attacking Templars carries consequences and that's something Syndicate touches on and it's a concept so beautiful, so perfect and so essential to the Assassin's Creed games philosophy and structure that I am forgiving of Syndicate to have brought it back, and I wish later games take this and develop it further and make it a full gameplay thing. You can actually make a MD Assassin's Creed game on this concept, because then you can maybe have a choice mechanic.

As for the historical part, the developers wanted Syndicate to be a Punk Rock version of Victorian England rather than actual Victorian London. It promoted the games in this fashion, this style right from Day 1 and they deliver that thoroughly and I am not sure if actual Victorian London is worth making a game about anyway, so I don't have any beef with that. Likewise, there's something quite interesting in some of the sidemissions which I won't spoil till you finish the game.

cawatrooper9
10-26-2015, 04:16 PM
My main beef with Syndicate is what everybody likes about it: The Rope Launcher and the carriages. It destroys Parkour completely. The horse carriages are GTA cars, run into trees, lamp-posts and can dash other vehicles like it's no big thing. These aren't animals, they are just the front-end of cars disguises as horses. So to me that kind of removes the believability, it removes the whole reason why we are in the past and not the present. Obviously, since they worked on Tyranny King Washington DLC and developed Eagle Flight, obviously they wanted to import the same fast pace to their Victorian London. To me, its just a fundamental betrayal of one of the essential pillars that made AC what it was, and you know I think the series is on its way to become Arkham/Mordor.

The other thing is that having introduced the grappling hook, they make it into a simple traversal tool rather than a multi-purpose tool like Hookblade in Revelations (which I really like a lot). There's nothing like say using it to pull things to you, disarm objects like in Arkham, or swing across buildings like the swing mechanic in Black Flag, or use it like the Rope Dart, pull people to you or hang them and the like. So the lack of cohesiveness and merging with other similar mechanics, means that the Rope Launcher is there just to make traversal easier and I have problems with this on aesthetic grounds.


Yeah, the carriages are basically Arkham Knight's Batmobile without tank mode. They aren't that realistic, I'll certainly grant you that.
I'd mostly agree with the rope launcher too. It does do a lot to take out some of the parkour (imagine if they tried to do ACII-ACR level tomb missions now...). Most annoying to me about it is that sync points are now basically just a matter of point and shoot, while they were once part of the pinnacle of the series's climbing.

However, I'd note that both of these things have very specific purposes. London is huge, and some of the streets are ridiculously wide. Getting around would be simply frustrating without the launcher or carriages. People complained about how wide the streets were in Boston and New York in ACIII, and they're nothing compared to London's streets in the 1860s. I suppose the series just needed to evolve and adapt a bit to survive in this era.



In terms of story, the interesting part is that it actually deals with some fundamental aspects of Assasins and Templars which was touched on a bit in AC1, and talked about a lot in Unity, but something which Syndicate actually shows. I'm not going to spoil it because you haven't fully played the game yet, but it's similar to AC1 where Altair attacks Garnier de Naplouse and finds out that by taking him out, he has lunatics across the cities to deal with. So attacking Templars carries consequences and that's something Syndicate touches on and it's a concept so beautiful, so perfect and so essential to the Assassin's Creed games philosophy and structure that I am forgiving of Syndicate to have brought it back, and I wish later games take this and develop it further and make it a full gameplay thing. You can actually make a MD Assassin's Creed game on this concept, because then you can maybe have a choice mechanic.


Likewise, there's something quite interesting in some of the sidemissions which I won't spoil till you finish the game.

Thanks for holding back. I look forward to find out what these are!


As for the historical part, the developers wanted Syndicate to be a Punk Rock version of Victorian England rather than actual Victorian London. It promoted the games in this fashion, this style right from Day 1 and they deliver that thoroughly and I am not sure if actual Victorian London is worth making a game about anyway, so I don't have any beef with that.
Yeah, I'll admit that this is something at actually appeals to me in this game. I used to be a pretty big punk fan in high school, and this game really panders to that side of me. Though, I suppose you could argue that the tone of the game is more influenced by the focus on the common people (particularly the more criminal elements) than the royals from which the "Victorian Age" gets its name (and most of its characterizations). I don't know a ton about London during this period, though.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 04:40 PM
However, I'd note that both of these things have very specific purposes. London is huge, and some of the streets are ridiculously wide. Getting around would be simply frustrating without the launcher or carriages.

Which makes me wonder why do the historical settings anymore if the setting you are doing no longer accomodates foot traffic and Parkour? Why not go fully modern. Go into the 20th Century, bring cars, motorcycles, trams and planes. After all, that excuse in Black Flag's MD about Modern Settings with cars and stuff making memories of travel useless applies to horse carriages and endless travelling around on that as well. Even moreso since horse carriages are much slower than cars and so you would have longer memories to parse.

In any case the streets in Syndicate's London being wide is the developer's quirk, actual Victorian streets were much narrower than what you see in the game. Same with UNITY's Paris (which by the way should have had carriages since that was a huge part of Paris in the 1780s-90s), where the streets are made wider to accomodate the larger scope and space when it was actually much more like AC1's Damascus Poor Area with places jumbled together.


People complained about how wide the streets were in Boston and New York in ACIII,

Well you could travel by horse in that era and you had tunnel fast-travels, a mechanic by the way that would have made better sense with Syndicate since London has HUGE sewers.


Though, I suppose you could argue that the tone of the game is more influenced by the focus on the common people (particularly the more criminal elements) than the royals from which the "Victorian Age" gets its name (and most of its characterizations)

Well, as far as common people go...wait till you get to the end of this game. I will say that the games clarify precisely where the Assassins are in relation to the common people and it kind of explains stuff which I was otherwise confused of because of the New World games which to me are the Assassins at their most heroic and most noble whereas the ones in Unity, except for Bellec, struck me as being really evil. Somehow the Victorian Age and English culture clarifies and explains stuff better than anything.

cawatrooper9
10-26-2015, 04:49 PM
Which makes me wonder why do the historical settings anymore if the setting you are doing no longer accomodates foot traffic and Parkour? Why not go fully modern. Go into the 20th Century, bring cars, motorcycles, trams and planes. After all, that excuse in Black Flag's MD about Modern Settings with cars and stuff making memories of travel useless applies to horse carriages and endless travelling around on that as well. Even moreso since horse carriages are much slower than cars and so you would have longer memories to parse.


Yeah, their big argument back then was that cars and such would require a lot of assets that they didn't have. Now we have carriages that, as we've discussed, basically act like cars. As we both know, AC loves to reuse assets... we may well see an AC game in the 1900s next year, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.


Well you could travel by horse in that era and you had tunnel fast-travels, a mechanic by the way that would have made better sense with Syndicate since London has HUGE sewers.
I suppose- but keep in mind, neither of those methods would really use parkour either (plus, I REALLY hated the sewers in ACIII).


Well, as far as common people go...wait till you get to the end of this game. I will say that the games clarify precisely where the Assassins are in relation to the common people and it kind of explains stuff which I was otherwise confused of because of the New World games which to me are the Assassins at their most heroic and most noble whereas the ones in Unity, except for Bellec, struck me as being really evil. Somehow the Victorian Age and English culture clarifies and explains stuff better than anything.
Fair enough. I suppose I still do have a lot to see in Syndicate.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 04:59 PM
Yeah, their big argument back then was that cars and such would require a lot of assets that they didn't have. Now we have carriages that, as we've discussed, basically act like cars. As we both know, AC loves to reuse assets... we may well see an AC game in the 1900s next year, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I actually wouldn't mind a 20th Century setting. Specifically if they do something cool and awesome like 20s Berlin, the fact is the 20th Century is now 100 years into the past, two years from now will be 100 years since the October Revolution and I actually think the Assassins can work in the 20th Century given the right situation.

The only problem is copyright, you can't really use a lot of popular culture, deal with advertising and brands (essential features of 20th Century) honestly. If you are going to 20s Berlin, some of the movies and songs of the time are in public domain but others aren't. And for cars and planes, well riding vintage BMWs and Mercedes' strike me as unlikely.

SearStingray157
10-26-2015, 07:22 PM
Well if you liked Unity the most then your standards aren't very high...
No wonder you are also liking Syndicate then
I find this a rather strange comment. Just because I like something you do not like doesn't mean my standards are any lower than your does it ?

I have played ACII, Brotherhood, revelation, ACIII, BlackFlag, Unity and now Syndicate. All of them were fun games (except for ACIII), but I liked Unity the best - until now.

cawatrooper9
10-26-2015, 07:41 PM
I actually wouldn't mind a 20th Century setting. Specifically if they do something cool and awesome like 20s Berlin, the fact is the 20th Century is now 100 years into the past, two years from now will be 100 years since the October Revolution and I actually think the Assassins can work in the 20th Century given the right situation.

The only problem is copyright, you can't really use a lot of popular culture, deal with advertising and brands (essential features of 20th Century) honestly. If you are going to 20s Berlin, some of the movies and songs of the time are in public domain but others aren't. And for cars and planes, well riding vintage BMWs and Mercedes' strike me as unlikely.

Like I said, I'd have thought it unlikely until feeling how different and modern London is in ACS. I think it could be good, but ever since the Middle Ages rift in Unity, my palate has been craving an older setting.

As far as pop culture goes, I suppose they could just pick and choose from what is available in public domain. Whatever they get, it would be cool to see incorporated. They could probably even work out a deal for some items that aren't public domain yet. Imagine something like GTA V's theater in which players can go into a cinema and watch abridged clips from Nosferatu, Battleship Potemkim, and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, etc.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 08:11 PM
As far as pop culture goes, I suppose they could just pick and choose from what is available in public domain. Whatever they get, it would be cool to see incorporated. They could probably even work out a deal for some items that aren't public domain yet. Imagine something like GTA V's theater in which players can go into a cinema and watch abridged clips from Nosferatu, Battleship Potemkim, and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, etc.

Yeah, it'd be a great way to get people to see classic movies. 20s Berlin is where the 20th Century truly began, you had Einstein, Freud, Brecht in one place, not always at the same time but culturally and politically, it's the one part of the 20th Century you can call an AC Era and frankly if AC is ever going to Germany, there's not another city, terrain era that's as ideal since most German history was scattered across different cities and small towns. Politically this was a time of instability and assassinations and crime was very high. Weimar Germany came out of a failed communist revolution, that led to Rosa Luxemburg's death and this later led to the rise of Nazism. The only problem with this kind of game is that it will end on a total downer but then that's part of the charm of 20s Berlin, this cloud of inevitable doom that hovers over it.

You had Kurt Weill, Schonberg and many others, you can run into Bauhaus architects. You had many film-makers, you can meet the young Alfred Hitchcock (he was there for a few years), Fritz Lang, Murnau, Renoir, John Ford and so many others. You can even run into Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich before they were stars, they worked in Berlin. The main issues of course is celebrity likeness but I think this could go in fair use for some of them. One cool thing you can do is introduce a film-making side-game, the logic is that these films were destroyed later (like most silent films from this era) but you can use ancestor animus to revive the memories of it. In the real world if the Animus existed that's one practical use of it, get DNA and look into memories of movies seen and recreate them. And of course you can introduce planes since commercial air travel wasn't fully established yet, you can have biplanes and wing-walkers. You can also have the Circus since that was a big part of Berliner culture.

SixKeys
10-26-2015, 08:52 PM
Black Flag bland villains? It had Black Bart, one of the greatest in the series, and in any case, it's not about "bland" villains so much as having villains who are one-dimensional psychos which is what Unity had, after the advertising promised and the director told us that it would be the grayest game in the series. Then after misinforming people, which Syndicate did not do, they feature one-dimensional villains who don't even have the charisma of the Borgias or the Syndicate Templars.

LOL Black Bart was just as one-dimensional as the Borgias, let's not even pretend otherwise. I wouldn't have even remembered his name if you hadn't reminded me. The only villains I remember by name are Vane and Rackham (aka Jack Sparrow), the others were totally forgettable.

As for "the grayest in the series" and all that, I've long since learned to read marketing speak for what it is. AC3's directors promised to deliver "the best modern day ever", after all, and Rogue's devs promised to deliver "the definitive ending to the Kenway saga, which would tie up all loose ends". Unity was not the first nor the last to promise the moon and the stars.



I never said Unity didn't have fans, I did say that it was not a game that was generally liked and then gradually dipped.

No, you said: "It was seen as a highly unambitious game* that didn't have the same sophistication and characterization as earlier games*. Nobody liked Arno*, the villains were bland."

* If this were Wikipedia, there would be a "citation needed" after each star. I even posted links to old threads that prove your perspective to be false and biased.



Even admirers said that it was an average game, all the top gaming sites basically rated it as lower and less ambitious entry than earlier titles, the story was universally seen as weak and Arno was widely regarded as "Meh". There are exceptions of course but that was generally the case.

Again, citation needed. We're talking about the immediate reaction to the game from fans, not how their perspectives started to shift after some time when the hate train took off. I was here and I remember the initial response being more divisive than lukewarm. You were either on the side of the people who despised Unity, or the side that adored it. Same thing happened with AC3 originally.


Unity WASN'T and ISN'T an ambitious game. The only new quality was Co-Op and that it was Next-Gen and HD and since Ubisoft did not invent Next-Gen, it cannot claim any credit on this front. Yes the interior gameplay was nice, as was the large map or giant buildings and the new Parkour but these are logical, necessary changes, essentially re-inventing the wheel for a new engine. Not anything truly new.


Ambition is in the eye of beholder and it varies as per genre, that's true. But in terms of new kinds of stories, innovation in mission design, new gameplay, more immersive open world, stuff on which games like Red Dead Redemption, GTA-V, Arkham Games rank high, and in which AC1-to-Black Flag is included, then Unity does not measure up.

First you claim Unity isn't an ambitious game because it doesn't fit your personal definition of ambitious, then you admit that ambition is in the eye of the beholder. Ambition doesn't just mean innovation, it means any kind of massive attempt to shift one's focus towards a goal. Unity's goal was to bring the series closer to its roots, which is a hugely ambitious undertaking, considering the insane amount of bloat the series had accumulated over the years. They got rid of a number of outdated and useless concepts and tools, like the brotherhood mechanic, factions, bombs, ship-steering, crafting, hunting, treasure-hunting, notoriety, rope-darts, mini-games, obligatory full sync challenges (you could do some for extra points, but you didn't get a "failed" notification if you chose not to), whistling, renovations (apart from the Café Theatre, which IMO was a mistake) etc. etc. They made a real effort to make stealth viable and challenging again, for the first time in God knows how long. They made combat slightly more challenging, perhaps not enough, but still harder than any game post-AC1 (I actually died a few times!). They allowed you to tackle any assassination any way you chose, without punishing you for not doing it their way. They actually did a pretty good job focusing on the essentials of an assassin: just you, a few tools and a dozen different options to tackle a sandbox situation. That's what AC1 was always about, and that's what Unity was trying to bring back to a series that had become more and more action-centric over the years. Considering all the stuff they had to rework to make stealth challenging but fun, I'd say they were pretty ambitious.



Read all of Unity's pre-launch Interviews. I don't know why I say pre-launch since the developers never gave any interviews after the game came out, leaving it to Loomer to do their job for them to understand how this game was made.

Right throughout, Amancio said that with Unity, they're going back to AC1, that they're avoiding the features of earlier games, that they're not going to do the Gump factor of earlier games and so on and so forth. He said this repatedly in terms of what Unity "is not going to do". That is was systemic, "seamless" and focused on the "core". I don't want to scapegoat him, since obviously these interviews are representative of groupthink, and I do like Revelations a lot, but when the game came out, these statements must be understood as essentially Ubisoft "pulling its punches" for a safe Template for the next few titles, especially since as Loomer found out from Jeffrey Yohalem, this was not what Unity was originally about. It was about Paris in Multiple Eras but they backed out and chose the French Revolution setting to pare it down to managable goals.

You didn't answer the actual question. How does any of this translate to "Unity was promoted as a minor game"? Everyone here was certainly excited to hear about the back-to-basics approach, before the game came out and they were disappointed by the story and/or bugs. I've never heard anyone complain about the fact that Unity tried to return the series to its roots and trim all the accumulated fat. It makes me sad that they decided to bring some of that stuff back for Syndicate.

cawatrooper9
10-26-2015, 09:17 PM
LOL Black Bart was just as one-dimensional as the Borgias, let's not even pretend otherwise. I wouldn't have even remembered his name if you hadn't reminded me. The only villains I remember by name are Vane and Rackham (aka Jack Sparrow), the others were totally forgettable.

As for "the grayest in the series" and all that, I've long since learned to read marketing speak for what it is. AC3's directors promised to deliver "the best modern day ever", after all, and Rogue's devs promised to deliver "the definitive ending to the Kenway saga, which would tie up all loose ends". Unity was not the first nor the last to promise the moon and the stars.


Come now. It's one thing to have to look deeper into viral marketing for hidden secrets, like in the Syndicate Victorian search engine. It's a whole other thing for us to have to not believe a thing we're told because developers lie.

As for Black Bart- I suppose it's all subjective, but I'm surprised you didn't find him that memorable. Perhaps it's because you remember him as Roberts (his real last name)?


As for "ambition"...
Well yeah, Unity was ambitious- much like a child jumping off of a roof with cardboard wings, trying to fly. :p

I'm joking, of course, I actually didn't hate Unity nearly as much as many people do. It was indeed ambitious, but it is one thing to have ambitions and another to actually fulfill them. Personally, I think Unity wrote quite a few more checks than it was willing or able to cash.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 09:26 PM
LOL Black Bart was just as one-dimensional as the Borgias....

When did Rodrigo and Cesare give one of the greatest speeches in all the games:
"In honest service there are thin commons, low wages, and hard labour. Yet as gentlemen of fortune we enjoy plenty and satisfaction, pleasure and ease, liberty and power... so what man with a sensible mind would choose the former life, when the only hasard we pirates run is a sour look from those without strength or splendour! Now, I have been among you six weeks, and in that time I have adopted your outlook as my own, and with so fierce a conviction that it may frighten you to see your passions reflected from me in so stark a light. But... if it's a captain you see in me now, aye then... I'll be your bloody captain! For I have dipped my hands in muddied waters, and withdrawing them find 'tis better to be a commander than a common man!"

It's the one speech made by a bad guy that compares to Ezio's Bonfire speech and of course it has the advantage in that Black Bart really did say this in real life as per that Pirate book anyway.


Unity was not the first nor the last to promise the moon and the stars.

Well Unity was fairly dishonest in marketing to an unusual degree. Syndicate didn't lie, Black Flag didn't lie, Brotherhood and Revelations didn't lie, even AC3 didn't lie. It does no credit to the games that actually represented their product and did excellent work on it by giving Unity a pass.


I was here and I remember the initial response being more divisive than lukewarm.

Well I was basing it on professional reviews. Eurogamer, IGN and Kotaku while hardly condemning the game, were pretty unanimous in saying it was a "Meh!" game and that was before the bugs, compare that to the reception of AC3 and Black Flag...You can dig those reviews up and double check if you wish. Even the people who liked Unity said that the story was not up to mark and most people found the background confusing.


Ambition doesn't just mean innovation...

Well in aesthetics a work is called ambitious if it's innovative. It's why Martin Scorsese is considered a more ambitious film-maker than Steven Spielberg for instance.


Unity's goal was to bring the series closer to its roots, which is a hugely ambitious undertaking, considering the insane amount of bloat the series had accumulated over the years.

Yeah and they never stopped to consider why that "bloat" came into being in the first place. It was there to make a more immersive open world game. That approach worked in AC1, where the Assassins actually existed in that time and place so you didn't need an economy and other stuff. The minute it goes out of the Crusades, AC becomes an all purpose, open-world laboratory of ideas and coming after the immersion of the Ezio games, AC3 and Black Flag where you actually felt part of a wide world with many unique NPCs and a well researched backgrounds, Unity is well...what's there to be said that I haven't already said.


You didn't answer the actual question. How does any of this translate to "Unity was promoted as a minor game"? Everyone here was certainly excited to hear about the back-to-basics approach, before the game came out and they were disappointed by the story and/or bugs. I've never heard anyone complain about the fact that Unity tried to return the series to its roots and trim all the accumulated fat. It makes me sad that they decided to bring some of that stuff back for Syndicate.

Weren't you the one who said that "I've long since learned to read marketing speak for what it is"? So when Ubisoft said "trim the fat", I mentally translate that as "lack of b-lls" which you must admit is technically trimming the fat. Obviously Ubisoft talked a very interesting game and concept going in, they made it sound like it was going to be like Dishonored (a game which Unity was inspired by and Syndicate even more-so). But ultimately, what that amounted to was the developers telling gamers not to expect some of the features from the early games because they were not familiar with the Next-Gen hardware, only they pretentiously turned a negative into a positive. Besides we all know that Unity chickened out of its original concept of Paris in Multiple Eras, so the game we have came because they lost their nerve to do what they really wanted.

Ignacio_796
10-26-2015, 09:29 PM
I think Unity was in fact selled as the big thing, you know, cuz new engine and stuff. AC has a development schedule that is easily recognisable for someone that has been around here for a while:

Big and expensive game is released with big marketing campaign. Then the next year, another one is released that reuses a lot of assets and mechanichs of the previous title, being more cheap and with a more discret marketing campaign (you know, there has to be one of these things each year no matter what the HECK happens, or else Ubisoft will make the earth collapse and the hell will open wide marking the beginning of the WW3).

-AC2-------->BRO and Reve.
-AC3-------->BF and Ro.
-Unity------->Syndi and ¿? (maybe released next year along with the next big title)


.For me the problem with Unity was not innovation. In fact in that regard, the game tried, really REALLY HARD to change almost every single element of this franchise.:
-New Combat focused on increasing the difficulty.
-New Parkour, a necessity given how complex the design of the new city was having a 1:1 scale and interiors.
-New Stealth mode.
-Perk Sytem to add a curve of progression.
-Coop.
-Customization to differentiate the players and give them different roles.
-1:1 scale

.Sadly, for me it was in fact the execution of those changes what turn Unity in the train wreck and mess that it was.
-Slow combat with enemies having a mix of an outright broken AI and utterly overpowered abilites (sharpshooters), and overpowered tools for the player (smoke bombs).
-Very automatic and non challenging parkour, that sometimes gives you a lot of troubles when trying not to grab to things you don't want, specially in interiors.
-The new Stealth Mode and enemy AI, no need to explain more.
-Bland Perk system with a mix of necessary choices, useless things, and overall uninspired abilities (unlocking the capability to sit on a bench? DAFUQ).
-Coop.
-Customization that fails the purpose of giving players different roles due to stats not giving a significant change to gameplay.
-1:1 city, more collectibles and bland content than ever. Yeah, its optional, but it's still wasting a gorgeus city on boring stuff and killing all the desire of the player to explore it.

Overall Unity was a promise of something better of what we are used to. That gives it a little of value to me. I ended up hating Unity and i'll never touch it again, but you'll never hear me saying that Rogue was better. It failed... but at least it was trying.
Syndicate on the other hand...

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 09:50 PM
[B].For me the problem with Unity was not innovation. In fact in that regard, the game tried, really REALLY HARD to change almost every single element of this franchise.:

Well the fact is all those changes are necessary conditions for a true Next-Gen game and do not actually qualify as innovations. For a new engine made for HD graphics, redivising the systems is obviously natural and it involves a range of aesthetic choices to consider. Rather than pushing towards a more comprehensive social stealth system, they basically borrowed ideas from other stealth games rather than build and expand on what it did before.


Overall Unity was a promise of something better of what we are used to. That gives it a little of value to me. I ended up hating Unity and i'll never touch it again, but you'll never hear me saying that Rogue was better. It failed... but at least it was trying.
Syndicate on the other hand...

Yeah, ROGUE is fanfiction unworthy of having Assassin's Creed emblazoned on its box, whereas Unity is a legitimate failure. You can only fail when you try something and even if that turned out to be a disaster, it's worth acknowledging and learning from that mistake. As in the story of the Eagle and Jackdaw, "So with a great deal of tinkering and twisting, the Next-Gen launch tried to be the reboot the franchise needed, but when it tried, it found it's strength was not up to its task...what an odd little game it is what do you call it father...this is a bad game but if you ask it, it will claim to be ambitious."

Syndicate is a game I respect and find interesting in that, like Revelations, it's a minor game that knows it's a minor game and doesn't try to be something it's not. It's tone, style and approach is totally synched and it delivers on that.

RVSage
10-26-2015, 09:57 PM
When did Rodrigo and Cesare give one of the greatest speeches in all the games:
"In honest service there are thin commons, low wages, and hard labour. Yet as gentlemen of fortune we enjoy plenty and satisfaction, pleasure and ease, liberty and power... so what man with a sensible mind would choose the former life, when the only hasard we pirates run is a sour look from those without strength or splendour! Now, I have been among you six weeks, and in that time I have adopted your outlook as my own, and with so fierce a conviction that it may frighten you to see your passions reflected from me in so stark a light. But... if it's a captain you see in me now, aye then... I'll be your bloody captain! For I have dipped my hands in muddied waters, and withdrawing them find 'tis better to be a commander than a common man!"

It's the one speech made by a bad guy that compares to Ezio's Bonfire speech and of course it has the advantage in that Black Bart really did say this in real life as per that Pirate book anyway.
.
Bingo. That is why I felt he was one the greatest villans in the series. Many say Starrick is equally good. Can't wait to play Syndicate. The best part of Black Flag was, Black Bart was left out of the promotional materials, he surprised most and the character was portrayed really well. Honestly speaking , I came to know about black bart after the game. He was the most successful "real pirate" in history, in terms of vessels captured.

Regarding Unity's marketing I do agree there were lies, for instance in the season pass trailer Amancio said "Unity and Dead kings are the darkest stories we have told in AC" When I played the game all I could see was the dark color palette in dead kings. Nothing more. Not just the main game, even the DLC was very disappointing, I hoped Dead Kings would save the story line, but sadly it did not

But , as SixKeys said Unity was not the first time anyway, AC3 they kinda, kept saying Connor was among the loyalists, But in the game it turns out his interaction with them was rather brief, Which in my opinion was good. Connor towards end, realizes neither were helping his people (which I really loved). But it was never marketed that way

cawatrooper9
10-26-2015, 10:01 PM
[/B]-New Combat focused on increasing the difficulty.
-New Parkour, a necessity given how complex the design of the new city was having a 1:1 scale and interiors.
-New Stealth mode.
-Perk Sytem to add a curve of progression.
-Coop.
-Customization to differentiate the players and give them different roles.
-1:1 scale



Let's examine what Syndicate fixed, then:

-New Parkour: I bet this will be divisive, given the grappel gun. That aside, I think most people would agree that the other slight changes in parkour have been for the best.

-New Stealth mode.: Definitely fixed, controls enhanced.


-Perk Sytem to add a curve of progression.: Much more varied perks, as well as 2 playable characters with slightly different available perks (and the ability to enhance them in different ways).

-Coop.: Completely done away with- though that might be for the best, since it is largely to blame for Unity's bad technical performance.


-Customization to differentiate the players and give them different roles.: At the surface, customization might not seem as deep, and there is something to that- you no longer customize every single layer of clothing your Assassins wears. However, we're no longer hindered by having the majority of the higher level goods locked behind those awful Social Club requirements, and with two Assassins to upgrade we probably have to still worry about more goods than last time.


-1:1 scale: London has so much more to do than Unity, and I think I speak for the masses when I say that Syndicate's side content is far more enjoyable than Unity's

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 10:10 PM
Regarding Unity's marketing I do agree there were lies, for instance in the season pass trailer Amancio said "Unity and Dead kings are the darkest stories we have told in AC" When I played the game all I could see was the dark color palette in dead kings. Nothing more. Not just the main game, even the DLC was very disappointing, I hoped Dead Kings would save the story line, but sadly it did not

I guess Freedom Cry which tackled slavery, or AC3 which touched on indigenous losing their lands and having homes burnt isn't sufficiently dark enough for some people. That said, the upcoming Jack the Ripper DLC could, by virtue of its subject, possibly be as dark as those earlier games and certainly darker than Dead Kings.


But , as SixKeys said Unity was not the first time anyway, AC3 they kinda, kept saying Connor was among the loyalists,

No what they said was, the promotion kept showing Connor killing the English, the developers said that the actual game would be more ambiguous and gray. That's what they said. Unlike UNITY, where Amancio said that the final game would be objective and fair to history, which I actually believed, the developers were truthful about it.

The fact is that Unity and Syndicate are surprise-free marketing. There's nothing to hide, no secret to conceal unlike Black Flag and AC3, what you see is what you get. Syndicate even put a plot spoiler and minor twist in the trailers for no reason, ruining one of the targets.

Farlander1991
10-26-2015, 10:16 PM
even AC3 didn't lie.

I wouldn't call that necessarily true. AC3 marketing had stuff like changing the Bunker Hill battle area from summer to winter to create an impression of a big battle happening in winter (which obviously never happened in the game proper), AC3 marketing told about features that would eventually be cut (like they said and showed in one of the trailers that there would be four seasons, not two), and while 'cut' isn't necessarily lie, expectations have been created that wouldn't be met. And those are just some of the examples that were really misleading.

Hans684
10-26-2015, 10:26 PM
Yeah, ROGUE is fanfiction unworthy of having Assassin's Creed emblazoned on its box.

Rogue is the only game with the Creed being used as a policy of aggression and unrestricted power while at the same time be the only Templar game in the series. The only one in the series to be and do both, so from a lore view you could say it's one of the most ambitious games story wise as it does't things the other games lack the balls to do.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 10:26 PM
I wouldn't call that necessarily true. AC3 marketing had stuff like changing the Bunker Hill battle area from summer to winter to create an impression of a big battle happening in winter (which obviously never happened in the game proper), AC3 marketing told about features that would eventually be cut (like they said and showed in one of the trailers that there would be four seasons, not two), and while 'cut' isn't necessarily lie, expectations have been created that wouldn't be met. And those are just some of the examples that were really misleading.

I am sure when those trailers and footage were cut they obviously hoped to include it in the final game, so they can't be called liars on that front. You can only lie if you say something is there that was never even made or a part of the game which Unity's promotion did do repeatedly.

After all we learnt before AC3 came out that canoes and other stuff were removed from the marketing themselves. Not meeting expectations and breaking a promise is not the same as lying, especially since we see evidence that they did plan to include those features. Like a screenshot of Connor sailing a canoe and so on.


... so from a lore view ...

I am going to say something that might get me banned here. But the lore of AC is WORTHLESS. None of it actually matters. What matters are the characters, the settings, the story. Assassin's Creed conspiracy elements were originally intended to function as an excuse for historical fiction. None of the developers seriously believe that Assassins and Templars actually ever existed as post-Crusades secret societies, or that they control the world or can control the world. It was only there to facilitate video game elements and provide a set of goals. The Templars and the Assassins such as they are, are merely metaphors that symbolize something that is appealing and compelling. Like in AC2, it symbolizes the Renaissance, in AC3, it symbolizes the striving for freedom and equality, against oppression.

In Rogue and Unity, the Assassins and Templars merely stand for themselves, so that's why they suck.

cawatrooper9
10-26-2015, 10:34 PM
I wouldn't call that necessarily true. AC3 marketing had stuff like changing the Bunker Hill battle area from summer to winter to create an impression of a big battle happening in winter (which obviously never happened in the game proper), AC3 marketing told about features that would eventually be cut (like they said and showed in one of the trailers that there would be four seasons, not two), and while 'cut' isn't necessarily lie, expectations have been created that wouldn't be met. And those are just some of the examples that were really misleading.

I'd agree, AC3 was misleading. There was an alpha video I saw once in which Connor's parkour looked strikingly similar to Unity's. I can't find it now, unfortunately.

And then there's the battles. Now, I know I shouldn't expect much from a game based solely off of the cinematic trailers... but man the battles in AC3 were disappointing. Strange that I was looking so forward to fighting in battles of the American Revolution as Connor, but my favorite memory sequence ended up revolving around a plot where he instead chases some stolen cargo alongside his dad, all the way down to the Caribbean...

SixKeys
10-26-2015, 10:35 PM
Come now. It's one thing to have to look deeper into viral marketing for hidden secrets, like in the Syndicate Victorian search engine. It's a whole other thing for us to have to not believe a thing we're told because developers lie.

I'm not saying it's okay for devs to lie, just recognizing that it happens with each and every game. Every single game in this series has promised something it ultimately could not deliver. Why is Unity being singled out as if it was the first and only one?


As for Black Bart- I suppose it's all subjective, but I'm surprised you didn't find him that memorable. Perhaps it's because you remember him as Roberts (his real last name)?

I remember him as the Sage, as the super-obvious, cliché villain he was written as. Which doesn't mean I hate him or that he somehow ruins the game, any more than Rodrigo Borgia ruined AC2. AC4 suffered from an overabundance of characters IMO (villains and non-villains), which meant that most of them didn't get enough time for character development. I remember Vane because he was more interesting than Roberts, at least he started out as Edward's friend. Also he had a badass voice. :cool:



As for "ambition"...
Well yeah, Unity was ambitious- much like a child jumping off of a roof with cardboard wings, trying to fly. :p

I'm joking, of course, I actually didn't hate Unity nearly as much as many people do. It was indeed ambitious, but it is one thing to have ambitions and another to actually fulfill them. Personally, I think Unity wrote quite a few more checks than it was willing or able to cash.

Yeah, but that's another subject onto itself. Unity was ambitious, that much cannot be denied. The original idea would have had us explore Paris in multiple different timelines, possibly with multiple protagonists, which is more ambitious than any AC project thus far. That idea was so ambitious that it clearly ended up overreaching, so they had to pare it down to a much more simplistic story that still made sense of some level.


When did Rodrigo and Cesare give one of the greatest speeches in all the games:
"In honest service there are thin commons, low wages, and hard labour. Yet as gentlemen of fortune we enjoy plenty and satisfaction, pleasure and ease, liberty and power... so what man with a sensible mind would choose the former life, when the only hasard we pirates run is a sour look from those without strength or splendour! Now, I have been among you six weeks, and in that time I have adopted your outlook as my own, and with so fierce a conviction that it may frighten you to see your passions reflected from me in so stark a light. But... if it's a captain you see in me now, aye then... I'll be your bloody captain! For I have dipped my hands in muddied waters, and withdrawing them find 'tis better to be a commander than a common man!"

It's the one speech made by a bad guy that compares to Ezio's Bonfire speech and of course it has the advantage in that Black Bart really did say this in real life as per that Pirate book anyway.

Oh, well, if giving a good speech is a measure of good character development, I suppose AC2 Ezio is one of the deepest, best developed characters in the entire series. And his was a fictional speech written by a current writer, not taken directly from an old book. Machiavelli could have been one of the best developed characters if they'd just ripped half his lines from The Prince.



Well Unity was fairly dishonest in marketing to an unusual degree. Syndicate didn't lie, Black Flag didn't lie, Brotherhood and Revelations didn't lie, even AC3 didn't lie. It does no credit to the games that actually represented their product and did excellent work on it by giving Unity a pass.

We've had this discussion before. I don't feel like repeating myself, so I'll just say I think you are completely, utterly wrong to claim that none of the other games' marketing lied. Yes, even Syndicate lied by promising a modern day that hardcore fans would be really happy with. That clearly turned out to be BS as it plays exactly like Unity.



Well I was basing it on professional reviews. Eurogamer, IGN and Kotaku while hardly condemning the game, were pretty unanimous in saying it was a "Meh!" game and that was before the bugs, compare that to the reception of AC3 and Black Flag...You can dig those reviews up and double check if you wish. Even the people who liked Unity said that the story was not up to mark and most people found the background confusing.

So why did you bring up professional reviews when Wolfmeister and I were clearly talking about the hardcore fans on these forums?

"I remember like within the first week of Unity releasing, most of us liked it. Then the internet sorta converged and started hating everything."

"Us", as in we, the community, the forum members, the hardcore fans. We already know how professional game reviewers feel about AC in general, how they've felt about the series for years. So far, from what I've seen, the fan reception - here, on Reddit, Twitter etc. - to Syndicate appears to be quite positive, so I hope you won't go claiming six months from now that everyone hated Syndicate at release.



Well in aesthetics a work is called ambitious if it's innovative. It's why Martin Scorsese is considered a more ambitious film-maker than Steven Spielberg for instance.


And in the dictionary a work is called ambitious if it's (emphasis mine):

1. having ambition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambition); eagerly desirous of achieving or obtaining success, power, wealth, a specific goal, etc.: ambitious students.




2. showing or caused by ambition or an earnest desire for achievement or distinction: an ambitious attempt to break the record for number of wins in a single season.






Yeah and they never stopped to consider why that "bloat" came into being in the first place. It was there to make a more immersive open world game.

Bullcrap. They didn't give Ezio 1000 throwing knives and 2000 types of bombs and 1500 crossbow bolts and 3000 types of darts and 2400 bullets and 1700 insta-kill assassin recruits to make the world "more immersive". They did it because those are simple things to implement and show in trailers, á la "look how overpow-- I mean, stealthy and strong the assassin is this time! He's got a ton of new gadgets, half of which do the exact same thing and don't really change the way you interact with the world. Here, have a rope dart, too! And landmines! And spears! All hanging off your stealthy, realistic assassin who doesn't look suspicious at all. We're also giving you a bunch of unrealistic new stealth kill animations so you don't have to risk getting out of your haycart and possibly getting detected. Just whistle and the dumb-as-doorknobs enemies will literally run into your blade! Oh, and you can easily hide bodies now, too, so the enemies never get suspicious at all. IMMERSION!"

http://www.williamt.com/blog/uploaded_images/spongebob_imagination-727624.jpg




Weren't you the one who said that "I've long since learned to read marketing speak for what it is"? So when Ubisoft said "trim the fat", I mentally translate that as "lack of b-lls" which you must admit is technically trimming the fat.

Obviously we read it a different way, then. Maybe because you seem to enjoy all the bloat that made the previous games so easy, whereas I was happy to see some modicum of challenge return by taking them away. It forced me to rethink my approach to situations: unlike in previous games, in Unity I couldn't hide bodies, so I had to actually plan which enemies to kill in which order. If I just killed everyone out in the open, a guard was bound to stumble upon a dead colleague and become suspicious. Whistling was gone too, so I had to actually take risks and move closer for the kill. Couldn't just sit comfortably in a haycart and dump 15 bodies in there. The only problem was that the AI was still lacking in Unity. That same AI has carried over to Syndicate, which takes away even that tiny bit of challenge by reintroducing whistling and body-dumping. Le sigh.

Journey93
10-26-2015, 10:39 PM
Rogue is the only game with the Creed being used as a policy of aggression and unrestricted power while at the same time be the only Templar game in the series. The only one in the series to be and do both, so from a lore view you could say it's one of the most ambitious games story wise as it does't things the other games lack the balls to do.

Having silly earthquake machines for an excuse to make the Assassins "evil" and an annoying and biased protagonist isn't really ambitious.
I'm glad the other games lack the "balls" to do such things.

I expected an interesting Templar game. Someone who actually believed in the cause (see Haytham) and wasn't just butthurt because he wasn't told everything.
Rogue should have been the real concluding chapter to the Kenway Saga, playing as Haytham when he hunted down the Assassins and eradicated the Colonial Brotherhood. No silly justifications as to why, but just because they were his enemies and he was looking for the Precursor sites.

Now that would have been an interesting game

Farlander1991
10-26-2015, 10:39 PM
I am sure when those trailers and footage were cut they obviously hoped to include it in the final game, so they can't be called liars on that front. You can only lie if you say something is there that was never even made or a part of the game which Unity's promotion did do repeatedly.

Changing Battle of Bunker Hill to winter for an illusion of more battles is purposeful misleading. Heck, that happened like 4-5 months before release of the game, there's no way at that point they would think, 'maybe we'll have some famous winter battle in the game actually' without having anything to possibly show for it.

And if we talk about 'something is there that was never even made or a part of the game', there's the reveal trailer that doesn't show anything that happened in the game, there's the E3 footage which was a mission made specifically to not be in the game (while technically that fort still exists, but the footage even shows it as Sequence 8 happening in 1778 if I'm not mistaken with the year, creating a whole set of expectations that wouldn't have been met as Sequence 8 in the game is about the first visit to New York and a whole different thing).

AC3 marketing and Unity marketing were not that far apart in that regard. There was content created for both specifically or for some early concepts (winter battle in AC3, Elise execution in ACU) that never happened in game, both marketing campaigns painted their main characters differently in their promotional E3 walkthroughs ('let the patriots fight their battles' is something the Connor we have in AC3 just wouldn't have had said), voice overs in trailers focusing on things that actually don't really matter that much in the game proper (in one of the trailers Connor says how he is torn between wanting to driving and repelling outsiders away and being an outsider, that's never actually a proper plot point in the game). AC3 didn't meet expectations set by marketing, as marketing has set a whole different set of expectations.

cawatrooper9
10-26-2015, 10:41 PM
Edward worked closely with Roberts for a while, too. I guess I just liked how alien he seemed (and for good reason, apparently) as well as how his story ties into the MD one.

[QUOTE]Also he had a badass voice. :cool:
Haha, agreed, but also another thing I think he has in common with Roberts. His kinda reminded me of Barbossa from PotC (I know, I used the acronym, I'm lame :p)
I do think Llama's a little too into his speech, though, haha :rolleyes:


Yeah, but that's another subject onto itself. Unity was ambitious, that much cannot be denied. The original idea would have had us explore Paris in multiple different timelines, possibly with multiple protagonists, which is more ambitious than any AC project thus far. That idea was so ambitious that it clearly ended up overreaching, so they had to pare it down to a much more simplistic story that still made sense of some level.
Well yeah, that's the game that I've wanted in the series for years, and I'd have loved to see it. However, that's just another example of Unity tripping over itself. The game may have had the best of intentions, but I'm far more interested in the final product.

Farlander1991
10-26-2015, 10:45 PM
I'd agree, AC3 was misleading. There was an alpha video I saw once in which Connor's parkour looked strikingly similar to Unity's. I can't find it now, unfortunately.

I guess you mean the target footage (the one with old Connor concept robes, correct?), which is NOT alpha, that video was CG created for pre-production for internal purposes to get a feel of how the game would be like and strive to that during production itself. The only reason we have that footage in the open is because it was shown at GDC, really.

Hans684
10-26-2015, 10:56 PM
I am going to say something that might get me banned here.

I like honesty, so continue that attitude.


But the lore of AC is WORTHLESS. None of it actually matters.

The lore is EVERYTHING. It's AC, from gameplay to story to history to conspiracy to philosophy. Take away the lore and all you have left is nothing. Everything is connected.


What matters are the characters, the settings, the story. Assassin's Creed conspiracy elements were originally intended to function as an excuse for historical fiction.

And all that is the lore, the canon of the series. And one thing, you say story matters yet say AC's conspiracy elements is nothing but an exuse to make historical fiction. You do know we relive memories to accomplish something in MD, that's the story. The narrative of the series.


None of the developers seriously believe that Assassins and Templars actually ever existed as post-Crusades secret societies, or that they control the world or can control the world.

Thank you Captain Obvious for saving the day.


It was only there to facilitate video game elements and provide a set of goals. The Templars and the Assassins such as they are, are merely metaphors that symbolize something that is appealing and compelling. Like in AC2, it symbolizes the Renaissance, in AC3, it symbolizes the striving for freedom and equality, against oppression.

And that's where the lore/canon/story comes in.


In Rogue and Unity, the Assassins and Templars merely stand for themselves, so that's why they suck.

Rogue has the creed used as a policy of aggression and unrestricted power(Assassin view) and from the Templar view it's about building a new wold in the new wold. Safety and order, against chaos and anarchy. You know, showing the other side of the coin. Something AC3 and and partly Black Flag did.

"In art, in movies or in any long-running challenges, ambition is about pushing the boundaries and doing something nobody did before." Seeing as only Rogue is a Templar game and only it deal with the Creed used that way I'd say it classify, it did something the other games lacked the balls to do.

Unity is a complete mess. It's harder to pin point because it mess up both factions. But in short it's about extremist, fanatics and moderates.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 10:57 PM
I'm not saying it's okay for devs to lie, just recognizing that it happens with each and every game. Every single game in this series has promised something it ultimately could not deliver. Why is Unity being singled out as if it was the first and only one?

Because it never actually showed the effort of fulfilling its promise.


Yeah, but that's another subject onto itself. Unity was ambitious, that much cannot be denied. The original idea would have had us explore Paris in multiple different timelines, possibly with multiple protagonists, which is more ambitious than any AC project thus far.

And they chickened out and made a dumber game. If Unity made the original concept and fell flat on their face, it would be worthy of being saved. After all, you can't say that UNITY justifies the wisdom of backing out of ambitious ideas since they failed to achieve modest goals.


We've had this discussion before. I don't feel like repeating myself, so I'll just say I think you are completely, utterly wrong to claim that none of the other games' marketing lied. Yes, even Syndicate lied by promising a modern day that hardcore fans would be really happy with.

No what they said was that it would be more than Unity, and it was more than Unity. Whether fans would like it or not was never something they said.


So why did you bring up professional reviews when Wolfmeister and I were clearly talking about the hardcore fans on these forums?

Because some reviewers are also fans. Such as Stephen Totilo of Kotaku...


"Us", as in we, the community, the forum members, the hardcore fans. We already know how professional game reviewers feel about AC in general, how they've felt about the series for years. So far, from what I've seen, the fan reception - here, on Reddit, Twitter etc. - to Syndicate appears to be quite positive, so I hope you won't go claiming six months from now that everyone hated Syndicate at release.

No, I will say the general reception of Syndicate was "Better than Unity" (aka faint praise) and "Victorian London, though...", it's generally been positive but no one's making grand claims for the game.


And in the dictionary a work is called ambitious if it's (emphasis mine)

Here's the best description of ambition:
"Those who eternally strive upwards/Them can we save" -- Goethe, Faust, Part Two

In art, in movies or in any long-running challenges, ambition is about pushing the boundaries and doing something nobody did before. That's how AC got made in the first place since Patrice Desilets decided that these side characters for a Prince of Persia game could headline their own title and he made something new. It's how AC3 got made or Black Flag.


Obviously we read it a different way, then. Maybe because you seem to enjoy all the bloat that made the previous games so easy, whereas I was happy to see some modicum of challenge return by taking them away.

I would prefer they make it in-depth by featuring tougher enemies and actual stakes in social stealth but whatever. Until they introduce stuff like destroying evidence, timing killings and bodies, wearing costumes suited to environment, picking up accents and body language to disguise and blend-in, the best is like the rest. It doesn't matter if the combat-stealth of Unity whatever false-sense-of-challenge it may provide is "harder" (i.e. more complcated and irritating) than other games, it's basically the same.

SixKeys
10-26-2015, 11:13 PM
No what they said was that it would be more than Unity, and it was more than Unity. Whether fans would like it or not was never something they said.

I have video footage of them saying just that at the Gamescom Q&A I attended with one of the developers if you'd like proof. They also repeated the same sentiment in many interviews pre-launch when questioned about modern day.



Because some reviewers are also fans. Such as Stephen Totilo of Kotaku...

Stephen Totilo is registered here on the forums? I had no idea. :rolleyes:



Here's the best description of ambition:
"Those who eternally strive upwards/Them can we save" -- Goethe, Faust, Part Two

Lightrey?



In art, in movies or in any long-running challenges, ambition is about pushing the boundaries and doing something nobody did before. That's how AC got made in the first place since Patrice Desilets decided that these side characters for a Prince of Persia game could headline their own title and he made something new. It's how AC3 got made or Black Flag.

Not sure what your definition of "never been done before" is since you brought up AC4. It was pretty much a straight-up modern interpretation of Sid Meyer's Pirates with some classic AC gameplay thrown in. By your definition Spielberg would also appear to be more ambitious than Martin Scorcese, since I'm pretty sure Scorcese never tried to bring dinosaurs to life with groundbreaking computer technology. :rolleyes: ;)

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 11:22 PM
Changing Battle of Bunker Hill to winter for an illusion of more battles is purposeful misleading. Heck, that happened like 4-5 months before release of the game, there's no way at that point they would think, 'maybe we'll have some famous winter battle in the game actually' without having anything to possibly show for it.

Well okay I will give you that, but you know they wanted to show that they have winter and they do have winter. Having an actual winter battle would have been a huge stretch since there were no major winter battles (you had that in Quebec which we don't see), that's what Valley Forge was, it was about attrition and maintaining the army and fighting spirit during the winter.


AC3 marketing and Unity marketing were not that far apart in that regard.

It was far apart in the regard that counts. AC3 didn't lie about its essences which Unity definitely did. For one thing the developers and the title Unity promised Assassins and Templars teaming up, and in the game it's Arno, his Hot Templar girlfriend hunting down even worse Templars. We were told that the story would be complex and that while the history was in the background, the background was well fair and objective. Not one of that was true.

I feel again that people are equivocating so as to pardon and whitewash Unity, they say it was ambitious by a really wide and broad definition (by which the latest Call of Duty game is ambitious, as is Aliens Colonial Marines), they say that the game's marketing didn't lie worse than other games, when it clearly did.


There was content created for both specifically or for some early concepts (winter battle in AC3, Elise execution in ACU) that never happened in game, both marketing campaigns painted their main characters differently in their promotional E3 walkthroughs ('let the patriots fight their battles' is something the Connor we have in AC3 just wouldn't have had said), voice overs in trailers focusing on things that actually don't really matter that much in the game proper (in one of the trailers Connor says how he is torn between wanting to driving and repelling outsiders away and being an outsider, that's never actually a proper plot point in the game). AC3 didn't meet expectations set by marketing, as marketing has set a whole different set of expectations.

My favorite bit of trailer-specific Connor dialogue they removed was, "I have known a world of true freedom, peace and beauty...that was taken from me." I think it was the first trailer that showed Kid Connor. They even included the Forsaken soliloquy at the Story or Launch Trailer, "I realize now that it will take time..." which they cut from the final game.

This doesn't bother me because it's common for trailers to feature cut dialogues and stuff that's not in the actual film, game and the like. It only bothers me if the cut dialogue is superior to anything in the game, like Rogue had that badass "What matters is I followed my own creed" for the teaser and the game did not live up to it.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 11:26 PM
Not sure what your definition of "never been done before" is since you brought up AC4. It was pretty much a straight-up modern interpretation of Sid Meyer's Pirates with some classic AC gameplay thrown in.

Actually no. It was a much more accurate and deconstructionist look at pirate stories than Sid Meier or most games before. Sid Meier's Pirates for instance makes zero mention of slavery and its connection to that time and place. It didn't even have any black characters.


...since I'm pretty sure Scorcese never tried to bring dinosaurs to life with groundbreaking computer technology

He used groundbreaking technology to make Paris in 3D, with Hugo, which manages to somehow feel French while still having English accents. ;)

SixKeys
10-26-2015, 11:41 PM
I feel again that people are equivocating so as to pardon and whitewash Unity, they say it was ambitious by a really wide and broad definition (by which the latest Call of Duty game is ambitious, as is Aliens Colonial Marines), they say that the game's marketing didn't lie worse than other games, when it clearly did.

Not sure about CoD, but Aliens: Colonial Marines was definitely over-ambitious. It also lied way more than any AC game in its promotional materials, which included making an entire pre-rendered demo for E3 which was absolutely nothing like the final game. Just like you defended AC3's marketing though, I'm pretty sure the Aliens devs were equally sure they weren't being misleading because they were certain they were going to be able to live up to the expectations set by that demo. Obviously that didn't happen, but if good intentions absolve devs of all responsibility for how the final product turns out, then I don't see why you're being so harsh on Unity but not on any of the other games. It doesn't matter that AC3 devs promised naval freeroam just a few months before release, all that matters is that they really, really wanted to make it happen but couldn't. :rolleyes: Just like Unity really, really wanted to impress us with co-op but couldn't.

Farlander1991
10-26-2015, 11:41 PM
Well okay I will give you that, but you know they wanted to show that they have winter and they do have winter.

Uh, so you want to say, that after showing winter numerous of times, they put the only really massive battle they have into winter mode to show off winter? :rolleyes: Yeah, right :p


they say it was ambitious by a really wide and broad definition

No offense, but I stated several times all the numerous reasons of how and why Unity was an ambitious project, most of which you've quite frankly dismissed as not being good enough for you. Which honestly in my opinion is none other than your personal bias against Unity speaking. I mean, as a game developer, I like to think that my word regarding what is ambitious in games holds at least some weight due to my experience in the field (I mean, you can't compare it to the veterans like Warren Specter, Richard Garriott and the likes, but still), but when that concrete and argumented word is regarded as 'meeeh', it is quite strange and a bit unpleasant to see in the future complaints about really wide and broad definition of ambition. This looks like cherry picking to keep your arguments and distaste of Unity afloat.

VestigialLlama4
10-26-2015, 11:45 PM
Obviously that didn't happen, but if good intentions absolve devs of all responsibility for how the final product turns out, then I don't see why you're being so harsh on Unity but not on any of the other games.

I actually don't think Unity was made with good intentions. Neither was Rogue for that matter. It was made to be a throwaway game for an annual release, that provided a basic Template for further games rather than contribute anything really new.


It doesn't matter that AC3 devs promised naval freeroam just a few months before release, all that matters is...

...is that they told us before release it wasn't in the game. That's what I meant by being honest.

SixKeys
10-26-2015, 11:55 PM
...is that they told us before release it wasn't in the game. That's what I meant by being honest.

Did they also tell us that they cut all the random events before release? Did they tell us there weren't four seasons like they showed? Did they tell us that there was actually only one major battle in the game and it played nothing like how they made it look in trailers? (Being able to charge head-on into an army of redcoats and interact with them, instead of the army essentially being a pre-rendered background object that you couldn't get close to.)

VestigialLlama4
10-27-2015, 12:00 AM
Uh, so you want to say, that after showing winter numerous of times, they put the only really massive battle they have into winter mode to show off winter?

It was a brief image in a trailer. To make trailers they use available footage that can be salvaged without spoiling the main game. It's just that when I followed AC3's promotion I was a new fan of that time, I wasn't even posting here then, and to me I didn't pore over all that. I didn't care for the setting of America because I didn't think the American Revolution was interesting, at that time, and I didn't like the idea of a Native American fighting for the Patriots, but the developers said it was complex so the actual game was pretty surprising and I felt that Ubisoft rewarded my faith. So that's why I don't think they lied about the game at all.

Corey May refused to talk about the villains early on and that's one thing to consider about AC3's promotion, the spoiler factor. The identities of all the Templars were spoilers right through development and promotion so that might be why the trailers had to hide and decieve, whereas that didn't exist with Unity, aside from Germain (and you saw him in the trailers anyway).


No offense, but I stated several times all the numerous reasons of how and why Unity was an ambitious project, most of which you've quite frankly dismissed as not being good enough for you. Which honestly in my opinion is none other than your personal bias against Unity speaking. I mean, as a game developer, I like to think that my word regarding what is ambitious in games holds at least some weight due to my experience in the field

Well I apologize for that. I do think however that for a big AAA company like Ubisoft with its army of studios, to do a Next-Gen launch with a game that is essentially a technical demonstration is not acceptable. After all, "From those who have more, more will be expected."

I have a great deal of respect for the craftmanship for Unity, making Paris in Next-Gen, the 1:1 interiors and all this hard work, it's just that it's not in service to anything that really makes it worthwhile and that's a big waste of that talent and resources, and the fault for that lies not with them but with the creative side.


Did they tell us that there was actually only one major battle in the game

One major battle?! There's four major battles. Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, Monmouth and Chesapeake Bay.


(Being able to charge head-on into an army of redcoats and interact with them, instead of the army essentially being a pre-rendered background object that you couldn't get close to.)

Well in Brotherhood, you don't have Ezio charge Cesare and Rodrigo in broad daylight in a carriage during a public procession either like they do in the CGI trailer. Did Brotherhood lie, no it didn't. It's dramatizing for poetic effect.

After all charging headlong into an army of redcoats can only be meaningfully interacted in one way...instant death. It would have been unbelievably if you did what you did in the trailer in the game.

Hans684
10-27-2015, 06:38 AM
Having silly earthquake machines for an excuse to make the Assassins "evil" and an annoying and biased protagonist isn't really ambitious.

AC has always been silly, so don't be silly yourself and deny that. Shay is more humane and emphatic that Connor, as far as I'm concerned he's the only Colonial Assassin in Achillies Brotherhood that isn't a fanatic and extremist blindly following the truth. "Where other men blindly follows the truth, remember..." "...nothing us true." You could say he's a living incarnation of the Creed and how to follow it, according to the Creed you should be wise. Always question everything and don't blindly follow anything because there isn't any single truths, it's all about perspective. There is no path trough life that's fair and does no harm, do you truly believe that?


I'm glad the other games lack the "balls" to do such things.

It's the only game where the Templars and straight up heroes(except the first two assassinations).
It's the only game with the Creed being used as a policy of aggression and unrestricted power.
It's the only game that connects almost everything in the series(fan service, something Syndicate hypocritically gets away with)
It's the only game that focus on the Templar ideology practically as we play a Master Templar working in the field.
It's the only Templar game.

Tell me, how much do the other games have in common with Rogue.


I expected an interesting Templar game. Someone who actually believed in the cause (see Haytham) and wasn't just butthurt because he wasn't told everything.

But Shay does believe in it, the fact that both the colonies authority and the Assassins oppressing the people us why. Along with the fact that Monro and Gist explained the goals and how they work. Don't make me quote anything from the because you don't remember anything.


Rogue should have been the real concluding chapter to the Kenway Saga, playing as Haytham when he hunted down the Assassins and eradicated the Colonial Brotherhood.

So taking away one character. Won't change that much.


No silly justifications as to why, but just because they were his enemies and he was looking for the Precursor sites.

Sorry to burst your bubble but neither Shay or Haytham are fanatics, Haytham wrote about wanting unity before the purge. Shay was forced to hunt his former friends, he regretted every kill, asked for forgiveness, said sorry(to all except Chevalier) along with showing Achilles mercy because he was a Mentor without a brotherhood and power.


Now that would have been an interesting game

Subjective and wishful thinking.

VestigialLlama4
10-27-2015, 07:19 AM
AC has always been silly, so don't be silly yourself and deny that. Shay is more humane and emphatic that Connor,

He served alongside slaveowners and war criminals, nothing humane about that.


It's the only game where the Templars and straight up heroes(except the first two assassinations).

It's also a game that whitewashes them to an absurd degree mostly because Ubisoft really doesn't want you to play as a bad guy and do straight up evil things. So that's why you have a contrived situation where a bunch of white men decide to hunt down those multi-franchise Assassins because what happens when you put a black man in charge is that the world will crumble.


It's the only game that connects almost everything in the series(fan service, something Syndicate hypocritically gets away with)

Syndicate actually deals with the Assassins and Templars more comprehensively and it also has a more interesting criticism of the Assassins and how they function than what you see in Rogue or Unity.


Tell me, how much do the other games have in common with Rogue.

They have absolutely nothing in common with Rogue, considering all of them are better games.


Haytham are fanatics...

A man who decides to serve an organization after it lied, betrayed, manipulated him, and destroyed his family, who decides to kill his own son for the sake of the advancement of a rank incompetent, can only be called a fanatic.


Subjective and wishful thinking.

Please look up projection in defense mechanisms and try and understand what that means.


Oh, well, if giving a good speech is a measure of good character development, I suppose AC2 Ezio is one of the deepest, best developed characters in the entire series.

Well a good speech is one of the ways you can put across a deeper perspective and get you to relate or see the characters in a proper light. Especially when a speech expresses a general viewpoint well. Ezio's Bonfire speech defines what the Assassin's actually believe and stand for, Black Bart's speech defines the whole era of piracy and why people chose to be pirates rather than "common men".

Syndicate has a speech much like this. It's by Crawford Starrick and it puts across the Templar perspective:

Gentlemen. This tea was brought to me from India by a ship, then, up from the harbor to a factory, where it was packaged and ferried by carriage to my door, unpacked in the larder and brought upstairs to me. All by men and women who work for me. Who are indebted to me, Crawford Starrick, for their jobs, their time, the very lives they lead. They will work in my factories and so too shall their children

Is Crawford Starrick a deep character, not really, but that speech expresses his ideas and views perfectly and defines the general perspective of Victorian capitalism and colonialism well. It's more effective to write speeches like this than merely spout "May the Father of yada yada yada...nothing is true blah blah blah..."

jeepstyles
10-27-2015, 02:14 PM
I'm so happy there isn't a companion app

cawatrooper9
10-27-2015, 02:40 PM
I'm so happy there isn't a companion app

Congratulations on a very accurate first post, and welcome to the forums!

Hans684
10-27-2015, 05:12 PM
He served alongside slaveowners and war criminals, nothing humane about that.

No different than the Assassins then.


It's also a game that whitewashes them to an absurd degree mostly because Ubisoft really doesn't want you to play as a bad guy and do straight up evil things.

Because not all Templars are evil, as for whitewashing. It's no different than AC2, ACB and ACS.


So that's why you have a contrived situation where a bunch of white men decide to hunt down those multi-franchise Assassins because what happens when you put a black man in charge is that the world will crumble.

They wasn't hunted for being multi-franchise and having a black leader. Your "jobb" here as an SJW is getting to your head mate, and the blind support of Assassins. "Where other men bill follows the truth, remember..." "...nothing is true."


Syndicate actually deals with the Assassins and Templars more comprehensively and it also has a more interesting criticism of the Assassins and how they function than what you see in Rogue or Unity.

Rogue deals with the Creed being used as a policy of aggression and unrestricted power. It's the only game that does it.


They have absolutely nothing in common with Rogue, considering all of them are better games.

Never harbor hate, it will cloud your judgment. So give me reasons to take you completely serious before replying next, instead of *****ing about a game that ruins your hero fantasy.


A man who decides to serve an organization after it lied, betrayed, manipulated him, and destroyed his family, who decides to kill his own son for the sake of the advancement of a rank incompetent, can only be called a fanatic.

Avenged his father, saved his sister, killed his GM, offered his son unity between the orders and sacrificed himself because he couldn't kill his own son.


Please look up projection in defense mechanisms and try and understand what that means.

Says you...

VestigialLlama4
10-27-2015, 05:36 PM
Your "jobb" here as an SJW...

Thanks for clarifying your opinion on Syndicate.

Hans684
10-27-2015, 06:52 PM
Thanks for clarifying your opinion on Syndicate.

Brotherhood isn't among my top favorites, so don't get the wrong ideas.