PDA

View Full Version : When did AC stop being a history buff game?



Gold31415
10-27-2015, 01:44 AM
It's like it's turned into a standard Call of Duty experience.

Ever since ACIII, the info panel when approaching a landmark only started appearing once per playthrough, whereas in earlier AC games it would appear every time you loaded the game up and approached the landmark.

I wish you could reset the game in a way that it always flashes the info panel when you approach a landmark.

It's like Ubisoft stopped catering AC games to (amongst others) history buffs and decided to appeal more to the CoD crowd.

whatr_those
10-27-2015, 03:28 AM
When it became mainstream.

Now, the game is just a brand; Ubisoft no longer has to churn out good games to earn revenue; the games sell well just by being titled 'Assassin's Creed', so why put any effort into making good games, right? (Rhetorical question; I'm kidding, of course.)

Xstantin
10-27-2015, 04:09 AM
The whole Nostradamus puzzle thing in Unity revolved around reading the riddle and database to look for the landmark, if that cuts it for "historical buff game". Looks like they actually wanted you to read the database and you could also read the names/database entries for most of landmarks by highlighting waypoints on the map iirc

Syndicate seems to be doing just fine with landmarks being recognizable so far as well (like Whitechapel has two and they're pretty obvious and easy to remember)

D.I.D.
10-27-2015, 06:39 AM
Brotherhood was the last one that constantly introduced you to the history and encouraged you to read it (and had Shaun tell you a few things in speech). Revelations made it an opt-in thing, and I think it cut down the amount of information available to be read, too. While AC3 put a lot of historical events into the story itself, the change was complete by then. Unity made the database essential for any completionists, as KEVT2011 mentions above, so it's not all lost.

I think it's still a great game series for history buffs, though. I miss the way the games used to treat the player with more intelligence, but there's a lot more detail in the worlds now than there ever was in the old ones. I'm looking forward to playing Syndicate and seeing it for myself, but the stuff I saw in the videos looked very well done (if a little underpopulated and lacking in street filth, but that's a resource problem rather than one of intention, I expect).

VestigialLlama4
10-27-2015, 07:00 AM
It's like Ubisoft stopped catering AC games to (amongst others) history buffs and decided to appeal more to the CoD crowd.

That's been the case since 2014, last year with Rogue-Unity. Syndicate is a little better, the databases are longer and better written, and actually contains accurate information instead of the vicious garbage you saw in Unity.


Brotherhood was the last one that constantly introduced you to the history and encouraged you to read it (and had Shaun tell you a few things in speech). Revelations made it an opt-in thing, and I think it cut down the amount of information available to be read, too. While AC3 put a lot of historical events into the story itself, the change was complete by then.

Actually Revelations had very detailed, highly accurate and well-written databases written by Clay Kaczmarek/Subject 16. He's quite funny as well. So the database had the additional value of giving you a sense of Clay's character and quirks as well.

Assassin's Creed III's database was interesting in that it constantly updated as the story progressed, and featured newer information. It was also, far and away, the longest and most extensive database.

I don't think the database being necessary for completing side-missions is catering to historical buffs, it defeats the original purpose of it, which was a cool bonus for people to check out and see for themselves about the places and match it to reality, and check their facts. Unity may have made it essential but its database contained almost entirely wrong information, misleading lies and basically dampens Shaun's credibility. He's supposed to be this arch historian and he's not correcting any of this.

The only game where I didn't check the database was Black Flag, except for the sea shanties. The main reason is that the context and situation is explained clearly within the game itself. But even there it contained interesting stuff, like it explained what Adewale did after Edward got betrayed by Black Bart.

cawatrooper9
10-27-2015, 02:58 PM
The whole Nostradamus puzzle thing in Unity revolved around reading the riddle and database to look for the landmark, if that cuts it for "historical buff game". Looks like they actually wanted you to read the database and you could also read the names/database entries for most of landmarks by highlighting waypoints on the map iirc

For real, the Nostradamus puzzles really challenged you on your history buff skills. Not only did you have to solve a riddle and what it referred to, but then you had to know where the landmark actually was. I couldn't even do a similar puzzle in the city that I live in, and I'm pretty sure Dan Brown is the only guy who could complete those puzzles without a walkthrough.

But yeah, as pretentious as this question is, I think the database entries thing became far less prominent by ACIII, when the cities and architecture of Europe were more traded for the events of the 1770s.