View Full Version : Assassin's Creed's combat system is interesting similar to For Honor.

07-17-2016, 12:01 AM
Before you get your pitchforks, I meant the first game specifically, before they changed the style and difficulty in the Ezio Trilogy. :p It's the summer, so I've been playing through old games again to refresh my mind. AC1 is one of those often forgotten gems that has an incomparably thick atmosphere and realism that the later installments started to stray away from in favor of a more artistic, Hollywood action adventure approach. I couldn't decide which forum to post this on, but I thought you guys would be more interested since it's about the combat and I think it would be a great way to expose some people to a new game to play.


The combat system honestly surprised me. Perhaps it's because I'm used to playing the other games for so long, I've forgotten how gripping and down-to-earth the animations and mechanics are. Everything looks and feel reals; the gameplay makes you feel like you are in combat--parrying, feinting, predicting your opponent's next move--and it leaves that satisfying feeling of victory after defeating a Templar... It almost felt like playing For Honor again.

Okay, it's mechanics aren't like For Honor in the way that you have multiple stances for defending and attacking, but the game has everything else going for it. Light and heavy attacks. Parrying, feinting, predicting; the Rock, Paper, Scissors system is there. You and your enemies will constantly try to grab and toss each other around the platform. Counters are not the be-all and end-all since enemies (like the Templars) will adapt and use abilities like Defense Break and grabs to bypass spamming. They can even counter you with abilities like Grab Break. They also use a mix of light and heavy attacks that aren't choreographed(?) by UI or animations, leaving you on the edge like in For Honor. It's crazy to say, but I think AC1 by far has the deepest, most balanced combat system in the series. While AC2 added some new mechanics and improved the weapon variety (AC1 only has swords), its style of approach was simpler and focused more on giving players new fancy ways of taking down the enemies quicker. i.e disarming and smoke bombs. It removed a lot of features and mechanics that made the combat in the original felt like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. This isn't to say that AC1's combat was perfect, as it did have some exploits like tossing an enemy on the ground and switching to the hidden blade for an instant kill, or quickly switching to the dagger and tossing throwing knives at a distance, but for the most part it was never to the degree of making the combat feel broken. Switching to the hidden blade can get you hit since you can't block with it--making it a risk factor--and throwing knives are quite limited.

There isn't much to take away from this, but I thought I'd give my thoughts on it. If you haven't played AC1 and you don't mind stealth games, you should definitely give it a try. The game is very pure, much like For Honor, and the visuals aged pretty well on PC. You can pick it up for less than 5 bucks at most store, so you don't have much to lose. :p

07-18-2016, 09:07 AM
I honestly don't see any similarities other then they are both great innovative combat systems, AC Paved the way for the core combat mechanics of games like the arkham series, and shadow of mordor, i can see For honor being the next great pioneer of combat system's AC series was really great at making you feel like you really are an assassin especially AC1 an For Honor makes people feel like a battle hardened warrior but for me the comparison ends there, when playing assassins creed i never felt like in a one on one experience at least, That i was in any real danger the threat came from the quantity of enemies rather then the quality of them, I do not feel like that will be the case with For Honor, In for honor you feel the threat of the enemy in a one on one encounter an when you got 2 people on you your like damn i have to play smarter now. in AC you can have 10 people on you an as long as your semi good at parrying dodging etc your going to walk away from those fights everytime.

07-18-2016, 10:24 AM
Combat is definitely a lot more robust in For Honor, especially since that's the main focus of the game. Maybe it's just me then, but during a mission towards the end, when Altair invades the battle to get to Robert de Sablé, you're put in a linear mission where you run around the battlefield, fighting waves of troops--navigating past vantage points--to reach your target, it just felt like a mission that would be in For Honor. Especially how you're hacking through troops until you get the generals that negates your counters and toss you around. Granted, I haven't played the SP--only its MP--but it gave me the same vibe from the E3 demos.

07-18-2016, 07:21 PM
I agree, AC1 has my favourite combat system of all the games. I also really like AC3's, but that's mostly thanks to its brilliant animation and creative finishers. I would never compare AC3's combat to For Honor. I really hope that in Empire they go back to something like AC1, where enemies (specifically the Templar knights) could sometimes really pose a challenge, not just because they had massive health (I'm looking at you Syndicate) but because of the abilities they had. In essence, everything that you could do, they could do too. You had to really watch your enemies rather that wait for a red flashing symbol and quickly tap to counter.

In fact I think they could do something really similar to the Art of Battle, with 3 stances for each direction. To counter an enemy you would have to lock onto them and match their direction as they attack (hence making countering less OP but keeping it satisfying). However you can still parry enemies that you are not locked on to by matching the direction they are coming from (as you have to do in AC1) but not counter them. I think out of lock mode it could act similar to Unity's system, with a focus on moving around (feels more assassiny IMO).

AC has always had a combat system designed around more than one enemy, which is why the Art of Battle would need some modification to make it easier to switch between enemies, though I can't help but hope that the next game does take inspiration from it. It is by far the best sword-fighting system I have ever seen and since both titles are made by Ubisoft (Ubisoft Montreal in this case too) I don't see why it couldn't happen, especially since many have been begging for a combat overhaul.

07-18-2016, 09:01 PM
AC1 did have a great combat system, but FH's system is quite different and far more advanced... see the Art of Battle blog post we published a while back:


07-18-2016, 11:09 PM
Oh, that's a great blog! I've had extensive time with both games, so my comparison is more based on how the game felt when playing it, more so than what they look like. I can't speak too much about gameplay due to NDA, but AC1's combat felt similar to using the Warden, especially with how grabbing and tossing is important for environmental damage/kills. From a visual standpoint, they look like different games, but from a gameplay perspective, I felt they had a similar core concept and both executed very familiarly.

Actually, speaking of environmental damage and positioning, I didn't even mention that in the OP. :p In both games, those are important aspects of combat. In AC1, you needed to keep yourself from being backstabbed and as I mentioned in the OP, you and your opponent would try to grab and toss each other around constantly; trying to knock each other off platforms or into breakable constructions. When playing as the Warden, that's generally his specialty; tossing players off platforms, into walls, etc. Although, the demos and stuff don't really show it.