View Full Version : AC2 weapons

03-27-2010, 04:13 PM
I would just like to say who screwed up the weapons system in the game?

back in the Renaissance most people didn't carry just one weapon they carried one for their main hand maybe another one for the off-hand or a shield and almost always another dagger for emergincies

in AC2 everyone just has one sword or hammer

also I would just like to point out that in the AC2 movie I guess you would call it one person had a sword breaker and another person had a flameberge two weapons I would have really like to have seen in the game are gone.

if the game was trying to be historically accurate then why didn't they spend more times on the weapons. They even took some animations from the first game to it was a little bit lazy of them

03-27-2010, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by monkeyuncle8:
in AC2 everyone just has one sword or hammer

Except "someone" who is carrying both sword and a dagger (Sometimes even a claymore), 25 throwing knives, two blades in his sleeves and a flintlock pistol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

03-27-2010, 05:40 PM
Gekkibi you forgot to mention poison http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

03-27-2010, 07:00 PM
I know ezio, but I am talking about most other characters and seriously why can't we use a small knife and a sword at the same time, that was the fighting stile during the renaissance and ubisoft killed it

03-27-2010, 07:04 PM
Well, other people somehow inherited curse of Altair. The allergy against water!

Shouldn't they fixed THAT before even bothering with dual wielded weapons?

03-27-2010, 07:09 PM
no actually that was perfectly logical, because even if the guards chased you in water how would they attack. They would have to make weapon animations all over again, and even then it probably wouldn't look any good. Can you imagine someone swinging a sword in water?

I am just talking about the option to have something for the off hand which would require a heck of a lot less animation.

And ubisoft wanted a historically accurate game so why did they just give up on the combat

04-02-2010, 01:08 AM
Dude, swinging a sword while under water is hard. But if you can imagine swinging downward while above the water [you can wade around with one arm] you can indeed attack while in the water. Plus, let's not forget the great and simple action of stabbing. And I also concur about the topic in discussion. They should've researched the use of weapons more accurately in that time period. We should've been able to wield and use two weapons at once. Examples: two swords; two knives; a sword and dagger; a sword/dagger and forearm pistol; a sword/dagger and hidden blade; a hidden blade and forearm pistol; a forearm pistol and poison blade; sword/dagger/pistol/hidden blade and smoke bomb; throwing knives and sword/dagger/pistol/hidden blade. I mean, the combinations are numerous. It's an obvious next step from AC1 to AC2, but they didn't make it. I hope they understand that making AC better means making the combat system better. I mean, let's be real. The story is a big part of it as well. But what really makes you play AC? It's the action I'm sure.

04-02-2010, 01:56 AM
Stop complaining, combat is almost perfect in AC2, the choice of hidden dagger, dagger, sword, knuckels and pistol is already more than enough.

On the matter of water. Dont you think Ezio should have drowned if he dived into the water in armor? No? Why dont you try that in real life then? Well, okay, SOMEHOW he may be strong enough to stay afloat, but think what would happen to the guards?

04-02-2010, 02:03 AM
Guards don't live long enough to make use duel weilding anyway!

I would like to have seen it with Ezio but then you'd have to double the amount of guards because you'd kill them even faster.

Logistically it would be pointless but fun none the less!

04-03-2010, 02:24 PM
@ Riiku2 - The combat was far from perfect in AC2. And you're crazy if you think AC2 was some sort of master piece. It was a good game, that's for sure, but it's nowhere near perfect my friend, especially the combat system. And I think your nuts if you don't have any wish to add in more weapons.

And yes, if Ezio is wearing enough armor he probably could drown. But considering the fact that would get in the way of the enjoyability of the game, I can understand why they would overlook making that part realistic. What I can't understand for the life of me, for the enjoyability of the game, is why they wouldn't let you take armor off. It's simple things like that that make the game more enjoyable.

@ Robson - Well, obviously if you're carrying two weapons then they would also have to make the guards more formidable to counter that. I mean, it would only be that much easier if the guards were as simple to kill as they are now. But if the guards were smarter, tougher, and were also carrying two weapons, or could also throw knives as Ezio can, it would be that much more challenging. I just think that having the ability to carry two weapons at once in ACII would've made the game much more fun. And the combat system would've been so much more flashy.

04-03-2010, 11:42 PM
I approve of the OP's suggestion.

People did fight single-weapon as well as dual-wielding (it's spelt "dual" by the way - duel is formal combat, not a reference to the number 2), so having the ability to switch between styles would be appreciated.

Would have required far more work than any of you are suggesting though. Redesigning combat to allow for two weapons would be insanely complex. Adding 2-handed weapons allowed the same combat mechanics to be used as for a single one-handed weapon, but two single-handed weapons would require a lot of new mechanics to be added to the game to allow for simultaneous block/strike actions. This would also require far more complex animations once you had two dual-wielding fighters up against one another.

Would have been nice though. Expecially if you could use one or the other hidden blade with another weapon. Main-hand hidden blade with off-hand dagger for defense? I think that would have been cooler than the current "we upgraded the hidden blade so you can block with it" story.

I still think Ezio shouldn't be able to swim with armour - I said before the game came out that I hoped he could only swim in light/no armour. Was disappointed when that wasn't the case. It would have been better if this was the case, and Agile guards could swim, but regular guards drowned - maybe let civilians swim to shore as well, as it stands you can kill them by knocking them into the water. You'd think someone unarmed in normal clothing would do better than the guy wearing steel half-plate, a hooded robe, 26 knives, a sword, two wrist-mounted blades and a gun. Seriously.

04-04-2010, 07:48 AM
@ILLusioNaire so you think it is possible to chase someone in water with one hand while swinging a 20 pound sword, you try that and not drown

and Ezio swimming is very possible mostly because the weight is spread out his body. it would be a lot slower, but it is still possible that he could swim

04-04-2010, 10:28 AM
@ monkeyuncle - "And yes, if Ezio is wearing enough armor he probably could drown. But considering the fact that would get in the way of the enjoyability of the game, I can understand why they would overlook making that part realistic." I said this about a post or two ago. By the way, enjoyability is not a word. But besides that, and to answer your question, yes, I kinda do think Ezio could do that with a twenty pound sword. I have a twenty pound dumbell and I tried swinging it around. I can do it, not with incredible speed, but I can do it. Now I know a blade might indeed be harder to control because it's longer than a dumbell, but considering Ezio's strength I really don't see a problem with him being able to do that. And I do believe there were quite a lot of light weapons back then anyway. I just think though that at least a stabbing action of some sort, what with the hidden blade or dagger if not with a sword, would've been nice to use against guards who could swim after you [if there were such].

04-04-2010, 01:01 PM
well a small dagger may be ok, but with the sword, have you ever tried to hit someone with a noodle in the pool, it is very hard and not much force now imagine that heavier and shorter. And the thing back then is the weapons were so heavy,because they didn't have the materials we have today. fighting with a sword in water would be very awkward and not much force would be behind it, and it would probably kill you before anyone else.

04-05-2010, 11:46 AM
Maybe you're right. But if the blade is sharp enough I don't think it would take much force to pierce flesh, especially if you grab them and thrust it in. But there would really only be one way to find out, at least for me. I would have to try it and see if it works. But since I don't have a sword or a pool, the jury's gonna be out for a long time on this one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

04-05-2010, 02:44 PM
I tried it and the sword is pretty hard and if you just try to grab and stab someone you both sink a bit