PDA

View Full Version : No free-aiming



ProletariatPleb
04-06-2012, 07:06 AM
Hey there guys, I couldn't find a thread on this, so I started my own, I was listening to this podcast:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/podcasts/archive/2012/04/05/special-edition-podcast-assassins-creed-3.aspx

And starting from around 25:36 is the question about what kind of aiming mechanic will be used.

Alex replied that they don't want it to be like a third person shooter with a recticle or over the shoulder thing, so the system is "along the lines of previous AC long range combat" but added some options where on target the player decides to shoot.

Thoughts?

MetalCreed
04-06-2012, 07:12 AM
Dammit Ubisoft.

Calvarok
04-06-2012, 07:16 AM
More than I expected. I'm glad that it's not twitch-based, but that there is some element of fidelity. Hopefully animations are different depending on where you hit them. also hopefully you can just wound by shooting the leg or arm.

EDIT: MetalCreed, I fail to see why free-aiming is necessary in AC. It's more of a close combat game, after all.

KrYpToNiC95
04-06-2012, 07:17 AM
Really disappointed, I was hoping for a Skyrim style system with archery. It seems that it will be like the hidden gun where you will just hold it down for the aim with an instant kill. I also heard that you can now aim at certain parts of the body but if you just hold it down it seems very bland. Very little skill involved and you don't get that sense of accomplishment when you hit a really hard shot. Perhaps it could be difficult but from the sounds of it seems pretty easy.

Calvarok
04-06-2012, 07:20 AM
Lol, really? Why on earth would you expect free-aiming? AC is not about free-aming.

MetalCreed
04-06-2012, 07:25 AM
Really disappointed, I was hoping for a Skyrim style system with archery. It seems that it will be like the hidden gun where you will just hold it down for the aim with an instant kill. I also heard that you can now aim at certain parts of the body but if you just hold it down it seems very bland. Very little skill involved and you don't get that sense of accomplishment when you hit a really hard shot. Perhaps it could be difficult but from the sounds of it seems pretty easy.
This is what I had in mind too..
I mean a stealthy Assassin has got to make you feel like one. Just pressing one ****on and killing someone off sounds too...Easy..

frogger504
04-06-2012, 07:28 AM
I'm glad, like they said, it is an Assassin shooting, it is part of the story that he is skilled, it isn't like RPGs where you have to do it with your own skill and that reflects on the character.

It is supposed to be easy. It isn't those types of games where combat is difficult and you are an unskilled character, you are playing as Master Assassins. Not just any person.

When an Assassin shoots you, he won't miss.

Calvarok
04-06-2012, 07:28 AM
Umm... even with a free-aiming system you're just pressing one ****on. and besides, with assassination's you're just pressing one ****on. Assassin's creed has never been about a complicated manuver of ****ons and thumbsticks simply to kill someone.

frogger504
04-06-2012, 07:30 AM
Umm... even with a free-aiming system you're just pressing one ****on. and besides, with assassination's you're just pressing one ****on. Assassin's creed has never been about a complicated manuver of ****ons and thumbsticks simply to kill someone.

Exactly.

MetalCreed
04-06-2012, 07:31 AM
Still though, makes using cool weapons less cool.

GeneralTrumbo
04-06-2012, 07:32 AM
Lol, really? Why on earth would you expect free-aiming? AC is not about free-aming.
Because they should be amping up difficulty, not keeping it just as easy.

Calvarok
04-06-2012, 07:32 AM
There are games you can play if you want to be stealthy and free-aim with guns. this series fills a different niche.

GeneralTrumbo
04-06-2012, 07:35 AM
There are games you can play if you want to be stealthy and free-aim with guns. this series fills a different niche.
Assassinations take skill. It should involve skill.

frogger504
04-06-2012, 07:35 AM
Still though, makes using cool weapons less cool.

Not really, it would slow down the gameplay a lot, it'd be a drastic change in gameplay and wouldn't even be AC if you had to freeaim. Especially with the weapons of those times, it wouldn't be worth having them.

Calvarok
04-06-2012, 07:38 AM
Assassinations take skill. It should involve skill.
Is it really that much more skill, though? It's unnecessary clumsiness. AC1 was difficult, and it had no free-aiming. How was it still difficult? Enemies did lots of damage if you didn't fight them properly and know when to run away, ammunition was limited, and various other factors. These are things that they're doing. Soldiers have real stopping power now, with their guns, so you can't just waltz into the middle of a ridiculously large group of them. And they have stated that they are working to limit ammo, and reload times are longer for connor's guns, as well.

GeneralTrumbo
04-06-2012, 07:43 AM
Not really, it would slow down the gameplay a lot, it'd be a drastic change in gameplay and wouldn't even be AC if you had to freeaim. Especially with the weapons of those times, it wouldn't be worth having them.
They have already made drastic changes in gameplay. This would just be another. I like change to my games.

frogger504
04-06-2012, 08:01 AM
They have already made drastic changes in gameplay. This would just be another. I like change to my games.

Not much though. specifically this change would be too much, it would literally change the way AC is and plays.

AC in general doesn't recquire outstanding skill and isn't a shooter game to add freeroaming. As I said before, we play as a Master Assassin and the ranged weapons are bad enough as it is. Assassins are skilled and it would make no sense to make it so that the player has to aim for an Assassin, it would also cater too much for the ranged weapons and slow down the game a lot. The bow acan't be used in battle as it is, freeaiming or not, the flintlocks are just that, they won't do much more than one shot per battle. You are supposed to play in real time with offensive speed. You simply pull out the pistol as a quick sidearm, dispatch of a single enemy and keep moving. It isn't like we are handling machine guns and enemies are going to be standing still for us to shoot them. Making us freeaim would be changing the entire way the game is played.

Timeaus
04-06-2012, 08:10 AM
I'm ok with not having free-aim in the game, AC has never been about free-aim I think that is what set it about from other games. The purpose of the game is to make you feel like a BA assassin. I mean I have enough free-aiming in other games well pretty all other games have free aiming. But I'm also ok if they put free-aiming in the game, it doesn't really matter to me. The game is already too awesome regardless if it had free-aiming or not and I'm not gonna let small things like these effect my experience with the game.

Sushiglutton
04-06-2012, 08:56 AM
I'm disapointed. Especially when Alex says it's important all range weapons play consistently. I think that has been a problem in past games that the range weapons are too similar. I'd prefer if the bow was free-aimed. It's a long range weapon and it would be satisying to make those "sniper kills". And animal hunting would make a lot more sense if the player was actually doing the aiming. Otherwise I don't really see the point. Like you see a deer, push a ****on and it's dead?

eagleforlife1
04-06-2012, 09:08 AM
Really disappointed with this. I think the thing I hated most about the previous AC games was this auto-aim insta-kill thing.

CrazySN
04-06-2012, 09:41 AM
Aww, I was kinda hoping that aiming the bow in AC3, would be like aiming the batarang in Batman AC. It would've been really cool, but I guess it would've made the game too easy.

Noble6
04-06-2012, 10:43 AM
This is the first time I am really dissapointed in what I heard from this game. I mean why in hel they can't give players more controll of the game . Now shooting is just a kill-one-enemy-or-animal-but.ton even with the bow. I can understand pistols but...
Well the game did sound too perfect.:p

I'm disapointed. Especially when Alex says it's important all range weapons play consistently. I think that has been a problem in past games that the range weapons are too similar. I'd prefer if the bow was free-aimed. It's a long range weapon and it would be satisying to make those "sniper kills". And animal hunting would make a lot more sense if the player was actually doing the aiming. Otherwise I don't really see the point. Like you see a deer, push a ****on and it's dead?

I couldn't agree more. I

De Filosoof
04-06-2012, 10:56 AM
Good:).

I think it will be a much more satisfying sight to see an arrow piercing someone's skull with a nice bending movement than shooting someone with a gun.
I don't care if it's auto aim or not. AC is all about the flow;).

De Filosoof
04-06-2012, 11:00 AM
This is the first time I am really dissapointed in what I heard from this game. I mean why in hel they can't give players more controll of the game . Now shooting is just a kill-one-enemy-or-animal-but.ton even with the bow. I can understand pistols but...
Well the game did sound too perfect.:p


I couldn't agree more. I

So you're suggesting that auto-aim for guns is ok but not for your primary weapon, the bow?
Sounds like pretty unbalanced gameplay to me.

AC is not about shooting, the main focus is close combat.
There are enough shooting games out there.
I like the AC style.

kosmoscreed
04-06-2012, 11:26 AM
I don't mind either, guns and stuff didn't have free-aiming in the other games, so I don't see why it should be here.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 11:44 AM
I'm glad. I sincerely doubt full-on free aiming would be enjoyable or even work well. You need to be able to use ranged weapons quickly and effectively and in third person that's a lot harder with free aim.

CrazySN
04-06-2012, 11:55 AM
A lot of us did expect free-aiming, since after all, as the AC games progressively get to the modern-era, they will have to put free-aiming in eventually. It's not like free-aiming would ruin the close-combat gameplay either, since the Batman Arkham games had free-aiming, and both Batman and AC gameplay are quite similar.

Noble6
04-06-2012, 12:08 PM
So you're suggesting that auto-aim for guns is ok but not for your primary weapon, the bow?Sounds like pretty unbalanced gameplay to me.AC is not about shooting, the main focus is close combat.There are enough shooting games out there.I like the AC style.Pistols have much smaller range so I'm ok with them used like hidden gun. Instead bow(or rifle) is not meant to be used in close quater combat so I would prefer it to be aimable so shooting would take bit more time and there would be possibility to miss the target. I don't want the bow work just like crossbow in the previcious games. But what can I do if Ubisoft wants the game attract masses(by keeping it simple).

I don't think hunting can be fun with auto-aim.

Sushiglutton
04-06-2012, 12:19 PM
So you're suggesting that auto-aim for guns is ok but not for your primary weapon, the bow?
Sounds like pretty unbalanced gameplay to me.

AC is not about shooting, the main focus is close combat.
There are enough shooting games out there.
I like the AC style.

If you by "unbalanced" mean that different weapons would be good for different tasks, then yeah. But to me that is a good thing. The guns you could quickfire in a fight, by a simple tap. But you wouldn't be able to hit long range enemies with them (besides they are noisy). The bow is a very clumsy weapon for short range, so you bring it out for long range, stealthy kills. And in that scenario a free-aim makes a lot of sense.

Sushiglutton
04-06-2012, 12:19 PM
Pistols have much smaller range so I'm ok with them used like hidden gun. Instead bow(or rifle) is not meant to be used in close quater combat so I would prefer it to be aimable so shooting would take bit more time and there would be possibility to miss the target. I don't want the bow work just like crossbow in the previcious games. But what can I do if Ubisoft wants the game attract masses(by keeping it simple).

I don't think hunting can be fun with auto-aim.

You beat me to it :).

DavisP92
04-06-2012, 01:04 PM
I don't mind either, guns and stuff didn't have free-aiming in the other games, so I don't see why it should be here.

with that state of mind, then why should there be duel wielding combat, hunting, parkour on trees, or even weather because it wasn't in the other games. sometimes it is nice to take new directions in a game (add new things).



I'm glad. I sincerely doubt full-on free aiming would be enjoyable or even work well. You need to be able to use ranged weapons quickly and effectively and in third person that's a lot harder with free aim.

i think if Ubisoft were to have free aim installed into AC then they would have done it right. The only problem i can see with free-aiming for AC3 is the horse combat, it would be difficult to shoot an arrow while on horseback and your target is on a horse as well. But it would be very satisfying when you become so skilled that you are able to do it. I would have spent hours just working on my archery until i can shoot an arrow while on a horse at a rabbit. but now it's just going to be really easy to use the bow, meh. oh well, at least we can lock on to different body parts now

BBALive
04-06-2012, 01:16 PM
Free aim would NOT make the game harder. Think about it, all of the guns are terrible, but you have the only consistent range weaponry in the game (bow and arrow). Making this free-aim, akin to a TPS, would make the game easier, not harder. You will be able to stand back, and rapidly kill every enemy you come across. You would never be required to enter close-combat. With auto-aim, the developers can put measures in place so that the gameplay is balanced. First, each long-range weapon has a pre-programmed effective range (with free-aim the effective range isn't as specific), firing the weapons with free-aim would be a lot quicker and easier, whereas auto-aim requires the player to wait until they have a precise shot, or risk missing (this gives enemies time to approach the player, forcing close combat).

If any of you had read the first post, or listened to the podcast, then you would know that is isn't just 'hold the ****on to kill' and that you can now choose where to shoot enemies, causing wounds, etc.

I know this might not be possible in the game, but I imagined hitting a redcoat with an arrow in the leg, he hobbles back to his camp as you follow the trail of blood he leaves behind, ambushing the entire camp and killing everybody there, Delaware River style.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 01:23 PM
with that state of mind, then why should there be duel wielding combat, hunting, parkour on trees, or even weather because it wasn't in the other games. sometimes it is nice to take new directions in a game (add new things).




i think if Ubisoft were to have free aim installed into AC then they would have done it right. The only problem i can see with free-aiming for AC3 is the horse combat, it would be difficult to shoot an arrow while on horseback and your target is on a horse as well. But it would be very satisfying when you become so skilled that you are able to do it. I would have spent hours just working on my archery until i can shoot an arrow while on a horse at a rabbit. but now it's just going to be really easy to use the bow, meh. oh well, at least we can lock on to different body parts now
I still prefer some kind of dynamic lock-on system. I think that has much more potential and it compensates for the lack of control you end up having with free-aim (stuff like turning around becomes an annoyingly and unrealistically long process for example).

cless711
04-06-2012, 01:26 PM
I have read a couple of posts saying that they want free-aim in ACIII, but is it really needed?

Sure, if Assassins Creed was all about shooting, than free-aim would be a necessity. AC, however, is not all about shooting. It is about being stealthy and planning your attacks.

I know someone is going to tell me something like: "Skyrim was not all about shooting, and that had free-aim!". I know Skyrim had free-aim, but Skyrim is a RPG game, Assassins Creed is an Action Adventure game with espionage elements included into it.

While free-aim would be a nice touch to the series (since you would be able to stun some guards by hitting their legs, hands, etc, like some people have said) I don't think it's really needed for a game like Assassins Creed.

DavisP92
04-06-2012, 01:31 PM
I still prefer some kind of dynamic lock-on system. I think that has much more potential and it compensates for the lack of control you end up having with free-aim (stuff like turning around becomes an annoyingly and unrealistically long process for example).

yea i see what you mean, there are added benefits to having a lock on system, but if ubisoft were to use free-aim then i feel like they would have had a way to work around the cons of it. And what really interested me was the added difficult and challenge. It is somewhat disappointing that the game is still going to be relatively easy but maybe they have something in store for us. so i'm going to wait and see how the bow and arrow gameplay works.



I have read a couple of posts saying that they want free-aim in ACIII, but is it really needed?

Sure, if Assassins Creed was all about shooting, than free-aim would be a necessity. AC, however, is not all about shooting. It is about being stealthy and planning your attacks.

I know someone is going to tell me something like: "Skyrim was not all about shooting, and that had free-aim!". I know Skyrim had free-aim, but Skyrim is a RPG game, Assassins Creed is an Action Adventure game with espionage elements included into it.

While free-aim would be a nice touch to the series (since you would be able to stun some guards by hitting their legs, hands, etc, like some people have said) I don't think it's really needed for a game like Assassins Creed.

why do people always bring up skyrim now? the idea of having free-aim isn't about what is needed for the game. Is duel-wielding, hunting, the hidden blade/knife, clubs, or assassination while running needed? if you never heard of those things you would have been happy still. It's about just wanting more really. We want the game to be more difficult and free-aim would do that in a enjoyable way (imo).

side note, AC3 has the most RPG elements of them all. Alex Hutchinson actually likes it that way. So AC might go down the road, way in the future, of becoming a rpg, stealth action adventure.

ProletariatPleb
04-06-2012, 01:38 PM
We'll get a video pretty soon, so I'll reserve my judgement till them, but I think free-aim(ONLY for ranged weaponry) something like Revelations' Aperture Sight option would have been better, how the hell are we going to hunt otherwise? One ****on insta-kill? Or let's say..something I thought as soon as I saw the cover-art of ACIII arrow to the knee(lol) if it's as easy as pressing a ****on and moving the "beam of light" a little bit I'm not sure I'll like that.

ToniTorsi
04-06-2012, 01:41 PM
ARE YOU SERIOUS, UBISOFT???

Wow. So a feature that has been in SEVERE need of change ever since ACII, wont get even touched because its "too complex?"

What is this? Lat Generation of consoles?

YOU CAN NOT stand there and say the current archaic aiming is not lethally problematic.

This should have been one of the highlighted features that should have been revaluated. You can't Aim and Move at the same time AND you have to stop in the middle of aheated battle to reload. Not to mention the unsatisfactory aiming PLUS THE INSTANT KILL!?

Thats 4 negatives that will not be fixed? 4 negatives that have detrimentally impaired a potential feature because of persistent and unaccountable thinking?

This is WHY Revelations was the mess that it was. Because the developers REFUSED to look at features that have immensely benefited developers and have seen a success because THEY WORK.

At least a fine 85% in this forum wants Free-Aiming. Why restrict & limit gameplay?

We are back where we started Ubisoft Montreal.

BBALive
04-06-2012, 01:51 PM
ARE YOU SERIOUS, UBISOFT???

Wow. So a feature that has been in SEVERE need of change ever since ACII, wont get even touched because its "too complex?"

What is this? Lat Generation of consoles?

YOU CAN NOT stand there and say the current archaic aiming is not lethally problematic.

This should have been one of the highlighted features that should have been revaluated. You can't Aim and Move at the same time AND you have to stop in the middle of aheated battle to reload. Not to mention the unsatisfactory aiming PLUS THE INSTANT KILL!?

Thats 4 negatives that will not be fixed? 4 negatives that have detrimentally impaired a potential feature because of persistent and unaccountable thinking?

This is WHY Revelations was the mess that it was. Because the developers REFUSED to look at features that have immensely benefited developers and have seen a success because THEY WORK.

At least a fine 85% in this forum wants Free-Aiming. Why restrict & limit gameplay?

We are back where we started Ubisoft Montreal.

Someone else that can't read, or listen.

ToniTorsi
04-06-2012, 02:01 PM
Someone else that can't read, or listen.

If you're suggesting reading the link in the topic, no I did not.

I went straight to elaborate my thoughts because I am frankly outraged at the moment.

If my post didn't seem appropriate then excuse me for being human on expressing my thoughts for a franchise I have invested a solid deal of hard worked money & time....ONLY to be paid back with unsatisfying resolutions.

UrDeviant1
04-06-2012, 02:03 PM
Free-aiming Isn't needed, It would only slow down combat and make It difficult to use your Bow at close range, surrounded by guards.

I'm Imagining a fight scenario where you take down 3 guards will melee weapons, then quickly equip your pre-assigned Bow to take out a guard who's about to shoot you.

It would be frustrating to aim at him, only to have to readjust the crosshair for a period of time, and get shot before you're able to fire.

Just one example of why I think Free-aim has no place In AC.

Grazel69
04-06-2012, 02:06 PM
God dangit Ubisoft you're ****ing **** up again!

ToniTorsi
04-06-2012, 02:11 PM
Free-aiming Isn't needed, It would only slow down combat and make It difficult to use your Bow at close range, surrounded by guards.

I'm Imagining a fight scenario where you take down 3 guards will melee weapons, then quickly equip your pre-assigned Bow to take out a guard who's about to shoot you.

It would be frustrating to aim at him, only to have to readjust the crosshair for a period of time, and get shot before you're able to fire.

Just one example of why I think Free-aim has no place In AC.

Everybody seems to be focussing on type of Free-Aiming that Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption specialises.

Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto 4? Where Free-Aiming AND Auto-Aiming is available?

If Auto-Aiming is your concern, in GTA4 if you slightly press the aiming bu tton...you go straight to Free-Aiming mode.

If you push said bu tton hard enough, you enter the phase of Auto-Aiming mode. And you're able to easily change targets by simply moving one the Analog sticks

cless711
04-06-2012, 02:11 PM
why do people always bring up skyrim now? the idea of having free-aim isn't about what is needed for the game. Is duel-wielding, hunting, the hidden blade/knife, clubs, or assassination while running needed? if you never heard of those things you would have been happy still. It's about just wanting more really. We want the game to be more difficult and free-aim would do that in a enjoyable way (imo).

side note, AC3 has the most RPG elements of them all. Alex Hutchinson actually likes it that way. So AC might go down the road, way in the future, of becoming a rpg, stealth action adventure.

I only brought up skyrim because i didn't want someone telling me an example of skyrim having it. I do see your point, however, how exactly would free-aim make things harder? I do see free-aim adding more elements into the game (Like enemies that can only be hit in a certain part of their armor, or stunning enemies by hitting them in the legs) but i don't see how it can make things harder.

And yes, my bad, I do remember hearing about ACIII being more RPG than the rest of the series.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 02:13 PM
God dangit Ubisoft you're [censored] up again!
Yeah, the game's ruined now because there won't be any free-aiming. -_-
*cough* sarcasm *cough*

Btw, please don't swear.

BBALive
04-06-2012, 02:14 PM
If you're suggesting reading the link in the topic, no I did not.

I went straight to elaborate my thoughts because I am frankly outraged at the moment.

If my post didn't seem appropriate then excuse me for being human on expressing my thoughts for a franchise I have invested a solid deal of hard worked money & time....ONLY to be paid back with unsatisfying resolutions.

Thing is, most of your post is incorrect. All you saw was "no free-aiming" and started ranting, assuming that it would be EXACTLY the same as ACII, Brotherhood and Revelations. It made you look ignorant.

The reason they aren't using free-aiming isn't because it's "too complex." It's because they don't want to turn it into a third-person shooter.

Secondly, it isn't shoot to kill, you have some degree of control over where you shoot the enemy, so you can shoot to wound, not just kill.

Thirdly, I highly doubt you'll be reloading flintlock pistols in the middle of combat. They take a long, long time to reload. You won't be using the bow or a musket in close-combat whatsoever.

Fourthly, we don't know whether you can move while aiming or not. Perhaps they have changed it so that you can.

Noble6
04-06-2012, 02:17 PM
Free-aiming Isn't needed, It would only slow down combat and make It difficult to use your Bow at close range, surrounded by guards.

I'm Imagining a fight scenario where you take down 3 guards will melee weapons, then quickly equip your pre-assigned Bow to take out a guard who's about to shoot you.

It would be frustrating to aim at him, only to have to readjust the crosshair for a period of time, and get shot before you're able to fire.

Just one example of why I think Free-aim has no place In AC.
Thats exactly why there should be free-aim for bow so we couldn't use it effectively in close range combat. We would have to carefully plan when we use bow and usually use it only if enemy hasn't noticed us yet or you are far from the enemy. I think that Free-aim would create interesting battles between enemmies with guns which would be fun alternative for melee combat.

rileypoole1234
04-06-2012, 02:18 PM
I don't get how people want it. I didn't like free aiming with bombs, so I'm glad there isn't free aiming with guns or the bow.

UrDeviant1
04-06-2012, 02:18 PM
Everybody seems to be focussing on type of Free-Aiming that Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption specialises.

Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto 4? Where Free-Aiming AND Auto-Aiming is available?

If Auto-Aiming is your concern, in GTA4 if you slightly press the aiming bu tton...you go straight to Free-Aiming mode.

If you push said bu tton hard enough, you enter the phase of Auto-Aiming mode. And you're able to easily change targets by simply moving one the Analog sticks

I dunno'. I just think If there was any way they could have Implemented It and made It feasible, then they would have.
Being able to auto-aim between different limbs Is enough for me. It's not a game breaker imo. People seem to be getting upset about It.

D.I.D.
04-06-2012, 02:24 PM
I have read a couple of posts saying that they want free-aim in ACIII, but is it really needed?

Sure, if Assassins Creed was all about shooting, than free-aim would be a necessity. AC, however, is not all about shooting. It is about being stealthy and planning your attacks.


They already said you weren't going to have huge amounts of ammo in this game, so that's your protection to stop it becoming all about shooting. People keep talking like AC will be Gears Of War if they put free aim into it, which is ridiculous.

I would like the shooting to be good. Robocop kills bore me to death and they're a disappointment every time. Every time I use a ranged weapon in AC, I think about about how much more enjoyable it would be if I could aim that shot/throw.

I'm sure the game will still be fun in other ways, but I'm amazed they still can't give us free aim.

UrDeviant1
04-06-2012, 02:25 PM
Thats exactly why there should be free-aim for bow so we couldn't use it effectively in close range combat. We would have to carefully plan when we use bow and usually use it only if enemy hasn't noticed us yet or you are far from the enemy. I think that Free-aim would create interesting battles between enemmies with guns which would be fun alternative for melee combat.

I'd like to be able to use the Bow, when and where I want, and not be limited because of free-aim. At least with auto-aim you're free to use the bow In any given situation.

D.I.D.
04-06-2012, 02:29 PM
I don't get how people want it. I didn't like free aiming with bombs, so I'm glad there isn't free aiming with guns or the bow.

That wasn't even really free-aiming, given that it created a huge neon sign to tell you exactly how guaranteed the shot was.

If you don't get why people want it:

Right now, you don't even face your targets. Walk along, tap the fire but*on, people die. It's bad.

If you had to aim, and you were rewarded for being quick at doing it, there's an adrenaline rush from that. It's even more exciting if you do it over distance, and most of all if it's an aim system which doesn't hit the crosshair directly (by which I mean the crosshair is only a guide, and you have to adjust according to angle and distance against the indicator). Getting hits like that is a thrill. Games should try to provide rewarding thrills.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 02:32 PM
Why are people so incredibly obsessed with free-aim? AC really doesn't need it imo.

D.I.D.
04-06-2012, 02:34 PM
I'd like to be able to use the Bow, when and where I want, and not be limited because of free-aim. At least with auto-aim you're free to use the bow In any given situation.

This really doesn't make any sense.

If you're good, you'd be no more limited than you were with auto-aim (and if you're really good, you might be faster than you were with auto aim). If you're not good, you'd either have to learn to be better or move away a little bit.

It's like people are trying to make arguments for why the game should never make the player feel like a failure.

ProletariatPleb
04-06-2012, 02:35 PM
Offtopic: I find it funny that the pic and opinions of UrDeviant1 and ToniTorsi are inverted..

Ontopic: Alex earlier mentioned that they're limiting the ammo, it's not gonna be 25 crossbows and 40 throwing knifes, so we can't really be "3rd person shooter".
ToniTorsi nailed it, GTA IV style aiming, auto and if you hold it, it becomes free-aim(or however it was exactly) and someone mentioned bombs having free-aim that wasn't exactly..."free aiming".
If I'm still going to get insta-kill, I have no idea what's gonna be so enjoyable about "hunting"...since all I have to do is hold and release...

Not a deal breaker for me, but still would have been better if it was GTA style aim.
AC has always been about freedom, but not getting the freedom to choose your aiming style...kinda ironic.

D.I.D.
04-06-2012, 02:36 PM
Why are people so incredibly obsessed with free-aim? AC really doesn't need it imo.

People are writing posts to tell you why. They want excitement and reward for skill, and auto-aim is just magic death. I don't know why people are obsessed with magic death - some of them say it's what makes them feel like a "BA assassin", and that's weird to me.

ToniTorsi
04-06-2012, 02:36 PM
Why are people so incredibly obsessed with free-aim? AC really doesn't need it imo.

It needs it.

It WILL NOT negatively affect anything in any way, shape, or form.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 02:37 PM
Offtopic: I find it funny that the pic and opinions of UrDeviant1 and ToniTorsi are inverted..

Ontopic: Alex earlier mentioned that they're limiting the ammo, it's not gonna be 25 crossbows and 40 throwing knifes, so we can't really be "3rd person shooter".
ToniTorsi nailed it, GTA IV style aiming, auto and if you hold it, it becomes free-aim(or however it was exactly) and someone mentioned bombs having free-aim that wasn't exactly..."free aiming".
If I'm still going to get insta-kill, I have no idea what's gonna be so enjoyable about "hunting"...since all I have to do is hold and release...

Not a deal breaker for me, but still would have been better if it was GTA style aim.
AC has always been about freedom, but not getting the freedom to choose your aiming style...kinda ironic.
Which GTA style aim? GTA has had both auto- and free-aim.


It needs it.

It WILL NOT negatively affect anything in any way, shape, or form.
Bold words with little to back them up. The game doesn't need it at all. The gameplay of AC has always been superb and I don't see how free-aim would add anything to that. In my experience, third person free aim sucks.

UrDeviant1
04-06-2012, 02:37 PM
This really doesn't make any sense.

If you're good, you'd be no more limited than you were with auto-aim (and if you're really good, you might be faster than you were with auto aim). If you're not good, you'd either have to learn to be better or move away a little bit.

It's like people are trying to make arguments for why the game should never make the player feel like a failure.

I does make sense. Because I think free-aim would be a hindrance at close range, when surrounded by guards. That's my opinion.
And like I said before, If It was Viable, It would be In the game.
It's really NO big deal anyway, I don't know why people want It so much.

D.I.D.
04-06-2012, 02:39 PM
Offtopic: I find it funny that the pic and opinions of UrDeviant1 and ToniTorsi are inverted..

Ontopic: Alex earlier mentioned that they're limiting the ammo, it's not gonna be 25 crossbows and 40 throwing knifes, so we can't really be "3rd person shooter".
ToniTorsi nailed it, GTA IV style aiming, auto and if you hold it, it becomes free-aim(or however it was exactly) and someone mentioned bombs having free-aim that wasn't exactly..."free aiming".
If I'm still going to get insta-kill, I have no idea what's gonna be so enjoyable about "hunting"...since all I have to do is hold and release...

Not a deal breaker for me, but still would have been better if it was GTA style aim.
AC has always been about freedom, but not getting the freedom to choose your aiming style...kinda ironic.

Or even an option to turn auto-aim off. I don't care if other people like auto-aim - they can keep it.

It's particularly important to me as a kb/mouse player, and in PC GTAIV free-aim is the default.

ToniTorsi
04-06-2012, 02:39 PM
Plus effortless instant kill heavily contributes to making the difficulty more catered to the casuals.

ProletariatPleb
04-06-2012, 02:40 PM
Which GTA style aim? GTA has had both auto- and free-aim.
That's what I said, Lightrey, read the first para again...also..hot**** you have a lot of posts...

ToniTorsi
04-06-2012, 02:43 PM
Which GTA style aim? GTA has had both auto- and free-aim.


Bold words with little to back them up. The game doesn't need it at all. The gameplay of AC has always been superb and I don't see how free-aim would add anything to that. In my experience, third person free aim sucks.

I already, exhaustively gave an explanation. Search a page back.

I very rarely type in bold and I only do so when Im unspekably furious -_-

LightRey
04-06-2012, 02:43 PM
That's what I said, Lightrey, read the first para again...also..hot**** you have a lot of posts...
Well I would assume you were referring to GTA IV, but there have been several GTA games, all with different aiming styles and tbh, I much preferred the auto-aim of GTA San Andreas.

D.I.D.
04-06-2012, 02:45 PM
I does make sense. Because I think free-aim would be a hindrance at close range, when surrounded by guards. That's my opinion.
And like I said before, If It was Viable, It would be In the game.
It's really NO big deal anyway, I don't know why people want It so much.

But that's a guess, and it's a strange guess because we know from other games which do have free aim that it's not a hindrance.

Even if you were right, you could keep auto-aim for pistols, since from what we've heard these are short-to-medium range weapons, and that would solve your problem. I'm particularly concerned about bows, and as I keep saying, people want it because we're missing some excitement and there's no sense of achievement in watching a computer kill someone for you. I want to do it myself.

LightRey
04-06-2012, 02:46 PM
I already, exhaustively gave an explanation. Search a page back.

I very rarely type in bold and I only do so when Im unspekably furious -_-
I know. It was unconvincing. Hence the continued discussion.

ProletariatPleb
04-06-2012, 02:50 PM
Well I would assume you were referring to GTA IV, but there have been several GTA games, all with different aiming styles and tbh, I much preferred the auto-aim of GTA San Andreas.
Yeah but that isn't the point, the point is having both aims GTA IV style. So you use it however you want.

UrDeviant1
04-06-2012, 02:52 PM
But that's a guess, and it's a strange guess because we know from other games which do have free aim that it's not a hindrance.

Even if you were right, you could keep auto-aim for pistols, since from what we've heard these are short-to-medium range weapons, and that would solve your problem. I'm particularly concerned about bows, and as I keep saying, people want it because we're missing some excitement and there's no sense of achievement in watching a computer kill someone for you. I want to do it myself.

I'm going off my experience with other AC titles, trying to Imagine what free-aim would be like. So while It Is a guess, It's an educated one.

I think free-aim would be good when hunting animals maybe, but I'm not certain It would work In combat, which some people here seem to be. So you could say them thinking It would work In the game, are also just guessing.

ToniTorsi
04-06-2012, 02:54 PM
The option to completely turn Free-Aiming off for those are not interested in it, should be implemented in the Options Menu.

But Im still absolutely and completely convinced a GTAIV free/auto aiming mechanic would be the most convenient to enjoy the best of both worlds.

naran6142
04-06-2012, 02:58 PM
just the thought of seeing crosshairs in an AC game just... just...

oh god I cant stand it!!!

ToniTorsi
04-06-2012, 03:04 PM
just the thought of seeing crosshairs in an AC game just... just...

oh god I cant stand it!!!

Then we should have the option to turn the crosshair "Off".....as seen Skyrim.

See? it took the thinking & imagination of your most dedicated fans to come to a viable, diplomatic solution. :P

BABY STEPS, Ubisoft!

D.I.D.
04-06-2012, 03:04 PM
just the thought of seeing crosshairs in an AC game just... just...

oh god I cant stand it!!!

You already have them. You just can't move them.

ACR's bomb crosshairs would be a strong contender for Most Ugly Reticule Of All Time anyway.

[edit] Also, you did have aimable crosshairs in ACB, briefly - remember the weighted sandbags mission?

ToniTorsi
04-06-2012, 03:08 PM
You already have them. You just can't move them.

ACR's bomb crosshairs would be a strong contender for Most Ugly Reticule Of All Time anyway.

[edit] Also, you did have aimable crosshairs in ACB, briefly - remember the weighted sandbags mission?

Isn't there an Always-On kinda crosshair in the Multiplayer?

And yet nobody says anything about it.

D.I.D.
04-06-2012, 03:08 PM
Isn't there an Always-On kinda crosshair in the Multiplayer?

And yet nobody says anything about it.

I don't know, I don't play MP.

DavisP92
04-06-2012, 03:14 PM
I only brought up skyrim because i didn't want someone telling me an example of skyrim having it. I do see your point, however, how exactly would free-aim make things harder? I do see free-aim adding more elements into the game (Like enemies that can only be hit in a certain part of their armor, or stunning enemies by hitting them in the legs) but i don't see how it can make things harder.


oh okay, yea people have been using skyrim as an example a lot, idk why though. but yea it would add more elements to the game. but also for example, lets say you have to kill your target and end up barely missing because you made a mistake, the target and all his guards would know that not only someone is trying to kill (target) but they would know what direction the assassin is in. So now you have to either chase down the target with all the guards ready for you (if he is a runner) or fight him and all his men instead of just killing him and escaping. It would make the game more challenging (maybe harder wasn't the best term to use, but i hope you get my point). Also another issue with the lock-on system is distance. How far can we shoot an arrow? the longest accurate shot was 92.35 meters (101 yd). will we really be able to lock onto a target from that distance and shoot/kill him. With free-aim we could, well with a little adjustments to the bow and arrow gameplay. what i mean is if Connor would automatically adjust for the distance then we could hit any target at any distance as long as it is within his limits. The way the game would know who we were exactly aiming at is it would lightly highlight the target our cross-hair is on, (not lock on to him but just highlight him).


Offtopic: I find it funny that the pic and opinions of UrDeviant1 and ToniTorsi are inverted..

Ontopic: Alex earlier mentioned that they're limiting the ammo, it's not gonna be 25 crossbows and 40 throwing knifes, so we can't really be "3rd person shooter".
ToniTorsi nailed it, GTA IV style aiming, auto and if you hold it, it becomes free-aim(or however it was exactly) and someone mentioned bombs having free-aim that wasn't exactly..."free aiming".
If I'm still going to get insta-kill, I have no idea what's gonna be so enjoyable about "hunting"...since all I have to do is hold and release...

Not a deal breaker for me, but still would have been better if it was GTA style aim.
AC has always been about freedom, but not getting the freedom to choose your aiming style...kinda ironic.

it doesn't have to have a lot of ammo to be a free-aim style game. I mean I see what your saying but I personally was going to spends hours in the woods practicing until i thought i was good enough to hit any target even when i'm on horseback. so even if i had 5 arrows, that would have been fine with me.



just the thought of seeing crosshairs in an AC game just... just...

oh god I cant stand it!!!

you know that ACR had a cross-hair right? it was in eagle sense so you already can :O :P

ProletariatPleb
04-06-2012, 03:20 PM
just the thought of seeing crosshairs in an AC game just... just...

oh god I cant stand it!!!
There already is, look in pic below.


Isn't there an Always-On kinda crosshair in the Multiplayer?

And yet nobody says anything about it.
I did mention it, Toni, I said "Aperture Sight"....anyway..here is a pic of it I just took(blame Xfire for quality):
http://i.imgur.com/ZbS5X.jpg

frogger504
04-06-2012, 03:28 PM
Plus effortless instant kill heavily contributes to making the difficulty more catered to the casuals.

That's the point. AC has never been a skillful game series. It isn't supposed to make shooting a skill, shooting is a small focus of the game and isn't something to make a system out of. Actually imagine AC3 with freeaiming, it'd be a completely different game. The series is about quick fluent gameplay, more so this one, Freeaiming would take away from that. It is in no way about skill, in canon it wouldn't make sense either. The Assassin is trained and skilled in all forms of combat, he is meant to do quick swift kills, not have to take time to aim, especially in that time with flintlocks. Taking time to aim with one of those for a single kill would get the Assassin killed, getting their focus solely on aiming even for a few seconds.

As a Master Assassin Conner is skilled in ranged combat as well to keep himself moving and be able to take out an enemy in an instant. As for crossbows, it's pretty much the same thing. Much more in this sense, as a Mohawk he's been trained since a boy to hunt, he must be an Expert by his induction. The highlight of Hunting is the actual finding of the animal, then the kill isn't something of a big deal, he's an elite trained killer. Similar concept for regular combat. AC has never been about the difficult assassination/kill but rather getting to said enemy. AC is a game about movement, there is only so much realism you can get in a game. You can have a game that focuses realism on combat, as many are. Or you can focus it on freedom of movement, this is what AC has done.

What makes AC different is that, it's focus is freedom of movement, not so much combat. In reality you can run, start climbing a tree, push yourself towards a boulder, put one foot on it, do a back-flip, then aim at your target mid-flip and kill them (although even with a lot of skill you'd probably never hit a person like that). In a video game you can't put those mechanics in. Similarly and more relevant, in real time you can't do things in the game that you can in real life, in real time. In AC they try to give us as much gameplay in real time as possible.

Actually visualize AC3 with freeaim, it would slow down the game a lot , the game would have to be made catered to the freeaim.

ProletariatPleb
04-06-2012, 03:36 PM
I keep seeing this..where did they say Connor is a Master Assassin already?
As far as I remember he is supposed to "repeat the cycle anew"


why does that matter?
Read the post above mine...

DavisP92
04-06-2012, 03:37 PM
I keep seeing this..where did they say Connor is a Master Assassin already?

why does that matter?


That's the point. AC has never been a skillful game series. It isn't supposed to make shooting a skill, shooting is a small focus of the game and isn't something to make a system out of. Actually imagine AC3 with freeaiming, it'd be a completely different game. The series is about quick fluent gameplay, more so this one, Freeaiming would take away from that. It is in no way about skill, in canon it wouldn't make sense either. The Assassin is trained and skilled in all forms of combat, he is meant to do quick swift kills, not have to take time to aim, especially in that time with flintlocks. Taking time to aim with one of those for a single kill would get the Assassin killed, getting their focus solely on aiming even for a few seconds.

As a Master Assassin Conner is skilled in ranged combat as well to keep himself moving and be able to take out an enemy in an instant. As for crossbows, it's pretty much the same thing. Much more in this sense, as a Mohawk he's been trained since a boy to hunt, he must be an Expert by his induction. The highlight of Hunting is the actual finding of the animal, then the kill isn't something of a big deal, he's an elite trained killer. Similar concept for regular combat. AC has never been about the difficult assassination/kill but rather getting to said enemy. AC is a game about movement, there is only so much realism you can get in a game. You can have a game that focuses realism on combat, as many are. Or you can focus it on freedom of movement, this is what AC has done.

What makes AC different is that, it's focus is freedom of movement, not so much combat. In reality you can run, start climbing a tree, push yourself towards a boulder, put one foot on it, do a back-flip, then aim at your target mid-flip and kill them (although even with a lot of skill you'd probably never hit a person like that). In a video game you can't put those mechanics in. Similarly and more relevant, in real time you can't do things in the game that you can in real life, in real time. In AC they try to give us as much gameplay in real time as possible.

Actually visualize AC3 with freeaim, it would slow down the game a lot , the game would have to be made catered to the freeaim.

actually i considered AC1 a skillful game. You had to be skilled to get in, kill your target without anyone knowing and get out without being detected. I don't think free-aiming would slow the game down, but rather make it go back to it's original form or planning out your attack and taking your time with the final kill. I know now they have Connor always on the move (with blades) but when it comes to bow and arrows you can be always on the move. You need to stop take a breath and concentrate. I get that your saying since he is already trained then lock on system makes the most sense, but as for the gameplay function and to give gamers what they have always been asking for from AC, a challenge. free-aim could do just that. What Ubisoft should do is all the gamers to turn on or off free-aim. This would solve everything :)

frogger504
04-06-2012, 03:41 PM
I keep seeing this..where did they say Connor is a Master Assassin already?

We know he will be, that's obvious. Also, Master Assassin or not; by the time you are inducted as a full Assassin - as seen in ACB and ACR through recruits - you are fully skilled.

DavisP92
04-06-2012, 03:45 PM
I keep seeing this..where did they say Connor is a Master Assassin already?
As far as I remember he is supposed to "repeat the cycle anew"


Read the post above mine...

hah just did, well yea he isn't a master assassin at the beginning of the game and we don't even know i he will live to be one. let alone a mentor. so frogger, lets just keep master assassin out of this mainly because we don't know for sure. But being a master assassin has nothing to do with the bow and arrow, Connor was raised using it. If he was a skilled archer it would be because of that, and not because he is an assassin.

ProletariatPleb
04-06-2012, 03:46 PM
We know he will be, that's obvious. Also, Master Assassin or not; by the time you are inducted as a full Assassin - as seen in ACB and ACR through recruits - you are fully skilled.
Let's say that's the case, still, it's a BOW, not a CROSSBOW, it's slower, you need to aim, concentrate, and release, this game is more 'predatory' remember? So I don't think using the Bow in the middle of a fight would be possible...

frogger504
04-06-2012, 03:49 PM
why does that matter?



actually i considered AC1 a skillful game. You had to be skilled to get in, kill your target without anyone knowing and get out without being detected. I don't think free-aiming would slow the game down, but rather make it go back to it's original form or planning out your attack and taking your time with the final kill. I know now they have Connor always on the move (with blades) but when it comes to bow and arrows you can be always on the move. You need to stop take a breath and concentrate. I get that your saying since he is already trained then lock on system makes the most sense, but as for the gameplay function and to give gamers what they have always been asking for from AC, a challenge. free-aim could do just that. What Ubisoft should do is all the gamers to turn on or off free-aim. This would solve everything :)

I totally know this, I meant combat wise lol.

Sorry for the mis-implication. :)

Also, yeah I shall keep the title "Master" out of it. But as I said in my previous post:



Master Assassin or not; by the time you are inducted as a full Assassin - as seen in ACB and ACR through recruits - you are fully skilled.


Let's say that's the case, still, it's a BOW, not a CROSSBOW, it's slower, you need to aim, concentrate, and release, this game is more 'predatory' remember? So I don't think using the Bow in the middle of a fight would be possible...
When did I ever refer to the Crossbow? You have to aim with that as well. Normally anyways.
Even more so I'd imagine (this is just baseless assumption), that being Mohawk that as of an early age by 8-10 years of age he would be trained in Bows.


Again, I must say. Imagine AC3 with it. It just wouldn't work. AC is extremely fast paced, aiming would completely slow it down. For aiming you have to stop and aim. You can't keep yourself moving with it. It's not like GTA where enemies just stand still several yards away and suck at aiming. It isn't like Skyrim where you can stand still and wait to shoot. Both games are completely different paced. AC3 works in real time speedy combat. It just wouldn't work in AC.

D.I.D.
04-06-2012, 03:51 PM
That's the point. AC has never been a skillful game series. It isn't supposed to make shooting a skill, shooting is a small focus of the game and isn't something to make a system out of. Actually imagine AC3 with freeaiming, it'd be a completely different game. The series is about quick fluent gameplay, more so this one, Freeaiming would take away from that. It is in no way about skill, in canon it wouldn't make sense either. The Assassin is trained and skilled in all forms of combat, he is meant to do quick swift kills, not have to take time to aim, especially in that time with flintlocks. Taking time to aim with one of those for a single kill would get the Assassin killed, getting their focus solely on aiming even for a few seconds.

It doesn't take a few seconds for a good player to aim a shot. If I had free aim, you'd see me wiping out people just as quickly and cleanly as you think the assassins should.

DavisP92
04-06-2012, 03:54 PM
I totally know this, I meant combat wise lol.

Sorry for the mis-implication. :)

Also, yeah I shall keep the title "Master" out of it. But as I said in my previous post:

oh okay haha, but yea combat wise it doesn't require a lot of skill to kill your targets but it does if you don't want it to look bad hah. but yea with the bow and arrow, it should be different though, this isn't a weapon you just pull out when people are running at you or surrounding you. it's meant to be used when no one knows you're there. so it's meant to be a weapon of concentration where you take your time, the argument of it would slow down combat doesn't really work. because when you use a bow and arrow it shouldn't be lighting fast with 100% accuracy without any trouble

ProletariatPleb
04-06-2012, 03:58 PM
When did I ever refer to the Crossbow? You have to aim with that as well. Normally anyways.

Even more so I'd imagine (this is just baseless assumption), that being Mohawk that as of an early age by 8-10 years of age he would be trained in Bows.
Chill man, I'm just referring to how we had Crossbow in previous games....where it was just grab crossbow in one hand and shoot, then use other hand to simply reload.

and you DID say it:
As a Master Assassin Conner is skilled in ranged combat as well to keep himself moving and be able to take out an enemy in an instant. As for crossbows, it's pretty much the same thing.

frogger504
04-06-2012, 04:05 PM
Chill man, I'm just referring to how we had Crossbow in previous games....where it was just grab crossbow in one hand and shoot, then use other hand to simply reload.

and you DID say it:
As a Master Assassin Conner is skilled in ranged combat as well to keep himself moving and be able to take out an enemy in an instant. As for crossbows, it's pretty much the same thing.

Oh, my mistake then. Must have had ACB on the mind. I meant bows.

Noble6
04-06-2012, 04:20 PM
But that's a guess, and it's a strange guess because we know from other games which do have free aim that it's not a hindrance.

Even if you were right, you could keep auto-aim for pistols, since from what we've heard these are short-to-medium range weapons, and that would solve your problem. I'm particularly concerned about bows, and as I keep saying, people want it because we're missing some excitement and there's no sense of achievement in watching a computer kill someone for you. I want to do it myself.
This is why I personally want free-aim. It adds feeling that I am the one who is doing things and succeeding in them feels great. Even though previous games have needed little skill, it does not mean next game shouldn't have some features which need a little skill to use them effectively. I don't care fancy animations and being in control of gameplay is more important for me.
I undertand that many people here are casualish and enjoy more simplyfied and fast gameplay but Ubisoft could at least give us chance to choose between auto-aim and free-aim.

SixKeys
04-06-2012, 04:31 PM
I don't really think it's a huge deal. I'd rather just wait and see what kind of system they've come up with as it's not one of my top priorities about the game.

frogger504
04-06-2012, 05:28 PM
This is why I personally want free-aim. It adds feeling that I am the one who is doing things and succeeding in them feels great. Even though previous games have needed little skill, it does not mean next game shouldn't have some features which need a little skill to use them effectively. I don't care fancy animations and being in control of gameplay is more important for me.
I undertand that many people here are casualish and enjoy more simplyfied and fast gameplay but Ubisoft could at least give us chance to choose between auto-aim and free-aim.

The point is that AC isn't a skill game for combat. Skill in AC is stealth, not combat. In AC you don't control entirely what happens, you aren't the one that does things. even in canon somewhat it makes sense that the Animus does some things automatically.

Point being, if you want skill in combat feel free to play the other games in which that is a viable option, AC is not it. In AC skill requirement comes mainly from choosing how you strike, not from striking. The movement is the focus, not the combat. In AC it is just a swift hit and an enemy goes down, that's just how AC works. Some games focus on the combat, some focus on the movement, AC is a movement game.

As if I haven't said it enough times already, the control of gameplay comes in the movement, not combat. They aren't focusing on making combat like that. It just isn't AC. It isn't a matter of flicking a switch or even going through the trouble of making it. It would be a drastic change in gameplay to have that, truly think about it. Think of the pistol as an instant Hidden pistol and visualize having freeaim with AC mechanics. It just couldn't work, the end result would not only not work, but would also lower the score and sales slightly.

Let me elaborate, the end result would be extremely weak, even if it is just a small added feature for the few that want it, not only would it not work the way they expect it (I mean seriously think about freeaim in AC mechanics), but having sucha flawed system would attract negative reviews and criticisms over a small thing which would lead to less sales. Ridiculous and pointless? Yes, but we know it's the way it works.

pacmanate
04-06-2012, 05:30 PM
Oh well, at least it means I don't have too account distance for how my arrows drop

Ayush_S92
04-06-2012, 05:34 PM
Glad there is no free aim. I hate it. (read I suck at it)

crash3
04-06-2012, 06:04 PM
I really wanted free-aiming, it would have added challenge to the game. ACB and ACR allowed us to go on an absolute rampage with the crossbows, guns and darts because of that lock-on system which guaranteed hits which was frustrating as it made stealth way too easy and we kill too many guards who are only following orders, they arent real enemies and we end up killing like 2o of them in one mission. Pretty disappointed. The aiming system in RDR was challenging and simple and had an option for lock on but it didnt guarantee a kill.

BBALive
04-06-2012, 06:19 PM
Oh god, the ignorance is strong in this thread.

Noble6
04-06-2012, 06:34 PM
The point is that AC isn't a skill game for combat. Skill in AC is stealth, not combat. In AC you don't control entirely what happens, you aren't the one that does things. even in canon somewhat it makes sense that the Animus does some things automatically.

Point being, if you want skill in combat feel free to play the other games in which that is a viable option, AC is not it. In AC skill requirement comes mainly from choosing how you strike, not from striking. The movement is the focus, not the combat. In AC it is just a swift hit and an enemy goes down, that's just how AC works. Some games focus on the combat, some focus on the movement, AC is a movement game.

As if I haven't said it enough times already, the control of gameplay comes in the movement, not combat. They aren't focusing on making combat like that. It just isn't AC. It isn't a matter of flicking a switch or even going through the trouble of making it. It would be a drastic change in gameplay to have that, truly think about it. Think of the pistol as an instant Hidden pistol and visualize having freeaim with AC mechanics. It just couldn't work, the end result would not only not work, but would also lower the score and sales slightly.

Let me elaborate, the end result would be extremely weak, even if it is just a small added feature for the few that want it, not only would it not work the way they expect it (I mean seriously think about freeaim in AC mechanics), but having sucha flawed system would attract negative reviews and criticisms over a small thing which would lead to less sales. Ridiculous and pointless? Yes, but we know it's the way it works.
Ah but I meant they should add free-aim mechanic for bow to make it more fun to use when hunting or moving stealthy. There would be no sense in free-aim pistols since they are used in fast paced close(/mid) range combat.

Azula2005
04-06-2012, 06:35 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOO! Why Ubisoft!? WHHYY!!!!

twenty_glyphs
04-06-2012, 06:43 PM
I don't have much of an opinion on this, but I'm fine with the decision. I think we should withhold a lot of judgment until we see the actual mechanic, because it doesn't sound like it will be identical to previous games. I always liked the Arkham games where you could manually aim, but the only things worth aiming at ended up being relatively sticky once your aim got near them. In games like Batman and Assassin's Creed, I personally don't want to spend too much of my time manually aiming.

Also in Batman, I believe once you locked onto a moving person the reticule could change to other parts of their body besides their heads, meaning there was still some skill required to keep the reticule aimed at their head so you could knock them out. I'd like to see that for AC3, where perhaps if you don't manage the reticule properly or your prey moves too much, the reticule will switch to other parts of their body where shooting them wouldn't kill them but simply alert everyone to your presence. I could also imagine someone moving out of range of your weapon, thus losing the reticule and requiring you to sneak closer.

For me, Assassin's Creed is fun because of the stalking of the prey before a relatively easy kill. If you don't properly approach them, your ranged weapons may become useless because other guards will start to attack you anyway, and your kill becomes more difficult. In Skyrim, hunting was fun, but the sneaking was a really basic and kind of lame mechanic of just crouching and walking slowly near animals while manually aiming at them. I would like to see the flipside of that in AC3, where the sneaking is a fully fleshed out mechanic forcing you to hunt animals from behind bushes or above them in trees, then having the final kill be a little more straightforward.

cless711
04-06-2012, 06:50 PM
oh okay, yea people have been using skyrim as an example a lot, idk why though. but yea it would add more elements to the game. but also for example, lets say you have to kill your target and end up barely missing because you made a mistake, the target and all his guards would know that not only someone is trying to kill (target) but they would know what direction the assassin is in. So now you have to either chase down the target with all the guards ready for you (if he is a runner) or fight him and all his men instead of just killing him and escaping. It would make the game more challenging (maybe harder wasn't the best term to use, but i hope you get my point). Also another issue with the lock-on system is distance. How far can we shoot an arrow? the longest accurate shot was 92.35 meters (101 yd). will we really be able to lock onto a target from that distance and shoot/kill him. With free-aim we could, well with a little adjustments to the bow and arrow gameplay. what i mean is if Connor would automatically adjust for the distance then we could hit any target at any distance as long as it is within his limits. The way the game would know who we were exactly aiming at is it would lightly highlight the target our cross-hair is on, (not lock on to him but just highlight him).


Ah you bring a good point.. Well i wouldn't mind if they did end up putting free-aim now. It would really bring a new twist to the game.

FilipinoNinja67
04-06-2012, 06:52 PM
Free aim would NOT make the game harder. Think about it, all of the guns are terrible, but you have the only consistent range weaponry in the game (bow and arrow). Making this free-aim, akin to a TPS, would make the game easier, not harder. You will be able to stand back, and rapidly kill every enemy you come across. You would never be required to enter close-combat. With auto-aim, the developers can put measures in place so that the gameplay is balanced. First, each long-range weapon has a pre-programmed effective range (with free-aim the effective range isn't as specific), firing the weapons with free-aim would be a lot quicker and easier, whereas auto-aim requires the player to wait until they have a precise shot, or risk missing (this gives enemies time to approach the player, forcing close combat).

If any of you had read the first post, or listened to the podcast, then you would know that is isn't just 'hold the ****on to kill' and that you can now choose where to shoot enemies, causing wounds, etc.

I know this might not be possible in the game, but I imagined hitting a redcoat with an arrow in the leg, he hobbles back to his camp as you follow the trail of blood he leaves behind, ambushing the entire camp and killing everybody there, Delaware River style.

Your first paragraph makes no sense at all. You can't miss with auto aim, because its auto aim.

Okay so now you can shoot them in 1 of 5 places, having free aim would allow you to hit them where you want to hit them and would require more precision in your shots. I can think of scenarios where free aim would work (hunting...) And scenarios where you would need the speed and exact precision of auto aim (multiple targets).

I would rather have free aim because i like to feel like i'm actually playing a game and not watching a movie :/ but i can still live on with this minor disappointment, with only a few female dogging posts on it (definitly not as many female dog posts that i have on OSB in MP)

Jexx21
04-06-2012, 06:58 PM
A lot of us did expect free-aiming, since after all, as the AC games progressively get to the modern-era, they will have to put free-aiming in eventually. It's not like free-aiming would ruin the close-combat gameplay either, since the Batman Arkham games had free-aiming, and both Batman and AC gameplay are quite similar.

Arkham City doesn't have free-aiming, the ranged weapons are auto-targeted to certain points (whether it's an object or a point on someones body). It actually sounds like that AC3's aiming is fairly similar to Arkham City's.

FilipinoNinja67
04-06-2012, 07:01 PM
Oh god, the ignorance is strong in this thread.

You can fix that by deleting your posts.

Jexx21
04-06-2012, 07:12 PM
Take Arkham City's version of auto-aim again (it has the illusion of free-aim, even though it really isn't). When you throw your ranged weapons at thugs and they know you're there, they dodge. Who's to say that guards couldn't do the same?

Noble6
04-06-2012, 07:20 PM
Take Arkham City's version of auto-aim again (it has the illusion of free-aim, even though it really isn't). When you throw your ranged weapons at thugs and they know you're there, they dodge. Who's to say that guards couldn't do the same?
They are propably doing arkham style aiming since I don't see any other way to choose between which part of the enemmy's body you wan't to hit.

RzaRecta357
04-06-2012, 07:22 PM
They are propably doing arkham style aiming since I don't see any other way to choose between which part of the enemmy's body you wan't to hit.


Gta and RDRs lock on system. Locks, then you move the analog to the spot you want. Maybe this has been disproven as I havent read the entire topic.

BBALive
04-06-2012, 07:36 PM
Your first paragraph makes no sense at all. You can't miss with auto aim, because its auto aim.

Okay so now you can shoot them in 1 of 5 places, having free aim would allow you to hit them where you want to hit them and would require more precision in your shots. I can think of scenarios where free aim would work (hunting...) And scenarios where you would need the speed and exact precision of auto aim (multiple targets).

I would rather have free aim because i like to feel like i'm actually playing a game and not watching a movie :/ but i can still live on with this minor disappointment, with only a few female dogging posts on it (definitly not as many female dog posts that i have on OSB in MP)

Have you ever played Assassin's Creed? If you don't hold the ****on down long enough then the shot had a risk of missing. With that in mind, it takes longer for you to perform multiple precise shots in succession. With free-aim, this isn't present, and rapid killing enemies is not a problem (with the bow and arrow, at least, since it won't take long to ready the next arrow). I don't know why people think aiming in a third person shooter takes 'skill,' because it doesn't. It's as easy as auto-aim. Even with complete free-aim, rather than a lock-on system similar to GTA4 or RDR, it's easy. I'm not saying free-aim would ruin the game, but it definitely wouldn't make it more challenging.

People are just making assumptions without even seeing it in action. But of course, I'm the ignorant one for being logical rather than jumping to conclusions. Some people in this thread haven't even read the majority of posts, or even listened to the podcast.

FilipinoNinja67
04-06-2012, 08:36 PM
Have you ever played Assassin's Creed? If you don't hold the ****on down long enough then the shot had a risk of missing. With that in mind, it takes longer for you to perform multiple precise shots in succession. With free-aim, this isn't present, and rapid killing enemies is not a problem (with the bow and arrow, at least, since it won't take long to ready the next arrow). I don't know why people think aiming in a third person shooter takes 'skill,' because it doesn't. It's as easy as auto-aim. Even with complete free-aim, rather than a lock-on system similar to GTA4 or RDR, it's easy. I'm not saying free-aim would ruin the game, but it definitely wouldn't make it more challenging.

People are just making assumptions without even seeing it in action. But of course, I'm the ignorant one for being logical rather than jumping to conclusions. Some people in this thread haven't even read the majority of posts, or even listened to the podcast.

Have you played ACB or ACR? Lol you can shoot people very rapidly with no risk of missing what-so-ever. You're basically saying that auto-aim is harder? Do you know how dumb that sounds? Why wouldn't they- who said they wouldn't have put the same limitations (reload time....) that auto aim has into free aim? You did, you just made assumptions without seeing it in action.

Free aim would promote more skill than auto aim would but like i had said, if you were to actually read someone's post, there are situations where it could be frustrating.

UrDeviant1
04-06-2012, 08:44 PM
Gta and RDRs lock on system. Locks, then you move the analog to the spot you want. Maybe this has been disproven as I havent read the entire topic.

This Is kinda' the Impression I get about how the lock-on will work.
Ubi might vary It In some way though.

twenty_glyphs
04-06-2012, 08:55 PM
Something else occurred to me about free-aiming with guns from this time period. They've said they sped up the reload speeds on guns even though they would really take a minute or more in real life because that would just be way too annoying of a wait in a game. So let's imagine the reload time is 15-20 seconds for the player. Now if you miss with manual aiming, you are punished by having to wait 15-20 seconds at least, in addition to your target likely being alerted and running away or rushing at you. That's certainly challenging, but it could get frustrating in a hurry for many players. I think typical shooter mechanics just aren't the same when you're not shooting an automatic or semi-automatic weapon of some kind. Now for bows and arrows, the reload time is likely much faster, but your number of arrows are probably very limited in the game. So I could still see that getting somewhat annoying as well.

I still think the challenge of the system will just be in getting into the right position to be able to have the option of using a ranged weapon of some kind. Especially against animals, who are likely to be much more skittish when they know you're around.

berserker134
04-06-2012, 09:02 PM
i would have liked it to be like uncharted

FilipinoNinja67
04-06-2012, 09:42 PM
Something else occurred to me about free-aiming with guns from this time period. They've said they sped up the reload speeds on guns even though they would really take a minute or more in real life because that would just be way too annoying of a wait in a game. So let's imagine the reload time is 15-20 seconds for the player. Now if you miss with manual aiming, you are punished by having to wait 15-20 seconds at least, in addition to your target likely being alerted and running away or rushing at you. That's certainly challenging, but it could get frustrating in a hurry for many players. I think typical shooter mechanics just aren't the same when you're not shooting an automatic or semi-automatic weapon of some kind. Now for bows and arrows, the reload time is likely much faster, but your number of arrows are probably very limited in the game. So I could still see that getting somewhat annoying as well.

I still think the challenge of the system will just be in getting into the right position to be able to have the option of using a ranged weapon of some kind. Especially against animals, who are likely to be much more skittish when they know you're around.

i think the majority of us want the guns to be auto aim but have the bow n arrow free aim because it is a silent weapon and needs some kind of draw back (shudders at the crossbow)

LightRey
04-06-2012, 10:39 PM
I don't have much of an opinion on this, but I'm fine with the decision. I think we should withhold a lot of judgment until we see the actual mechanic, because it doesn't sound like it will be identical to previous games. I always liked the Arkham games where you could manually aim, but the only things worth aiming at ended up being relatively sticky once your aim got near them. In games like Batman and Assassin's Creed, I personally don't want to spend too much of my time manually aiming.

Also in Batman, I believe once you locked onto a moving person the reticule could change to other parts of their body besides their heads, meaning there was still some skill required to keep the reticule aimed at their head so you could knock them out. I'd like to see that for AC3, where perhaps if you don't manage the reticule properly or your prey moves too much, the reticule will switch to other parts of their body where shooting them wouldn't kill them but simply alert everyone to your presence. I could also imagine someone moving out of range of your weapon, thus losing the reticule and requiring you to sneak closer.

For me, Assassin's Creed is fun because of the stalking of the prey before a relatively easy kill. If you don't properly approach them, your ranged weapons may become useless because other guards will start to attack you anyway, and your kill becomes more difficult. In Skyrim, hunting was fun, but the sneaking was a really basic and kind of lame mechanic of just crouching and walking slowly near animals while manually aiming at them. I would like to see the flipside of that in AC3, where the sneaking is a fully fleshed out mechanic forcing you to hunt animals from behind bushes or above them in trees, then having the final kill be a little more straightforward.
I like this post.

JCearlyyears
04-06-2012, 11:14 PM
I hope that the bow is free aim. I think it would be good for it to be not free aim during combat, and free aim while hunting, whether it be human or not. And... I guess the same for the other stuff too(guns, any other ranged weapons.), so free aim while not in combat, auto-ish aim while in combat.
off topic: Wow Lightrey, in the time it took me to get around 8 posts, you got 158... skills

xx-pyro
04-06-2012, 11:19 PM
Auto aim fits the combat of the series better. That being said combat is supposed to be a lot different so I can't judge that for AC3, but I can't imagine it being so radically changed that free-aim makes any sense. He's an Assassin and a native, he's been using a bow his entire life and really should be able to aim quick enough to make auto-aim plausible. Giving him free-aim (I'm thinking -> Skyrim type archery) would destroy the consistency of combat, because then his guns would need it too which makes the game a 3PS. I'm seeing the same people saying LOLIDONTWANTFPSWW2 GAME that I see saying GIVE US FREE AIM PLZ0RS. It confuses me.

JCearlyyears
04-06-2012, 11:30 PM
Auto aim fits the combat of the series better. That being said combat is supposed to be a lot different so I can't judge that for AC3, but I can't imagine it being so radically changed that free-aim makes any sense. He's an Assassin and a native, he's been using a bow his entire life and really should be able to aim quick enough to make auto-aim plausible. Giving him free-aim (I'm thinking -> Skyrim type archery) would destroy the consistency of combat, because then his guns would need it too which makes the game a 3PS. I'm seeing the same people saying LOLIDONTWANTFPSWW2 GAME that I see saying GIVE US FREE AIM PLZ0RS. It confuses me.

I hope this isn't a reply to me...