PDA

View Full Version : An open letter to the Ubisoft Assassin's Creed III development team



AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 03:40 PM
Hey,

I'll preface this by saying that I have genuinely enjoyed the majority of the game. The story, especially, I think has been quite unique and the variety of in-story missions and specific tasks have been unique, challenging and enjoyable for the most part. My frustrations below I'm sure won't be felt by everyone, but I wanted to get them down in a cohesive message, if anything, it's cathartic to do so... but I see a lot of similar perspectives and frustrations from many around this new game and I think my piece below, gets to close to somewhat explaining why many of us feel a little underwhelmed with this new game. I understand, many are frustrated by the bugs, glitches and multiplayer problems which also plague a few folks. I've stayed away from those because they're counter-productive at this point, and tried to get close to the 'heart' of why the game just 'doesn't feel right' and been as constructive as possible.

I don't expect any of these issues to be resolved, I just wanted to pen to paper (finger to keyboard?) to try to explain my opinions as to why this game, with the bells and whistles that it has, feels much smaller to me as a player and a fan, and seems to lack the heart and charm of the other games.

Finally, I've kept away from any kind of obvious spoilers.

_________________________________________________

An Open Letter to UbiSoft and the Assassin’s Creed III Team.

To Whom It May Concern,

Hi Ubisoft. Let me begin by thanking you for the fifth Assassin’s Creed Game, labeled the third. I do like a bit of numbering shenanigans in the world of media, so I appreciate it. Keeps me on my toes. Also, let me begin by congratulating you on a game that I believe, has one of the more compelling stories you’ve put on a disk in recent times. I’ve played every single Assassin’s Creed game, mobile app, facebook mini game and interactive web thingame you’ve produced, so I come from a perspective of a fairly high-end user, so I think there’s some pedigree in such a background to let you know the story elements of Connor and his journey are really well executed, certainly the twists and character development of both Connor, Haytham and Desmond were appreciated. Hatham Kenway is a far more nuanced Antagonist than previous games and I truly found him a compelling character, one I will be returning to replay for that elusive total sync.

It’s always nice to start off with a bit of positive affirmation, so well done.

However, I’m a bit perplexed by the rest of the game, aside from Connor and his journey, it seems you’ve abandoned everything from ACII, Brotherhood and Revelations that you got so very very right. Gone are the Tombs. Gone are the wonderful Glyph missions. Gone are the puzzles. Gone is the atmospheric music. Gone are the random events of chasing folks around the city who stole your money… gone is the depth. Sure, maps are bigger and there’s flashier things and new controls...

But the game feels smaller.

One thing I thought Ubisoft and the AC team did, above reproach, was the implementation of music to create atmosphere in the game. You’ve gone ahead and upgraded the visuals with the wonderful Anvil next, but downgraded the very iconic sonic atmosphere you created in the series so far. Walking into Acre and the beautiful music that accompanies you as you stroll around, the sonics of Florence that Jesper’s music brought life to Ezios roaming and the hectic, arab flavored music of Istanbul have all gone. Replaced with some wind, occasional rain, birds and animal growls?...

Painted pictures have never seemed so sparse. Words without song.

You have arguably one of the better cinematic co-composers working today in Lorne Balfe to create lovely cut scene music… and yet given him nothing to really bring your amazing visual environments to life? It’s a real shame. You’ve put so much into the visual aesthetic of the games, upgrading the graphics engine and truly creating some iconic story moments and open-world landscapes, yet there’s no grand environmental music to accompany us on our journey. There’s no clunk of metal on metal from the shops, or doctors pushing their next invented potion on you. The streets are full of people in Boston, but nothings open for sale. The visuals of life are there, the sound and music is not.

It makes the game feel much, much smaller.

Glyph missions and Subject 16’s story gave us all a reason to free roam and return to the game multiple times across the many different areas and perhaps learn about the cities we were visiting of the past. The puzzles were a particular favorite of mine. Sitting down, to work them out as they gradually got harder… the rewards for completing them were always worthwhile and, to be honest, a nice break in the game formula, a chance to take a break from controller mashing and nut the puzzles out and then escape to the database to read the entries after completion over a beverage, and learn something.

Gone are these puzzles, and with it a bit of the heart of the series so far. Integrating the future and past elements of the game is something I understand not everyone enjoys, but it’s the whole reason for the series to exist. It’s a bit like saying you didn’t like the Jabba the Hutt scene in StarWars, but enjoyed getting Han Solo back. You can’t have one, without the other. Having the Glyphs (or similar) dropped from the game, again, makes it feel much smaller in scope. Yes, you’re looking for the “Key” but why else free roam around the city? Connors motivation is a much more grey area that Ezios simple revenge motivation. Connor in fact seems much more of a pacifist, resorting to killing people only when absolutely necessary. Most of the “additional” sync options in major missions have you limiting guard deaths! He’s clearly not in it for the blood. Free roaming around and wasting guards just to kill time seems against the very story motivation you so eloquently placed in the game story throughout… after completing side-quests and story elements (which I play concurrently) there’s no real reason to go back and continue playing, other than to collect feathers (ugh) or waste more red-coats for no reason other than completing arbitrary ‘guild’ checkboxes, which again, seem like afterthoughts in this game and seemingly pop up indiscriminately.

These omitted things, simply make the game feel much much smaller in scope, despite the impressive size of the maps.

The maps. Yes. You’ve clearly focused a lot on “size of the maps” which is lovely, but you’ve not thought about the WHY. Why do the maps need to bigger? You can accomplish ‘replayability’ and more importantly discovery by placing in elements that force you to return time and time again to discover new things within the map, rather than just slapping down a bigger map for free-roaming around and killing deer, with no real rhyme or reason to why. It’s the “why” that is missing from a lot of this game. I enjoy free roaming around Rome and getting to know the distinct areas of the map, who each had their own music and visual flair to them. The Frontier, while impressive I’m sure design and technology-wise, is really just a big green blur, with no real iconic areas, or places I really want to return to. Connors village is stuck in the farthest corner of the map, and area you would think that would be teeming with story options for him and ancient areas to explore from his Indian heritages and beyond… but other than a few creepy looking children running around, there’s nothing new to discover.

Because of the render-distance limitations, even the iconic views on the frontier are more hazy-blurs so I can’t even enjoy the scenery like I did from, say, atop of a Coliseum or walking into Jerusalem on horseback. I imagine buying the PC version with more advanced graphics might alleviate this, but without the music to differentiate the hunting areas or some more variability in the forest, it just feels smaller and the same but different everywhere I roam. Yes, the environmental effects (snow) do create that visual variety, but that’s only part of the WHY. If there’s no real EMOTIONAL need for me to roam the area, if I’m not connecting to the areas visually, there’s nothing. No music to draw me back… Of course, I can hunt but without the addition of music to emotionally connect it to me, or tombs or glyphs to find, it’s just another area, devoid of emotional “life” and feels smaller.

Upgrading elements of the city in Brotherhood/Revelations was again something that made the game feel bigger, whilst also forcing you to return time and time again to the game, visiting areas, feeling a part of the city, and getting to know a bit of history along the way (or completing puzzles). There’s nothing to “upgrade” in ACIII. Certainly the additional weapons are lovely, but you’re [Connor] equipped by Achilles with all the basic cool stuff right from the get go. Even in ACI there were little weapon upgrades that you EARNED back along the way, you can basically skip shopping for new gear entirely in ACIII as, with dual blades and a tomahawk to start off with, there seems to be to no apparent advantage to going to buy a “rapier” or whatever, when everyone is waving guns and bayonets in your face the whole time, taking them on with a sword seems ridiculously counter-productive to the speed of a Tomahawk or hidden blades. Or simply shooting them. Guns, do seem to provide a weakness in the Assassin’s Creed series going forward, I think perhaps steering away from time periods where firearms were prevalent (and certainly, only avoidable for so long in the modern day aspects of the game) there needs to be a bit more thought as to how features like Bow and Arrow, Blades and so on are implemented in the game.

Think of the why…

Crafting is fun, unfortunately my version for whatever reason is completely buggy and there’s no explanation as to how one is supposed to upgrade/upskill your homestead. I occasionally see ‘icons’ for the people that have moved in, but they disappear all the time at random and although occasionally missions pop up… a simple “visit the woodland area of the homestead to get your next mission” would surely be a much smarter implementation of this kind of thing? I have no problem buying the wood from the people that work my land, but getting it from a book in my house (and nowhere else in the homestead) really seems pretty silly and ill-thought… and again, makes the game feel much smaller as there’s little to no reason to return to these areas to visit the folk that you’ve recruited in the first place! It’s another example of the game map having scope and size, but no reason to explore; The experience is much smaller.

Animus training and the option to practice your skills has been omitted. A fantastic edition of Brotherhood, has been totally dropped in favor of a ‘figure it out’ approach, which is fine… but again, you’re doing non-story motivational things like randomly wasting guards to practice the new controls or figure out the different weapon combos and animations. All beautifully implemented, but totally against Connor’s character who wouldn’t indiscriminately waste loyalists or liberators for the sake of trying out his new axe he just brought! The animus training room (shown briefly at the start of the game) would make a far more logical addition/inclusion and again, make the game feel larger in scope… rather than confined. All of this leads me to emotionally not connecting to Connor as much as previous characters, because the game forces me to do things with him that seem counter to the magnificent nuanced story themes and certainly what a good portion of the optional objectives tell me he ‘truly’ did in the past, for total sync, of course.

…there even seems to be left-over elements of a “training room” in Achilles basement. “Training” is even referenced by Achilles on a number of occasions, yet we’re not even given a montage of Connors training, not even the option to practice things like the ropedart… instead we’re just “told to do it” by Achilles while we’re roaming around. I remember the fun little ‘learn to climb faster’ missions from ACII, or chasing Yusuf across rooftops to learn the hookblade… these were actually a neat bit of story/control integration and doing that a few times, I got the hang of both the controls and got to know characters, and felt I was performing actions in-character. You were rewarded for doing all these objectives faster, better and so on. I could really practice my combo-stringing in Brotherhood in the Animus room but in ACIII, I simply wander around and bully people with a ropedart, tomahawk or gun to practice the new controls and targeting system …and this is apparently enough to keep me returning to the game?

Recruiting new Assassin’s is again, smaller. There’s no real need and certainly no story focus on this element. I’ve seen people talk about going through the game without them, even though there’s QUITE a bit of stuff to do, especially with the mini-game and training them it looks to be something that’s been implemented well (I haven’t explored it much, to be honest), but within the game just feels like ‘another option’ and therefore, makes the scope much smaller. Recruiting a Brotherhood in… er… Brotherhood… was a monumentally COOL thing, made only better by Revelations and the characters having distinct personalities in their individual missions. Although Connor is a new character and not a “mentor” in ACIII, his story is one of a lone wolf looking out for his people and retribution for his father’s acts. Therefore, motivationally, I have no need to recruit others to do what seems to be a personal mission for him. He’s looking out for his people, not anyone else. He’s alone on this journey, certainly, that’s why the story tells us. It’s another example of a returning feature (like the variety of weapons) that in-practice within the game, has little to no story purpose, therefore, makes the game feel smaller.

Please understand, I think you’ve been quite noble and tried to make a more serious-toned AC game and “made it faster, more intense” to Paraphrase George Lucas, without thinking about the WHY to all this. A smaller frontier map, with roaming environmental changing music score to accompany it, would make it feel like a larger experience and give an emotional audio connection to the surrounds. Roaming around Boston and visiting iconic buildings and exploring would mean SO MUCH MORE if there were puzzles to reward me or tombs to discover along the way (or perhaps come back to later on). Getting really good in battle and purchasing all the amazing weapons and swords in the general store would be more interesting and certainly make me feel part of a bigger world, if I could practice with these new weapons somewhere to master my skills outside of story missions. There’s nothing more deflating for a gamer invested in the story, to be pulled out of the experience to see what a ‘new weapon’ does during a story element, when you simply want to learn to make Connor under your control, the best most kick-*** dude on the screen BEFORE these story-motivated battles. Targeting innocent guards around the city just doesn’t FEEL like the right way to learn and explore this stuff, when compared with the other Assassin games. It feels like I’m cheating or missing something; It feels smaller.

The less said about the cost of upgrading your ship the better, there’s no way other than murdering animals religiously like a man hell-bent on extinction of a species can you possibly afford to upgrade your ship before the completion of the main story. Of all the things to include in a game without story-motivated reasoning, this is the worst and most ill-thought out element. I like the Ship battle stuff. Forced into a mission format, rather than the ability to ‘free roam’ the coast and get assigned missions, was a really poor choice when the rest of the game allows you scope and freedom to do what you want… and indeed, goes against the whole assassin’s creed series very principals, being built around free roaming these amazing places, either on foot, horse or by boat.

As an aside, the lovely things like board games, patting dogs, feeding chickens and a kitty purring as it walks around you is the lovely kind of things I wished this game had more of, that’s some real heart on show right there and some nice attention to detail. This is the same sort of heart that gave us neat puzzles and reasons to do things other than indiscriminately murder people in these games. It is part of the beauty of forming a connection with a Character like Ezio or Altair… Desmond or Lucy. We got to spend time with each of these people and doing cute little things; Whether it’s helping Lucy around the underground maze at the beginning of Brotherhood and their constant dialogue, the (now Iconic) music of Jesper Kyd at the beginning of the ACII as Ezio climbs rooftops with his brother, taunting guards in Brotherhood with snappy one-liners or sliding around Istanbul with an aged, grizzled Ezio learning how take out den captains, recruiting a new brotherhood and helping Sofia…even learning about the parts of the hook blade, apparently a hook… and a blade… were just lovely smile-inducing moments that this game misses so much, and therefore, feels smaller an experience. I’m sure it’s packed full of techo-jargon stuff that you’ll say makes it the most impressive adventure yet, but it just feels hollow. The flashy experience of captaining my own ship on the sea, doesn’t fill that void when I can’t jump in a Gondola or Boat to free roam anywhere in the game. Jumping in a moving cart to hide from guards seems shamefully small, when the cart inevitably ends up stopping at the next guard post while they “inspect” it… (never-mind the fact, the driver isn’t holding any reigns!).

You’ve jammed it full of lots of these different things, but they don’t equate to the experience feeling any bigger. There’s no why, they’re just there. It makes me feel (as a fan, and a customer) like I’m a part of a big ol’ world, that is doing its own thing and I’m just a tiny part of it. The series has conditioned me into feeling, like Altair and Ezio before, that Connor should be the MOST important part of the game. AC3 should feel emotionally like a big world, but not just physically, and Connor should be a huge, driving force within it. I learned my responsibilities as an assassin as Altair, I helped build towns and cities as Ezio, He fell in love. He sought friendship and advice from many. I really felt like Ezio (and I as a player) made a difference in the previous games to not only the Assassin’s, but the world as a whole. ACIII tells me to consult a book to buy things from people who live with me, to spend time alone killing animals and not learning anything about my heritage or responsibility to train as an assassin... and unlike the other Assassin’s games, I’m just a cog in a wheel.

I’m not turning anything. I’m wind on the frontier without a song.

Does that make me an Assassin?


Many Regards.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 03:45 PM
Tombs return and Puzzles return..

and that`s one big *** post

lothario-da-be
11-04-2012, 03:53 PM
Tombs return and Puzzles return..

and that`s one big *** post
I'am in sequence 6 now and haven't found any tombs or puzzles, where can i find them?

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 03:57 PM
I'am in sequence 6 now and haven't found any tombs or puzzles, where can i find them?
Tombs are found through Naval missions, but they`re not technically tombs, although they have the same concept..

Puzzles are found in the underground Tunnels..

lothario-da-be
11-04-2012, 03:59 PM
Tombs are found through Naval missions, but they`re not technically tombs, although they have the same concept..

Puzzles are found in the underground Tunnels..
Ah ok. well i actualy did one tomb. The lost mayan ruin.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 04:00 PM
Ah ok. well i actualy did one tomb. The lost mayan ruin.
Great :D

The others also revolve around Captain Kidd ;)

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 04:01 PM
They're not the puzzles, nor the tombs, we've come to enjoy from the past. As I said, everything feels slightly off... and unlike the other games, there's no story motivational reason to bother with the underground at all, unlike past games where the tombs and puzzles were directly connected to the narrative. You can move through this game without visiting the majority of the underground, without recruiting a single member of your brotherhood nor collecting a single page for Ben Franklin. It just feels smaller. It actually feels like the narrative was worked on completely separately from the rest of the game. Like the story and missions were made far in advance of things like the naval, underground and side quests. There's just no connection between a lot of this stuff, whereas previous games (especially Revelations and Brotherhood) connected everything as part of the narrative, thus making you emotionally connected to the protagonist in all your actions.

...but yes, it is rather long. As I said. Cathartic.

lothario-da-be
11-04-2012, 04:02 PM
Great :D

The others also revolve around Captain Kidd ;)
And at the end of the mayan ruin you get the sawtooth sword but when i'am back in the game i don't have it, a bug? i have a big axe equepuid, is that the problem?

hyatari
11-04-2012, 04:05 PM
Tombs return and Puzzles return..

and that`s one big *** post

That is the extent of your contribution here; blindly ignoring any reasonable, qualified posts in favour of redundant fanboy dribbling. Congratulations.

To the OP; good post, well articulated. I particularly agree with this comment: "It’s the “why” that is missing from a lot of this game" - there's absolutely no motivating factors to complete asinine, repetitive missions/side missions aside from the sake of doing them. What real rewards are there? There is no 'build' development to your character, which is made all the more apparent when you realise your starting weapons are already overpowered. Other open world games thrive by motivating you to do seemingly repetitive tasks, because you know at the end of it you can level up or obtain an upgrade to a weapon which will really help your progress. Here, who cares? You can complete the whole game EASILY with what you start with. There's just no gameplay development at all.

lothario-da-be
11-04-2012, 04:06 PM
They're not the puzzles, nor the tombs, we've come to enjoy from the past. As I said, everything feels slightly off... and unlike the other games, there's no story motivational reason to bother with the underground at all, unlike past games where the tombs and puzzles were directly connected to the narrative. You can move through this game without visiting the majority of the underground, without recruiting a single member of your brotherhood nor collecting a single page for Ben Franklin. It just feels smaller.
Why complaining if its still there? The Romulus lairs were also OPTIONAL, collectiong things in ac was almost always OPTIONAL, the tombs in ac2 OPTONAL. recruiting in acb and acr OPTIONAL. The leonardo's machines OPTIONAL...

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 04:07 PM
They're not the puzzles, nor the tombs, we've come to enjoy from the past. As I said, everything feels slightly off... and unlike the other games, there's no story motivational reason to bother with the underground at all, unlike past games where the tombs and puzzles were directly connected to the narrative. You can move through this game without visiting the majority of the underground, without recruiting a single member of your brotherhood nor collecting a single page for Ben Franklin. It just feels smaller. It actually feels like the narrative was worked on completely separately from the rest of the game. Like the story and missions were made far in advance of things like the naval, underground and side quests. There's just no connection between a lot of this stuff, whereas previous games (especially Revelations and Brotherhood) connected everything as part of the narrative, thus making you emotionally connected to the protagonist in all your actions.

...but yes, it is rather long. As I said. Cathartic.
That`s your Problem then..

Those are side missions, they were not supposed to connect to the Narrative, I hated how In ACR, the Tombs were connected to the Story. In AC II it was not..and like everything you listed.. You can finish AC II without exploring the tombs, collecting anything and without doing any Side missions.

In ACB you could finish the game without Exploring tombs, Collecting stuff, Doing side missions..

In ACR, You HAD to explore tombs (Hated that)..

I`m glad they decided to return to AC II and separate Side missions and main ones..

lothario-da-be
11-04-2012, 04:10 PM
That`s your Problem then..

Those are side missions, they were not supposed to connect to the Narrative, I hated how In ACR, the Tombs were connected to the Story. In AC II it was not..and like everything you listed.. You can finish AC II without exploring the tombs, collecting anything and without doing any Side missions.

In ACB you could finish the game without Exploring tombs, Collecting stuff, Doing side missions..

In ACR, You HAD to explore tombs (Hated that)..

I`m glad they decided to return to AC II and separate Side missions and main ones..
looks like we were thinking the same :)

ProdiGurl
11-04-2012, 04:16 PM
Gosh, here I thought I was playing side missions becuz I LOVE AC. ? Not all side-missions have to be central to the plot of the game, do they?

Not to bag on the OP, but they've created a Feedback thread at the top just for this type of 'feedback'....

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 04:19 PM
Why complaining if its still there? The Romulus lairs were also OPTIONAL, collectiong things in ac was almost always OPTIONAL, the tombs in ac2 OPTONAL. recruiting in acb and acr OPTIONAL. The leonardo's machines OPTIONAL...

I'm not going to go back and forth, because I think I've quite succently and eloquently made my position clear, but everything you list above was connected to the narrative in all the games. Especially Leonardo's machines, a character whom, was directly connected to the main narrative and additional DLC via the PS store. He was character directly connected to what was happening in the series. The Boston Underground? The Frontier? ...even the act of "syncing" viewpoints in Brotherhood and Revelations was connected to the story and provided a purpose, in ACIII it's essentially a hangover gimmick (much like feather hunting) that provides no real purpose, since you reveal the map as you walk.

Furthermore the tombs in ACII were connected to unlocking Altair's armor, the Tombs in Brotherhood gave you the incredible Brutus armor and Revelations gave you the Prince of Persia armor (I'm sure it has a name, but I love calling it that) ...all STORY related elements tied to the narrative. Yes, they were optional-ish, but not doing the tombs in Brotherhood, Revelations or ACII meant you missed out on some glorious interior visuals, amazing music, challenging sync options and neat character points... and more importantly, were rewarded for the experience.

None of which exploring the underground provides. It just unlocks 'fast travel' points, which completely takes away the purpose of free roaming and syncing viewpoints!

...again the why is missing in ACIII. I'm not connected. I'm not feeling a reason to climb that tree, or scale that church anymore.

The story itself, is quite wonderful and I think that, combined with the lovely new controls, makes it a compelling enough game. I'm just disappointed in the little details, the little connections and the rewards for doing them have been removed in favor for bigger maps and better graphics. Less emotional connections for the player have been left to idle.

BeCk41
11-04-2012, 04:22 PM
Omg! That was the longest post I've ever read on a forum before! The first would have to be a rant someone gave about the entire game mechanics being broken...

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 04:24 PM
Then like I said, THAT is your Problem and not the Devs`..

I did not need any "Connection" to do "SIDE MISSIONS"

My God these complaints are weird..

hyatari
11-04-2012, 04:26 PM
[FONT=trebuchet ms]Gosh, here I thought I was playing side missions becuz I LOVE AC. ?

Why did I do menial tasks in, for example, skyrim....because I then had the potential to level up/obtain a new weapon to help me in a difficult area/obtain money for training/have the chance to meet more interesting characters/obtain new armor that would be necessary for certain areas. Ask yourself, why are you doing it in ACIII, other than....just because? Where are the difficult enemies? Where are the variety of enemies? Why get a new weapon when your base weapon kills everything in sight?

If you think complaints about core gameplay and why we should do things is weird, it says more about you...

Mr_Shade
11-04-2012, 04:32 PM
please make sure you also make you points heard in the pinned thread for feedback.

I will let the team know about your thoughts, however they have most likely already read it - since they do read the forums daily ;)

Ielgon
11-04-2012, 04:33 PM
Very well written post that gives constructive criticism, this is rare and exceptional on the internet:
http://thatschurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maq77ecMHG1qejf6u.gif

However, I feel like these issues should perhaps be tackled later. First they should fix the bugs and the framerate/performance issues through patches. I have to admit your point about music is spot on though, it's really what makes this game sometimes feel empty. Whenever I climb up to a viewpoint and that short piece of ambient music starts playing it adds so much atmosphere. I actually encountered a great bug yesterday. One of the lighter variations of the main theme randomly played once while free roaming in New York, it immediately made it so much more epic.

MCRMJ
11-04-2012, 04:36 PM
In the previous games they may not have been compulsory, yet they added a layer to the overall narrative. The Glyphs - The Truth, in ACB the puzzles added the backdrop to ACR and Clay. Armour of Altair. Even the Romulus Lairs were, in a way story related, though less tangible than the others (influence of the Borgia, foreshadowing of the Temple of Juno in the scrolls).

The non-compulsory side missions/'tombs' that had little impact were the Templar Lairs (the Medici palazzo and such). Sure, the previous games had their optional side stuff, Assassin Guild, Thieves Guild and so on, but AC3 seems to cram as much as this stuff in with little reason to do so.

I agree with the thrust of the op, a lot of the 'why' and what reasoning does Connor have to do most of the stuff is missing. The Homestead is a great addition and far better than buying landmarks of major cities. There are just a lot of convoluted game mechanics thrown in for the sake of giving people something to do, without any explanation of what they are for or how they work, with no overall benefit to Connors cause.

The missing ambience is a complete mystery to me though. I thought ACR had a ridiculously oversized soundtrack, but I would take that over the sparse one for AC3 with rehashed themes from the previous game (I'm sure I heard the Sofia motif when they were signing the declaration, what on Earth was that about).

I've spent so many an hour on the Ezio trilogy doing absolutely nothing, tormenting NPCs, wandering around, climbing landmarks and soaking everything up. As much as I enjoyed 3, at this moment in time I haven't any urge to do that.

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 04:37 PM
I read the whole post... I think you should realize that this is quite a different game from AC2, and that the experience is going to be quite different.

Also, people do missions in AC3 because they want to.

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 04:39 PM
Very well written post that gives constructive criticism, this is rare and exceptional on the internet:
http://thatschurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maq77ecMHG1qejf6u.gif

However, I feel like these issues should perhaps be tackled later. First they should fix the bugs and the framerate/performance issues through patches. I have to admit your point about music is spot on though, it's really what makes this game sometimes feel empty. Whenever I climb up to a viewpoint and that short piece of ambient music starts playing it adds so much atmosphere. I actually encountered a great bug yesterday. One of the lighter variations of the main theme randomly played once while free roaming in New York, it immediately made it so much more epic.
Lol, that isn't a bug. In the walkthrough of AC3 I watch I hear ambient music all the time.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 04:40 PM
Very well written post that gives constructive criticism, this is rare and exceptional on the internet:
http://thatschurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maq77ecMHG1qejf6u.gif


I generally agree with this..

This is one of the very few threads that actually Criticize Constructively, coherently and has a Valid base..

Gives me some hope in light of this plague of ridiculous bashing like a 5 year old...

rileypoole1234
11-04-2012, 04:43 PM
I guess people didn't realise what Ubi meant when they were saying things like "fresh start" and "we're changing everything".

But I'm glad you're not bashing them, so there's that.

Mr_Shade
11-04-2012, 04:43 PM
Indeed - everyone at Ubisoft LOVES constructive posts like these - both positive and negative alike..


A well worded post pointing out what the person feels is a let down - or something to consider changing - is going to have much more of an impact than a person saying 'the game sucks - i'm out' or 'OMG!! Ihate you !!'

Bugs etc - please make sure you add your voices to the threads we have set up - the more information / feedback we get the better ;)

Single player gameplay feed back: NO SPOILERS!!
Assassin's Creed 3: Single Player Gameplay Feedback [DO NOT POST SPOILERS] (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/720979-Assassin-s-Creed-3-Single-Player-Gameplay-Feedback-DO-NOT-POST-SPOILERS)


Single player bugs? Please again report directly to Support and use this Thread.
Assassin's Creed 3 Single Player Bugs & Issues Thread *Possible Spoilers* (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/720981)


Multiplayer bugs? Please again report directly to Support and use this Thread.
Assassin's Creed 3: Multiplayer Bugs & Issues Thread (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/720983)


For Multiplayer feedback such as game modes, perks, etc, please post here-
Assassin's Creed 3 Multiplayer Gameplay Feedback Thread *Possible-Spoilers* (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/720984)

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 04:45 PM
Certainly not bashing anyone. I loved the hell out of the story, quite honestly. I think Connor has a lot of time left as our go-to guy. I just hope everything around him is given just as much thought and TLC, because his world is missing a lot of feeling and emotional connection for the player.

But yes, certainly not bashing Ubi or the gang whatsoever... that wasn't my intention. Just tried to explain and pass along some constructive, if long-winded, opinion and to try to explain (to myself, if not anyone else who feels the same) WHY i'm left feeling a little empty after playing through so much of the game... and certainly during the free roaming elements.


However, I feel like these issues should perhaps be tackled later. First they should fix the bugs and the framerate/performance issues through patches. I have to admit your point about music is spot on though, it's really what makes this game sometimes feel empty. Whenever I climb up to a viewpoint and that short piece of ambient music starts playing it adds so much atmosphere. I actually encountered a great bug yesterday. One of the lighter variations of the main theme randomly played once while free roaming in New York, it immediately made it so much more epic.

Thanks for your, and others, kind feedback. I'm actually not suggesting any of my points be fixed (a lot are actually, impossible to be fixed by any patch). My effort was simply to try to explain why I (...and others) feel this game is a little "off" in the wider-gameplay elements such as the Underground, Homestead et-al. It's a case of the reason behind them being there being unrelated to anything game-wise and simply put there because it's an "Assassin's Creed" game. They've reinvented a lot of stuff (the controls, visuals, maps and interface) which is asthetically nicer, but emotionally there's nothing there to connect me to the narrative by giving me a nicer HUD!* The new game elements have been shoehorned alongside older elements (feathers and sync-points) for no reason, no narrative connection and they simply make the overall experience a much smaller one. The why, as I keep repeating, has been forgotten.

But yes, there's a few bugs and glitches, certainly in regards to the homestead that can (and should) be fixed, but none of the points I raise can really be "patched" it's just I hope, in future games, there's a bit more thought put into not just making things look nice, but making us FEEL connected to the world as a character and emotionally, especially in regards to the sonics and atmosphere, give us a reason to roam, wander and explore... moreso than "well, you just should..."







* Although the de-sync screen is a lovely little update, and I no longer feel death is a bad thing, simply a pause between drinks... I could stare at it's dark, moody, glowing orbs for hours...

_______________________________

EDIT:

However, I WILL SAY throwing Lorne a couple of hundred dollars to compose a few 5+ minute themes for Boston, New York and the Frontier to be incorporated to play while we free roam, might not be a bad idea...

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 04:45 PM
I think the idea they had with the tombs and puzzles in this game was to not have it be connected to the main story.

ProdiGurl
11-04-2012, 04:52 PM
Why did I do menial tasks in, for example, skyrim....because I then had the potential to level up/obtain a new weapon to help me in a difficult area/obtain money for training/have the chance to meet more interesting characters/obtain new armor that would be necessary for certain areas. Ask yourself, why are you doing it in ACIII, other than....just because? Where are the difficult enemies? Where are the variety of enemies? Why get a new weapon when your base weapon kills everything in sight? If you think complaints about core gameplay and why we should do things is weird, it says more about you...

K first off all, I didn't say anything about your complaints being 'weird' (I think M used that word? not me) ... I guess you just have to find a specific reason to bother with playing side missions outside of just loving a game and wanting to enjoy getting your money's worth from it?? To each their own. I can admit it helps with more enthusiasm to complete them, but.... AC doesn't have to be like every other game & do what they do. I'm only at the beginning of sequence 5 so I don't have the full scope of the game yet. I also didn't read your entire post - it's way too long for me but I did pick out the one thing I could address for now. And where are the difficult enemies? Maybe you're a pro level gamer, I'm not, so I've come across plenty of guard groups that keep me working hard for now (at least to synch a mission).. As for obtaining money . . I would think you could get some if you kill guards & loot them in side missions? Don't know yet, haven't done any.

The one thing that does help to be relatable to the game tho is Recruiting & leveling them up. But again I haven't gotten to it yet. I responded only to what I could from my current knowledge/experience of the game.

*edit in* - after reading the above post, in my Feedback up to Seq. 5 I noted that music was missing in some areas that is greatly missed.
For some reason, AC needs music to set moods and tones. I definitely give you that.

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 04:56 PM
AW, the sync points are as tied to the story as they were in any other game.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 05:06 PM
My only gripe here is that we never had a reason to complete side quests in previous games either...

AC II

Courier Missions: No reason and No reward. Just send letters.
Beat Up missions: No reward. Just beat someone up.
Races: No reward just win this race
Tombs:To get the Altair Armor (Again, No reason ot incentive to get. The game was easy)
Feathers: No reason, but a Cape, a Hammer and making a mother happy.

ACB

Thief Missions: No reason and no Reward, but a small trophy in your Hideout.
Courtesan Missions: No Reason and no reward, but a Knife and a small Trophy in your Hideout.
Mercenary Missions: No reason and no Reward, but an Ax and a small Trophy in your Hideout.
Assassination missions: No reason and no reward, but a Sword and a small trophy in your hideout.
Tombs: To get the Brutus Armor ( Again, no reason or incentive to get. The game was easy)
Flags: No reason and a Cape

ACR

Tombs: Tied to the Story line
Book locations: No Reason and no reward, but a short scene.
Assassination: No reason and no reward, but a trophy and Armor in the Hideout
Feathers: Literally Nothing..

AC III

Courier: No reason and no reward
Delivery: No reason and no reward
Feathers: No reason, but an outfit
Tombs: No reason, but an Outfit
Crafting: Weapons, Ammunition and Decorations for Manor

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 05:09 PM
AW, the sync points are as tied to the story as they were in any other game.

Whilst I somewhat agree, I would say that in previous games you had to sync to get the map 'unlocked'., now you don't, so I have no reason to go to viewpoints, so why bother??


I very much agree with the OP, I love the game, but it's just a bit 'off' in lots of areas.
I loved the tombs from previous games, I agree that you didn't have to do them, but I felt a need too. Just like I felt a need to go to every viewpoint, explore new areas, get new assassins. A need which I didn't get in this game.
There was often something to get out of it, a new armour or something.
There was a feeling of accomplishment, be it after I'd renovated the city, synced all viewpoints or collected all of the Pasha memoir pages. I got that feeling far more often than I did in 3.

ProdiGurl
11-04-2012, 05:19 PM
Excellent points M. I agree. In my case in the previous games, I ALWAYS played the side missions in between my main missions and before I finished the game - not after the main story was done when I was finished.
THEN and only then does it feel "dead' to me to play side missions. When my main story is going, the game is alive and all is relevant that's going on within it (whether it has any purpose to the plot/story or not).

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 05:25 PM
Excellent points M. I agree. In my case in the previous games, I ALWAYS played the side missions in between my main missions and before I finished the game - not after the main story was done when I was finished.
THEN and only then does it feel "dead' to me to play side missions. When my main story is going, the game is alive and all is relevant that's going on within it (whether it has any purpose to the plot/story or not).
When some of the Brotherhood Missions were tied to the story, it actually felt off when doing them after the main Story is complete. They mention Cesare`s name, they refer to incidents by the Borgia, they talk about Rodrigo`s politics. In the Lairs, Courtesan, Thief and Assassination missions the thing is. They`re dead, but I still hear their names even though I`m done with the story and the Borgia are gone. That occurs in AC II too, only names defer. in this case being Medici and the Pazzi..

In AC III, all that is gone. Each side quest has its own story and does not need the main story to stand, because its simply independent of inconsistencies tying it to the story might bring.

hyatari
11-04-2012, 05:27 PM
Is anyone else disappointed with the spoon feeding approach to the missions? I really can't stand the way there's a list of what to and how to do it, and if you veer from it, a lovely red cross appears in the corner. The missions shouldn't be this linear, the player should be encouraged to do it his own way, not made to feel like it's wrong. Enough of the hand holding.

ProdiGurl
11-04-2012, 05:28 PM
When some of the Brotherhood Missions were tied to the story, it actually felt off when doing them after the main Story is complete. They mention Cesare`s name, they refer to incidents by the Borgia, they talk about Rodrigo`s politics. the thing is. They`re dead, but I still hear their names even though I`m done with the story and the Borgia are gone.

In AC III, all that is gone. Each side quest has its own story and does not need the main story to stand, because its simply independent of inconsistencies tying it to the story might bring.

Ya - kinda 'off' to have that happen once they're gone. If that's how they did the side quests, I kinda like that independent idea. The only other relevant way you could tie it in is thru a rewarding system. But we all know we ended up with WAYYYY too much bankroll at the other end of AC's lol. In ACR I skipped alot of chests & stuff becuz I didn't need any more.
So who knows how to make it perfect. I kinda feel sorry for these devs - but then they have to be used to this kinda stuff in their profession.
And once you get enough $$, why do the rewarding Side quests?

Ielgon
11-04-2012, 05:29 PM
Lol, that isn't a bug. In the walkthrough of AC3 I watch I hear ambient music all the time.

Do you hear the MAIN theme all the time? You know: the one that usually plays during cinematics? I only hear some random ambient sounds and occasionally a little clip when it is linked to an activity (getting close to a viewpoint for instance), just running around the game has no music. This, however, was with nothing going on and me just walking around in New York at night.

But you said it yourself that you're watching a walkthrough, maybe the person put it in themselves? Trust me: if you play the actual games you won't constantly hear music, only little clips and it's very rare and/or context bound.

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 05:31 PM
When some of the Brotherhood Missions were tied to the story, it actually felt off when doing them after the main Story is complete. They mention Cesare`s name, they refer to incidents by the Borgia, they talk about Rodrigo`s politics. In the Lairs, Courtesan, Thief and Assassination missions the thing is. They`re dead, but I still hear their names even though I`m done with the story and the Borgia are gone. That occurs in AC II too, only names defer. in this case being Medici and the Pazzi..

In AC III, all that is gone. Each side quest has its own story and does not need the main story to stand, because its simply independent of inconsistencies tying it to the story might bring.

Yeah but you can argue that due to the nature of how the Animus works, this is acceptable.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 05:32 PM
Ya - kinda 'off' to have that happen once they're gone. If that's how they did the side quests, I kinda like that independent idea. The only other relevant way you could tie it in is thru a rewarding system. But we all know we ended up with WAYYYY too much bankroll at the other end of AC's lol. In ACR I skipped alot of chests & stuff becuz I didn't need any more.
So who knows how to make it perfect. I kinda feel sorry for these devs - but then they have to be used to this kinda stuff in their profession.
And once you get enough $$, why do the rewarding Side quests?
The Devs took a risk and over hauled many systems in the game. It worked. Some liked it and some did not..Its always like this..

I kinda agree on the reward thing, though..There is too few rewards.


Yeah but you can argue that due to the nature of how the Animus works, this is acceptable.
Why is it that you accept what soothes to you, but not something else in regards to the same subject ?? (And I`m not referring to you specifically. Just everyone in general) I do not accept that animus explanation..It takes out of the immersion

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 05:36 PM
Is anyone else disappointed with the spoon feeding approach to the missions? I really can't stand the way there's a list of what to and how to do it, and if you veer from it, a lovely red cross appears in the corner. The missions shouldn't be this linear, the player should be encouraged to do it his own way, not made to feel like it's wrong. Enough of the hand holding.

I like the "total sync" pieces because you feel a part of the character and a story, and you want to "re-live" the TRUE actions of the ancestor, plus it adds some difficult re-playability. However, the big gigantic RED X feels like you're failing. It's like I'm back in school and my teacher gives me a B MINUS IN RED COLOUR when, actually, I just got a friggin B minus! ...having THREE possible total sync challenges is overkill, I think one ...perhaps two for the bigger missions, but many have three (or more) and you feel subconsciously punished for not doing it the "correct" way. I like the option to play "true" to the "Historical actions" of Connor, but I do agree with you that it feels like you're being subconsciously punished for not ticking all the appropriate boxes.

All comes back to the why.. Why is it there, why have three? What's the story motivation other than game re-play? One of many arbitrary things included for no apparent rhyme or reason, other than to "just do it" or "just make it harder". Performing certain actions with Connor (like limiting guard deaths) is a great way to reinforce the story narrative, however, runs contrary to the established need to kill constantly, due to the lack of a training area where you can practice the new controls and fine tune the use of the weapon options.

...on one hand, you're 'rewarded' for limiting deaths and acting stealthy... on the next you are forced into killing indiscriminately to improve your assassin skills. It's just messy and not consistent. I prefer to play stealth where possible, I know others are different and won't mind this stuff of course... but you're ****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't in ACIII

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 05:36 PM
Do you hear the MAIN theme all the time? You know: the one that usually plays during cinematics? I only hear some random ambient sounds and occasionally a little clip when it is linked to an activity (getting close to a viewpoint for instance), just running around the game has no music. This, however, was with nothing going on and me just walking around in New York at night.

But you said it yourself that you're watching a walkthrough, maybe the person put it in themselves? Trust me: if you play the actual games you won't constantly hear music, only little clips and it's very rare and/or context bound.
He made it clear that it was from the game.. he said it.was beautiful and wants to know what it's called.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 05:37 PM
He made it clear that it was from the game.. he said it.was beautiful and wants to know what it's called.
There is no Music while free roaming, mate..

I dunno if its a glitch, but if it is, then its a damm right wide one..

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 05:40 PM
I also like the lack of music... it AC1, I had a glitch where the ambient music and crowd noises were gone, and just standing ontop of a viewpoint looking out... it.was amazing.

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 05:40 PM
My only gripe here is that we never had a reason to complete side quests in previous games either... AC II Courier Missions: No reason and No reward. Just send letters. Beat Up missions: No reward. Just beat someone up. Races: No reward just win this race Tombs:To get the Altair Armor (Again, No reason ot incentive to get. The game was easy) Feathers: No reason, but a Cape, a Hammer and making a mother happy. ACB Thief Missions: No reason and no Reward, but a small trophy in your Hideout. Courtesan Missions: No Reason and no reward, but a Knife and a small Trophy in your Hideout. Mercenary Missions: No reason and no Reward, but an Ax and a small Trophy in your Hideout. Assassination missions: No reason and no reward, but a Sword and a small trophy in your hideout. Tombs: To get the Brutus Armor ( Again, no reason or incentive to get. The game was easy) Flags: No reason and a Cape ACR Tombs: Tied to the Story line Book locations: No Reason and no reward, but a short scene. Assassination: No reason and no reward, but a trophy and Armor in the Hideout Feathers: Literally Nothing.. AC III Courier: No reason and no reward Delivery: No reason and no reward Feathers: No reason, but an outfit Tombs: No reason, but an Outfit Crafting: Weapons, Ammunition and Decorations for Manor Any sort of new weapon, cut scene, reward or the like is an incentive to me. It doesn't have to add to the main plot, or stand independently in my eyes, just be fun, and offer some sort of reward. If for instance, completing the AC2 tombs got you nothing, I doubt I would have done them, instead, with the knowledge that Altair's armor would be accessible, I completed them all. Same with the Brutus Armor. The ACR factions quests got you discounts, some cool features (like the theif steal thing) and then a weapon. All a good reason to do the things. Hiring Assassins felt like something that should be done, as did using them in missions even when you didn't need too, or sending them away on contracts. To me, lots of these things felt like they needed to be done, a feeling I don't get with 3. I have no reason to recruit assassins, or sync viewpoints, or go into the underground. The only side missions I really care for are the Homestead ones, these reward you, and you get to know and like the people in your village.

Ielgon
11-04-2012, 05:41 PM
He made it clear that it was from the game.. he said it.was beautiful and wants to know what it's called.

Is the walkthrough only missions? In missions there's usually music. While freeroaming, however, (inbetween the missions) the game is mostly silent music wise.

Can we perhaps get a link of it?

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 05:41 PM
There is no Music while free roaming, mate..

I dunno if its a glitch, but if it is, then its a damm right wide one..

Then this bug happened often in his game.

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 05:42 PM
Is the walkthrough only missions? In missions there's usually music. While freeroaming, however, (inbetween the missions) the game is mostly silent music wise.
He was freeroaming at the time, in Boston.

pirate1802
11-04-2012, 05:42 PM
Well I remember one of the biggest gripe among users over here post-ACR was the lack of side-missions?

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 05:45 PM
Any sort of new weapon, cut scene, reward or the like is an incentive to me. It doesn't have to add to the main plot, or stand independently in my eyes, just be fun, and offer some sort of reward. If for instance, completing the AC2 tombs got you nothing, I doubt I would have done them, instead, with the knowledge that Altair's armor would be accessible, I completed them all. Same with the Brutus Armor. The ACR factions quests got you discounts, some cool features (like the theif steal thing) and then a weapon. All a good reason to do the things. Hiring Assassins felt like something that should be done, as did using them in missions even when you didn't need too, or sending them away on contracts. To me, lots of these things felt like they needed to be done, a feeling I don't get with 3. I have no reason to recruit assassins, or sync viewpoints, or go into the underground. The only side missions I really care for are the Homestead ones, these reward you, and you get to know and like the people in your village.

THIS! Well put, sir... well put.

Ielgon
11-04-2012, 05:50 PM
He was freeroaming at the time, in Boston.

Give us a link to the video. Then we can determine whether it was a bug for ourselves, you just telling us doesn't give us any proof that there is somehow ambient music in only this guy's game while freeroaming.

CalgaryJay
11-04-2012, 05:51 PM
As mentioned tombs/puzzles (in their own way) are IN the game..

Agreed about the lack of ambient music, in the Frontier I prefer the natural way it is now, but in the cities there should be something, makes it feel empty, and kinda slow. I'm quite surprised they took this out, I considered the music as much a staple to AC as hidden blades & the select few other "must keep" AC features they carried over.

Completely disagree about the Frontier, I'm blown away by how good it is. I thought it would be cool but would pale in comparison to RDR, but it actually holds its own with it quite well, which is saying a LOT. Actually in some ways its even better, I cannot emphasize enough how impressed I am with the Frontier. Safe to say you probably just prefer the urban environments of previous AC games to a rural one.

And yes its too bad you can't free roam in naval, but outside of that I don't see how anyone could gripe about the Naval aspect in general. Groundbreaking, I was amazed every time I was on a ship.

Over-all I love the fresh start, the AC2 universe had grown stale. But it was expected many would be more resistant to it.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 05:53 PM
Any sort of new weapon, cut scene, reward or the like is an incentive to me. It doesn't have to add to the main plot, or stand independently in my eyes, just be fun, and offer some sort of reward. If for instance, completing the AC2 tombs got you nothing, I doubt I would have done them, instead, with the knowledge that Altair's armor would be accessible, I completed them all. Same with the Brutus Armor. The ACR factions quests got you discounts, some cool features (like the theif steal thing) and then a weapon. All a good reason to do the things. Hiring Assassins felt like something that should be done, as did using them in missions even when you didn't need too, or sending them away on contracts. To me, lots of these things felt like they needed to be done, a feeling I don't get with 3. I have no reason to recruit assassins, or sync viewpoints, or go into the underground. The only side missions I really care for are the Homestead ones, these reward you, and you get to know and like the people in your village.

AC III

Secret Locations: Captain Kidd Outfit..
Feathers: Native Outfit
Forts: Less taxes..
Almanacs: New Inventions to decorate Manor
Tunnels: To fast travel
Trinkets: To unlock secret locations
Crafting: Weapons and Ammunition

Again, Why do you twist the facts to what soothes to you ?? Why do you accept Minor rewards in AC II, B and R, but not Here ?? Why do you accept a stupid explanation as to why I think Brotherhood missions break immersion due to Main story Inconsistency ?? Why ?

luckyto
11-04-2012, 05:56 PM
OP,

I too have played every AC game, each more than once and working each as any dedicated completionist.

That said, I completely disagree with everything in your post. Perhaps Monday, I will spend time to address each of your complaints. But now, I just wanted to get out how absolutely and completely unfair and inaccurate your assessment is, in my view and many of the players I've spoken to directly. In my view, AC3 is bigger, more complex, more rewarding and truer to the spirit of the franchise than any before it. Not that it isn't without issues, I just don't see any of them being the ones you stated. It is a phenomenal achievement and game, and the MOST of the series versus the least. And I want nothing more than to see them continue in this direction.

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 06:02 PM
AC III

Secret Locations: Captain Kidd Outfit..
Feathers: Native Outfit
Forts: Less taxes..
Almanacs: New Inventions to decorate Manor
Tunnels: To fast travel
Trinkets: To unlock secret locations

Again, Why do you twist the facts to what soothes to you ?? Why do you accept Minor rewards in AC II, B and R, but not Here ?? Why do you accept a stupid explanation as to why I think Brotherhood missions break immersion due to Main story Inconsistency ?? Why ?

I don't see how the explanation is stupid tbf. Do enlighten me.

I was merely pointing out why I prefer AC2-R's side missions.
Yes, you do get rewards for these, but as I said, it is more about feeling a need and then a feeling of accomplishment. I agree that there are rewards for this. I was more disagreeing with you saing there's no incentive to get Altair armor, because the game is easy, or no need to do the faction challenges just to get a new weapon.

Lass4r
11-04-2012, 06:05 PM
I suggest you play further than sequence 6 before you make a long *** post like that. The reason the game may feel small is because the game does a bad job of telling you they are there. It doesn't tell you about forts, what your homestead missions do or the existence of clubs and club missions. There are loads of missions that I didn't discover until I finished the main story.
I thought the same as you, what the frick did they build this enourmous world for when there are so few missions? Turns out I was just scratching the surface....

Now do your research and come back, like I did :p

Mr_Shade
11-04-2012, 06:05 PM
Guys..

You are verging into spoilers again..

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 06:06 PM
I don't see how the explanation is stupid tbf. Do enlighten me.

I was merely pointing out why I prefer AC2-R's side missions.
Yes, you do get rewards for these, but as I said, it is more about feeling a need and then a feeling of accomplishment. I agree that there are rewards for this. I was more disagreeing with you saing there's no incentive to get Altair armor, because the game is easy, or no need to do the faction challenges just to get a new weapon.
Again, You accept a stupid Animus explanation, but refuse to accept that the Armor was not needed and that there was no reason for it... Why ? You have yet to answer this question


Guys..

You are verging into spoilers again..
We`re trying not to as hard as we can D:

Mr_Shade
11-04-2012, 06:16 PM
Well I suggest you try harder..

Otherwise I have to move the thread...

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 06:17 PM
Again, You accept a stupid Animus explanation, but refuse to accept that the Armor was not needed and that there was no reason for it... Why ? You have yet to answer this question:

Actually the armor built nicely into the story in all the previous games. Ezio was learning his role as an assassin and to complete his journey to become one of the greatest, he was rewarded with the Armour of Altair. Slowly evolving the armor of his father into a piece of his own. In Brotherhood he evolved both himself into a leader of many, not focused on revenge as much as re-establishing the assassin order and was rewarded with the armour of Bruitus. In fact, the very act of purchasing armour in Brotherhood was because he had lost it all in the Villa attack, and had to re-establish himself in Rome, both as a man, a leader and by setting up his new headquarters. Finally, in revelations the armour played into the narrative, with Ezio captured and on the journey to Masyaf, he was stripped to the bare minimum and had to 'start again' in Istanbul, gradually building the brotherhood there, learning about new weapons and bombs all a part of the different style of warfare in ancient Turkey. It was all integrated as part of the main narrative, whether you see it like that or not is irrelevant, you might not realize it... but your brain did. It's called subtlety.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 06:21 PM
Actually the armor built nicely into the story in all the previous games. Ezio was learning his role as an assassin and to complete his journey to become one of the greatest, he was rewarded with the Armour of Altair. Slowly evolving the armor of his father into a piece of his own. In Brotherhood he evolved both himself into a leader of many, not focused on revenge as much as re-establishing the assassin order and was rewarded with the armour of Bruitus. In fact, the very act of purchasing armour in Brotherhood was because he had lost it all in the Villa attack, and had to re-establish himself in Rome, both as a man, a leader and by setting up his new headquarters. Finally, in revelations the armour played into the narrative, with Ezio captured and on the journey to Masyaf, he was stripped to the bare minimum and had to 'start again' in Istanbul, gradually building the brotherhood there, learning about new weapons and bombs all a part of the different style of warfare in ancient Turkey. It was all integrated as part of the main narrative, whether you see it like that or not is irrelevant, you might not realize it... but your brain did. It's called subtlety.
I can just as easily craft a very nice story and call that explanation if you wish, but you`ll just say "No it does not work" or "I do not accept it" Because you simply do NOT want it to work. You already made your mind and are holding sternly to your belief.

What I see now, is a post desperately trying to find fault in AC III with no Justification..

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 06:21 PM
Again, You accept a stupid Animus explanation, but refuse to accept that the Armor was not needed and that there was no reason for it... Why ? You have yet to answer this question


Because the animus explanation works and makes sense. The same thing can happen in this game too.
I never said the armor was needed. The reason, imo, was to be fun, a change of pace and a small nod of the head to fans (with Altair armour) and then furthered that with the Brutus armor.

JCearlyyears
11-04-2012, 06:22 PM
I kinda felt like Ubi was missing the point of making things feel different. To me, some of the things felt like they didn't belong in the game at all, like they were there for the sake of changing things up. I don't care if it changes, but it has to be familiar. AC2 was massively different from AC1, but it was familiar, it didn't feel like a completely different game, yet it did because the retained familiarity. From AC2 to AC3, there are some very major changes. The most prominent one being, in my opinion, the composer. I can't help but hate his style. I felt like I was playing a movie. Jesper's music didn't sound like just a video game's music, it sounded like it was completely built around Assassin's Creed. The soundtrack seemed completely wrong to me. The soundtrack change, in my opinion, broke a lot of the familiarity.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 06:28 PM
Because the animus explanation works and makes sense. The same thing can happen in this game too.
I never said the armor was needed. The reason, imo, was to be fun, a change of pace and a small nod of the head to fans (with Altair armour) and then furthered that with the Brutus armor.
That is called making up baseless explanations to further your stay in an argument..

Everything you said applies to AC III, but you refuse to accept it as anything else, but what you perceive as "Uninspired"

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 06:29 PM
I can just as easily craft a very nice story and call that explanation if you wish, but you`ll just say "No it does not work" or "I do not accept it" Because you simply do NOT want it to work. You already made your mind and are holding sternly to your belief.

What I see now, is a post desperately trying to find fault in AC III with no Justification..

You're obviously misrepresenting and not understood anything I've said then. I can't help you. You're quite forthright on this forum, and that's your prerogative, but you can't go making baseless accusations like the above when I've outlined, quite thoroughly, what simply didn't work for me. It's not necessarily as black and white as you want it to be. You find no faults, that's great... others do. Come to terms with that on your own.

Remember; I actually liked the game. Whether you agree with me or not, the story and development team put all that stuff in previous games for a reason, there's no reason to buying additional weapons in ACIII, no reason to go underground, etc etc. It's not woven into the narrative, the homestead is mentioned once and then never again. The underground is mentioned once, and never again. Borgia Towers, Purchasing shops and upgrading armor all had narrative importance which was consistent with the story. There's a great opportunity for Connor to slowly build his own clothing style as an assassin... instead, he's simply given it to him and you dye it different colors. No 'personalization' for story purpose. This doesn't make the game bad (nor have I said that anywhere)... it simply doesn't give it a reason to be, a reason to connect with Connor outside of the main story, like we have previously.

I've plenty of justification. It's the way the game made me feel. Simple as that.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 06:34 PM
You're obviously misrepresenting and not understood anything I've said then. I can't help you.

Remember; I actually liked the game. Whether you agree with me or not, the story and development team put all that stuff in previous games for a reason, there's no reason to buying additional weapons in ACIII, no reason to go underground, etc etc. It's not woven into the narrative, the homestead is mentioned once and then never again. The underground is mentioned once, and never again. Borgia Towers, Purchasing shops and upgrading armor all had narrative importance which was consistent with the story. There's a great opportunity for Connor to slowly build his own clothing style as an assassin... instead, he's simply given it to him and you dye it different colors. No 'personalization' for story purpose. This doesn't make the game bad (nor have I said that anywhere)... it simply doesn't give it a reason to be, a reason to connect with Connor outside of the main story, like we have previously.

I've plenty of justification. It's the way the game made me feel. Simple as that.
Like I said, You are making up explanations and liking what you want, because you want to and disliking what you want AGAIN, because you want to..

I Understood you very well, and given my own explanations that prove that AC III has the same system like the previous games, you just refuse to accept it, because its done. your mind is fixed there and it will not change and so I will not try to change it anymore, because obviously you are glued to your perception..

I`m done, to summarize, I very much respect your Coherent OP and constructive criticism, but I think your complaint is weird and baseless..

I bid you a good day

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 06:35 PM
That is called making up baseless explanations to further your stay in an argument..

Everything you said applies to AC III, but you refuse to accept it as anything else, but what you perceive as "Uninspired"

No, you say you don't like the fact they'd talk about the Borgia after they were dead in brotherhood, yet very similar things can happen in this game. If you wish to know, PM me.

No, most of the things, to me, in my opinion, aren't as fun, don't change the pace all that much when compared. As I've said, things like the Homestead missions were great, the Mayan ruins was too as was the Captain Kidd map mission.
However, I don't get the same feeling doing most of the side missions as I did, I obviously can't quantify feeling, but I got a greater feeling with most of the side missions in previous games.

I never said uninspired, I actually love the game. I just agree with quite a bit of what the OP has said.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 06:37 PM
No, you say you don't like the fact they'd talk about the Borgia after they were dead in brotherhood, yet very similar things can happen in this game. If you wish to know, PM me.

No, most of the things, to me, in my opinion, aren't as fun, don't change the pace all that much when compared. As I've said, things like the Homestead missions were great, the Mayan ruins was too as was the Captain Kidd map mission.
However, I don't get the same feeling doing most of the side missions as I did, I obviously can't quantify feeling, but I got a greater feeling with most of the side missions in previous games.

I never said uninspired, I actually love the game. I just agree with quite a bit of what the OP has said.
Read my previous post and I did not say that AC III is exempt from the Story-Side Inconsistencies, I merely said that it does the Job better than ACB, AC II and ACR..

I`m done here..

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 06:38 PM
Read my previous post and I did not say that AC III is exempt from the Story-Side Inconsistencies, I merely said that it does the Job better than ACB, AC II and ACR..

I`m done here..

Well it doesn't when you effectively have a dead guy roaming around.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 06:40 PM
Well it doesn't when you effectively have a dead guy roaming around.
That did not happen to me (I know what you`re referring to)

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 06:45 PM
I Understood you very well, and given my own explanations that prove that AC III has the same system like the previous games,

That's where you're fundamentally incorrect. ACIII has completely different systems. The underground is nothing like the tomb quests. The music integration (and sonic/sound effects implementation) is entirely different to ANY previous Assassin's Creed Title, most likely, by design. The idea of the homestead is entirely different mechanic to buying/upgrading shops. Armor is gone, as is the majority of the personalization features of previous titles... back to ACI almost in theme, if not spirit. Captain Kidd stuff bares resemblances to the Tomb stuff, but isn't connected to any major narrative piece, even by a thread. He's simply a guy you meet... Ben Franklin has some narrative purpose in the vein of Leonardo, but I haven't honestly done enough "page collecting" to warrant opinon on that yet, but I suspect while similar, it'll feel not quite right like much of the other features. To me anyway, that's the consistent pattern I'm feeling...

In previous games, you felt a sense of "Earning" the hidden blades. Whether it was just the first one, or both... even the hookblade had to be 'earned' through a mission. In ACIII you're given not one, but BOTH right off the bat, and even then (narratively) begrudgingly by Achilles. These things are just handed over on bulk, with no need to explore any of them further. At least the dyes in ACII, B and R were all connected to regions you would explore or "wear" to fit in amongst the locals, for narrative purposes. The uniform "colours" in III other than bearing names of the city, really serve no purpose, and there's no armor options (or alternate uniform upgrades) to personalize it anyway.

While some systems are similar ...they're distant cousins at best, homages at worst... rather than direct mechanics tying the series together. It feels familiar, but not quite right. I'm certainly not suggesting the should've just ripped shop upgrading right from one game to the next, these things need to evolve, but I don't believe the direction they've gone in a few important areas feels like an Assassin game to me...

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 06:47 PM
That's where you're fundamentally incorrect. ACIII has completely different systems. The underground is nothing like the tomb quests. The music integration (and sonic/sound effects implementation) is entirely different to ANY previous Assassin's Creed Title, most likely, by design. The idea of the homestead is entirely different mechanic to buying/upgrading shops. Armor is gone, as is the majority of the personalization features of previous titles... back to ACI almost in theme, if not spirit. Captain Kidd stuff bares resemblances to the Tomb stuff, but isn't connected to any major narrative piece, even by a thread. He's simply a guy you meet... Ben Franklin has some narrative purpose in the vein of Leonardo, but I haven't honestly done enough "page collecting" to warrant opinon on that yet, but I suspect while similar, it'll feel not quite right like much of the other features. To me anyway, that's the consistent pattern I'm feeling...

In previous games, you felt a sense of "Earning" the hidden blades. Whether it was just the first one, or both... even the hookblade had to be 'earned' through a mission. In ACIII you're given not one, but BOTH right off the bat, and even then (narratively) begrudgingly by Achilles. These things are just handed over on bulk, with no need to explore any of them further. At least the dyes in ACII, B and R were all connected to regions you would explore or "wear" to fit in amongst the locals, for narrative purposes. The uniform "colours" in III other than bearing names of the city, really serve no purpose, and there's no armor options (or alternate uniform upgrades) to personalize it anyway.

While some systems are similar ...they're distant cousins at best, homages at worst... rather than direct mechanics tying the series together. It feels familiar, but not quite right.
I will not need to explain my self again, because I already done it in my previous posts..

and again, I`m done.. this discussion is over by default

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 06:52 PM
That did not happen to me (I know what you`re referring to)

None of the Borgia stuff happened to me. Your point??

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 06:54 PM
None of the Borgia stuff happened to me. Your point??
Then you either did it before the Story line was finished or you`re lying (Sorry for being too blatantly Honest)

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 06:57 PM
For what it's worth, you've not really explained yourself at all. You've just gone around telling everyone who you disagree with why they're wrong, and "crazy" or "stupid". Hardly a nuanced position, but then... this is the internet. ;)


I kinda felt like Ubi was missing the point of making things feel different. To me, some of the things felt like they didn't belong in the game at all, like they were there for the sake of changing things up. I don't care if it changes, but it has to be familiar. AC2 was massively different from AC1, but it was familiar, it didn't feel like a completely different game, yet it did because the retained familiarity. From AC2 to AC3, there are some very major changes. The most prominent one being, in my opinion, the composer. I can't help but hate his style. I felt like I was playing a movie. Jesper's music didn't sound like just a video game's music, it sounded like it was completely built around Assassin's Creed. The soundtrack seemed completely wrong to me. The soundtrack change, in my opinion, broke a lot of the familiarity.

The sonic soundscape (which isn't just the music) is just poorly integrated. I think even the editing of the music is pretty shoddy, certainly during sidequest chases and so on, the appropriate music kicks in. But cutscenes the music starts/stops awkwardly and doesn't feel as part of the overall experience as, perhaps, other stuff by Jesper did. Perhaps it's an effect of being spoiled musically in ACR, because that thing was LOADED full of music to the point of being a work of art, so perhaps this is more of what to expect moving forward... it's just a shame some subtle piece of "hunting" or "roaming" music couldn't be implemented while you're out on your own in the frontier, or (even better) Summer, Winter themes for the specific cities. Just makes you feel the game a bit more, you know?

The step from ACI to ACII is a really good comparison as to how to keep the familiar, but move in a direction with the new. In ACIII ...they've attempted to that and successfully with the story, and certainly with Desmond. New controls are a welcome relief from "the claw" ...But the integration of the Past/Future elements, along with other things I've outlined, have fallen away in favor of, as far as I can tell, bigger maps and better graphics. The HUD is a nice upgrade, and certainly the VARIETY of missions is certainly fresher... but lots of the core mechanics just doesn't feel right, sometimes.

do-_-bu
11-04-2012, 06:58 PM
Why complaining if its still there? The Romulus lairs were also OPTIONAL, collectiong things in ac was almost always OPTIONAL, the tombs in ac2 OPTONAL. recruiting in acb and acr OPTIONAL. The leonardo's machines OPTIONAL...
yes but they were fun, however all you get to do here is kill and kill and kill and apart from that kill which doesn't make sense because connor avoids killing at all costs

Epic_Eddy
11-04-2012, 06:59 PM
TBH I didn't feel like an assassin AT ALL in ac3. Loved the game as a whole though.

do-_-bu
11-04-2012, 07:01 PM
in cutsenes my assasin robe doesn't change does anyone have this issue?

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 07:01 PM
For what it's worth, you've not really explained yourself at all. You've just gone around telling everyone who you disagree with why they're wrong, and "crazy" or "stupid". Hardly a nuanced position, but then... this is the internet. ;)

Nice of you to put words in my tongue, but I did none of the things you claim. I did not wrong you, Hell I even said that your complaint is valid. I did not say you`re crazy and I certainly did not call anyone Stupid. and you want an explanation ? read my previous posts. Everyone else understood what I wanted to get to you just fine, except you and bandicoot...

and drop it, I said I`m done..

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 07:08 PM
Nice of you to put words in my tongue, but I did none of the things you claim. I did not wrong you, Hell I even said that your complaint is valid. I did not say you`re crazy and I certainly did not call anyone Stupid. and you want an explanation ? read my previous posts. Everyone else understood what I wanted to get to you just fine, except you and bandicoot....

You did actually, might want to go back and re-read some posts. You've been quite aggressive, but I always like a yin to my yang. When you write a nice little piece, and the first reply is 4 or 5 words... I think i can sum up where you're coming from pretty quickly. That being said, I have no issue with you, just your tone, if that's a thing. You need to understand lots of people have different opiinons to your own, that doesn't make them wrong, nor you right. It just is. I suggest perhaps taking some time to finesse your argument rather than saying things like "I'm done" and "drop it" when this is a discussion forum, where discussion is the norm-de-jour and therefore, it (and many other things) will continue to be discussed whether you return, or are done or whatever you deicde.

It's the reason I wanted to post my letter in the first place, rather than email it... to create discussion and hopefully give some reason to why I came away a little cold from my latest Assassin experience, and perhaps, why many others may feel the same. It's often nice, to not feel alone! In fact, sometimes it's nice to look at the other side of the beach ball, the colours... and appreciate them... and let the discussion continue as they gaze at colours you yourself, may not see.

That's, after all, one of the great things about a community. Lots of opinions, lots of ideas and lots of discussion. You're welcome to be a part or not...

______________


In regards to the side-quests in previous games, I did mention I play them alongside any main story elements as I go, I assume most people play this way... but occasionally will leave a few to finish off after the main story finishes (Piri Reis, was an example of this). I always felt like the side-quest stuff was SUPPOSED to be played that way, in ACIII there seems to be no real need to, say, collect/train your Brotherhood concurrently with the main mission... I'm sure there are benefits to doing this, but unlike in ACB or ACR there isn't a story motivation to do this (see; my previous paragraph on Connors 'lone wolf' theme in the narrative)

luckyto
11-04-2012, 07:08 PM
I find the new missions, homestead system, economic system, chest, trinkets, feathers and fast travel more critical to the narrative and more rewarding than any before it.

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 07:11 PM
Then you either did it before the Story line was finished or you`re lying (Sorry for being too blatantly Honest)

yeah, I did them when they popped up, I assume I have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 07:15 PM
You did actually, might want to go back and re-read some posts. You've been quite aggressive, but I always like a yin to my yang. I have no issue with you, just your tone, if that's a thing. You need to understand lots of people have different opiinons to your own, that doesn't make them wrong, nor you right. It just is. I suggest perhaps taking some time to finesse your argument rather than saying things like "I'm done" and "drop it" when this is a discussion forum, where discussion is the norm-de-jour and therefore, it (and many other things) will continue to be discussed whether you return, or are done or whatever you deicde.

It's the reason I wanted to post my letter in the first place, rather than email it... to create discussion and hopefully give some reason to why I came away a little cold from my latest Assassin experience, and perhaps, why many others may feel the same. It's often nice, to not feel alone! In fact, sometimes it's nice to look at the other side of the beach ball, the colours... and appreciate them... and let the discussion continue as they gaze at colours you yourself, may not see.

That's, after all, one of the great things about a community. Lots of opinions, lots of ideas and lots of discussion. You're welcome to be a part or not...
I know what I said. I have been aggressive yes, but its not like we`re Kids here, right ? I`m not the sort to put a smiley, If I think your complaint is weird I will say it to your face, mind you, I will make sure to praise what ever positive aspects you may have and acknowledge the legitimacy of said complaint, but in no way am I allowed to accept your view as you suggest a few posts back and not criticize it and show you some flaws in it.

and I never told anyone "You`re wrong" "you`re stupid" "you`re crazy" I know what I posted. I suggest you quote any of my posts if your words are to have any merit, instead of just "You did actually"

and I already discussed my view with you and you seem fixed in your mindset. Just read my previous posts, put them together and you`ll have a nice explanation.

AWBiggs
11-04-2012, 07:21 PM
I know what I said. I have been aggressive yes, but its not like we`re Kids here, right .

You might not be, but there are many who visit here that are. How you present yourself, defines how they learn to tell people about their game experiences. I'm sure Ubisoft would appreciate some more nuanced opinions, than spade-as-spade ones, especially among the younger. Regardless of that, to have a discussion with someone, especially if you want them to appreciate their perspective, honey attracts more flies than water. Just something to consider. I'll go back and have a read of your posts, but I think I've got the jist of your position. I'm glad you enjoyed the game as much as you say you did, I'm pleased for you, genuinely.

I imagine my experience with the additional elements yet to complete, will unfortunately, leave me much where I began this thread, rather than at your end of the spectrum. But the story is quite brilliant, and I do love Lorne's Assassin Theme.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 07:26 PM
You might not be, but there are many who visit here that are. How you present yourself, defines how they learn to tell people about their game experiences. I'm sure Ubisoft would appreciate some more nuanced opinions, than spade-as-spade ones, especially among the younger. Regardless of that, to have a discussion with someone, especially if you want them to appreciate their perspective, honey attracts more flies than water. Just something to consider. I'll go back and have a read of your posts, but I think I've got the jist of your position. I'm glad you enjoyed the game as much as you say you did, I'm pleased for you, genuinely.

I imagine my experience with the additional elements yet to complete, will unfortunately, leave me much where I began this thread, rather than at your end of the spectrum. But the story is quite brilliant, and I do love Lorne's Assassin Theme.
I did not enjoy it as much as you`d think. The lack of random missions irked me a bit. I`m waiting for your quoting me.

matrikzHH
11-04-2012, 07:33 PM
I 100% agree with the OP.

AC3 just feels empty as there is no character development whatsoever. Nothing I do (beside the main) quest adds anything to my character. So why should I bother?

In all previous titles the side missions had purpose. Not necessarily for the narrative but for the character and for the player. Even if AC was never the hardest game on the market you could make it even easier by getting new and better weapons. It actually made sense to renovate shops and earn money. Otherwise you couldn't afford many things. Now? What do I need money for? I'm in sequence 10 and I still have no clue what I should do with my money. So why would I waste time with crafting if it doesn't bring me anywhere closer to my goal I have as Connor?

In previous titles I could make the experience even easier by exploring tombs to get better armor. Liberate whole towns and make it easier to roam. And it gave the player some sort of achievement that now the whole town is yours. Now walking through a city is just horrible for me because I get attacked by guards at random. I have no idea why, my guess it's the watchdogs that can look through walls or something. And because there so many of them, I got circled by ten to twenty guys within seconds. As they stand on every corner it's really hard to get away if you don't want to fight them. But I drift off here.

Sure there where things that where odd since AC1. I always thought that collecting feathers is a little tedious. But the almanach pages are even worse because the fly away when you are not even close to them. ;-)

Beside this, I have a lot of bugs that push me over the edge. But that's not the point here I guess.

@Assassin_M I really don't get why you can't accept that other people have other opinions. Or like Connor said: (paraphrased as I play the game in german) "Just because your words are honestly spoken, they are not necessarily the truth." :-)


Greets,
Thomas

adamsocal
11-04-2012, 07:36 PM
I will not need to explain my self again, because I already done it in my previous posts..

and again, I`m done.. this discussion is over by default

This guys is the type of person who will accept/settle-for anything that is given to him and not try to challenge himself to do better. In addition, when his ideas are challenged, when he knows he is wrong, he is too stubborn to accept the fact that others have valid points.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 07:36 PM
@Assassin_M I really don't get why you can't accept that other people have other opinions. Or like Connor said: (paraphrased as I play the game in german) "Just because your words are honestly spoken, they are not necessarily the truth." :-)


Greets,
Thomas

Are you people blind or just like to lecture ? I clearly stated that I did not thing his opinion was wrong and mine was right and speaking Honestly ? I spoke like a ****, but I still did not ridicule his opinion.

Read ALL of my posts before going out of your way to accuse me of something false..


This guys is the type of person who will accept/settle-for anything that is given to him and not try to challenge himself to do better. In addition, when his ideas are challenged, when he knows he is wrong, he is too stubborn to accept the fact that others have valid points.
My Opinion is wrong.. See ?? A guy who`s registered on Aug 2012 knows me as "this type of guy"

Did you look at my threads ? My posts in the feedback thread ? No ? Then you clearly are ignorant to my position towards the game

shobhit7777777
11-04-2012, 07:40 PM
@AWBiggs

Yours is easily one of the best posts I've read on the AC forums. Extremely well thought out, well constructed and valid. Hats off to you for taking the time to write a well thought out post....it is a rarity.

Your post resonates with me because I too feel that the game lacks something..."soul" for lack of a better word. While I hugely disagree on the inclusion of Puzzles/Tombs in an AC game I agree with a majority of your points, especially regarding the aural atmosphere of the game....and I don't just mean the music....

For instance - On completion of the Boston Tea Party mission - a major 'Dot' in the history of the American revolution - the moment felt flat and and extremely jarring, this was because the sound of the crowd roaring was absent. A massive throng was visible yet the chaotic sound that such a large number of excited people would create was missing.....it felt odd and really drew me out of the experience. While this may seem like a minor issue, but the moment NEEDED a massive uproar to drive home the point that something historic had just occured.

And I also agree with the 'emptiness'. The towns of Boston and New York seem absolutely dead!

When I read previews and official statements regarding the new Engine's capabilities I gleefully assumed that we would be in for an absolute amazing "recreation" of the two cities. Instead I found the places to be extremely boring! And after absolutely brilliant work done by the team on Rome and Istanbul....it was a massive punch to the gut.

Take a walk around Istanbul in ACR.....the visuals do a fantastic job of not only creating the awe-inspiring sights but also the SCENTS! I can almost smell the game world....the Crowd density was the most disapointing aspect of ACR...hardly any people on the streets. Those that were there.....felt dead...CG characters is all.

I absolutely loved exploring the Pre AC3 cities.....Boston and NY...not so much.

The cities were a massive let down...both in terms of the visuals and the crowd. In an Assassin's Creed game, which originally started out with a strong social stealth/crowd/living breathing city component...this was a severe disapointment.

The additions seem like fluff....we have dogs, cats and pigs...you can pet them...we have street urchins running around now..kids...we have more blend spots....but like you said..it feels empty. The cities are just not interesting...and this seems like a missed oppurtunity.

I would have loved the cities teeming with immigrants fresh of the ships looking for work...different accents..different areas for different nationalities....Colonists pouring in. Interesting characters lining the streets, punters selling dubious wares, poachers about the streets, political rallies and marches...anything!
IDC if the above would historically inaccurate...I can settle for a few inaccuracies if it means a more lively and interesting world.

I also agree completely with you on the issue of Size of the maps and the absolute waste of space in the Frontier.....somehow skinning a deer is not my idea of replayability or even fun in an Assassin's Creed game.

I would love to go on about the horrendous mission design, the archaic AI, the absolute 0 evolution in terms of the rest of the core gameplay, the tired and cliched mission structures which plagues EVERY open world game, the extreme amounts of handholding and scripted feel and the absolutely mind numbingly long first act......but I don't want to detract too much from the core of your OP and also fear that people here don't seem to welcome more than 3 paragraphs worth of words.

Regards and PLEASE keep on posting and contributing.


POSITIVE Stuff:

Connor's character has taken a turn for the better and I am now really digging the narrative...all it needed was a bit of Haytham ;)

matrikzHH
11-04-2012, 07:52 PM
No, I did not read all you post because you have written a lot and my time is limited! ;-)

I read all posts in the thread, thou. And yes, you do say that it is wrong, when people say the game feels empty. At least for me, it's what I read between the lines. Sure you don't say it out loud, but you say it was always this way so it can't be bad now. Sort of "Your argument is invalid".

If that is not the case, than why do you have this discussion anyway? But maybe you are right. Maybe I just don't get you and should just shut up.

Btw, I don't want to lecture anyone. And I don't care what other people say about you. It was a simple question I had after reading through this thread. If that offended you, I'm sorry. I really am. But please don't call me ignorant just because I didn't read all 7500 posts you have written. I don't think I have to just to be allowed to ask you a question.


Greets,
Thomas

P.S.: Man, this is really getting off topic here.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 07:59 PM
No, I did not read all you post because you have written a lot and my time is limited! ;-)

I read all posts in the thread, thou. And yes, you do say that it is wrong, when people say the game feels empty. At least for me, it's what I read between the lines. Sure you don't say it out loud, but you say it was always this way so it can't be bad now. You argument is invalid.

If that is not the case, than why do you have this discussion anyway? But maybe you are right. Maybe I just don't get you and should just shut up.

Btw, I don't want to lecture anyone. And I don't care what other people say about you. It was a simple question I had after reading though this thread. If that offended you, I'm sorry. I really am. But please don't call me ignorant just because I didn't read all 7500 posts you made just to be allowed to ask you a question.


Greets,
Thomas

P.S.: Man, this is really getting off topic here.
If you`v no time, then do not waste more of it referring to me, talking to me or about me.. After all, i`m not worth it. and do not assume anything and tell me "I read between the lines" You`re no Psychic. You clearly cannot portray my words as you like. They were clear and straight forward and there was no "reading between the lines" needed..

matrikzHH
11-04-2012, 08:02 PM
If you`v no time, then do not waste more of it referring to me, talking to me or about me.. After all, i`m not worth it. and do not assume anything and tell me "I read between the lines" You`re no Psychic. You clearly cannot portray my words as you like. They were clear and straight forward and there was no "reading between the lines" needed..

Okay, whatever

Greets,
Thomas

P.S.: The ignore list is an awesome feature, don't you think?

CalgaryJay
11-04-2012, 08:05 PM
I also agree with the 'emptiness'. The towns of Boston and New York seem absolutely dead!

Take a walk around Istanbul in ACR.....the visuals do a fantastic job of not only creating the awe-inspiring sights but also the SCENTS! I can almost smell the game world....the Crowd density was the most disapointing aspect of ACR...hardly any people on the streets. Those that were there.....felt dead...CG characters is all.

The cities were a massive let down...both in terms of the visuals and the crowd. In an Assassin's Creed game, which originally started out with a strong social stealth/crowd/living breathing city component...this was a severe disapointment.

The additions seem like fluff....we have dogs, cats and pigs...you can pet them...we have street urchins running around now..kids...we have more blend spots....but like you said..it feels empty. The cities are just not interesting...and this seems like a missed oppurtunity.

I would have loved the cities teeming with immigrants fresh of the ships looking for work...different accents..different areas for different nationalities....Colonists pouring in. Interesting characters lining the streets, punters selling dubious wares, poachers about the streets, political rallies and marches...anything!
IDC if the above would historically inaccurate...I can settle for a few inaccuracies if it means a more lively and interesting world.

Well people should've expected the cities wouldn't be as full of life. Boston/New York in the late 18th century were basically hamlets when compared to Renaissance Rome/Florence/Venice/Constantinople. And if they had immigrants coming in droves off the boats it would've been completely inaccurate, that wasn't happening to near that level yet. The population of Boston in 1790 (almost a decade AFTER the end of the storyline) was about 18,000. That influx of immigration to the amount you're talking about didn't happen until the mid 19th century due to the potato famine in Ireland.

Also, I think the reason Constantinople seemed so much more exciting was simply, the ambient music. My ACR was glitched as hell, one of which was by sequence 3, the ambient music went away & never came back. It was amazing how much more boring free roaming around Constantinople seemed with zero music, really ruined the experience for me. A bit of ambiance in Boston in NY would've made all the difference IMO, cannot over-emphasize what a mood setter music can be.

I simply can't believe how many people don't appreciate the masterpiece Ubi did with the Frontier, its really a shame. This is their main "city" in AC, you can tell how much effort they put into it. I'm absolutely in love with it. As someone who lives basically in the same environment (geographic-wise, haha I don't live in a forest), I'm so impressed with how much they nailed the local wildlife sounds, right down to the Canada Geese. If I were out somewhere & chatted about AC3 with someone and they told me the Frontier sucked, I'd probably walk away from them in disgust.

lightlamp
11-04-2012, 08:10 PM
Good post it sums up my feelings on the game

Ethan630
11-04-2012, 08:15 PM
Sadly, I have to agree with the original post. As I recall, the prerelease trailers extolled the virtues of the Anvil Next game engine. Open map philosophy and all that. Unfortunately, your game rules seem to limit what I can do and where I can go.

As an example, I decided to hit all of the viewpoints in the Frontier to open up the entire map. My motivation is to open the map. But every time I come near a wolf, I have to kill or be killed. There is no option to just keep running towards the next viewpoint and avoid the fight. So much for playing the game the way I want to play it. For some reason, the developers decided that we needed a new combat system, but I ask, What was wrong with the old system? Seems to me that that in previous games in this series, we always had an option to not engage in a fight. No longer. The new game engine may have given the option to change things up, but just because we can does not mean that we should.

I picked up the game on the release date and have spent time playing every day since. I will continue playing the game for a while, but I doubt that I will ever finish it. I have seen enough to know that this game will never match up to Brotherhood or Revelations. There are just too many things wrong with this game.

PS: Check out Bethesda's Elder Scrolls V Skyrim to see what open map, play the game the way you want to, is all about.

shobhit7777777
11-04-2012, 08:37 PM
Well people should've expected the cities wouldn't be as full of life. Boston/New York in the late 18th century were basically hamlets when compared to Renaissance Rome/Florence/Venice/Constantinople. And if they had immigrants coming in droves off the boats it would've been completely inaccurate, that wasn't happening to near that level yet. The population of Boston in 1790 (almost a decade AFTER the end of the storyline) was about 18,000. That influx of immigration to the amount you're talking about didn't happen until the mid 19th century due to the potato famine in Ireland.



IDC if the above would historically inaccurate...I can settle for a few inaccuracies if it means a more lively and interesting world.

I completely understand and can see how more spartan setting and ambience of the cities is more historically accurate....but accuracy does't always translate into an interesting world.

I can assure you that several things in all cities in the AC franchise were exaggerated for dramatic/cinematic effect......I don't think Gypsy troupes were all over Istanbul nor do I believe that Venice and Rome had Courtesans in almost every corner...but I really loved the sense of 'Life' they brought into the city.

This is a video game...and for once I would've liked the devs to emphasize the tropes and cliches us foreigners often associate with pre independance America.

RDR does a good job of mixing history with cinematic fiction to create a real, breathing world.

Also, wouldn't you agree that it was a tad bit disapointing to see such a low density of crowds when the engine purportedly can handle over thousands of characters on screen? imagine exploring the cities as they teemed with life...this was after all a period of fresh beginnings.

Apart from the obvious visual appeal crowds also really add to the feeling of being the "Lone blade in the crowd"...the social stealth aspects....stalking redcoats in empty streets just doesn't feel right.
Sometimes its better to sacrifice a teeny bit of realism if it means improving the gameplay or the visual aesthetics IMO


Also, I think the reason Constantinople seemed so much more exciting was simply, the ambient music. My ACR was glitched as hell, one of which was by sequence 3, the ambient music went away & never came back. It was amazing how much more boring free roaming around Constantinople seemed with zero music, really ruined the experience for me. A bit of ambiance in Boston in NY would've made all the difference IMO, cannot over-emphasize what a mood setter music can be.

Could very well be the case!
And again, as OP pointed out AC3 misses out on this facet as well...the sound (let alone the music) is a weak point here....my initial post states an example.


I simply can't believe how many people don't appreciate the masterpiece Ubi did with the Frontier, its really a shame. This is their main "city" in AC, you can tell how much effort they put into it. I'm absolutely in love with it. As someone who lives basically in the same environment (geographic-wise, haha I don't live in a forest), I'm so impressed with how much they nailed the local wildlife sounds, right down to the Canada Geese. If I were out somewhere & chatted about AC3 with someone and they told me the Frontier sucked, I'd probably walk away from them in disgust.

Unfortunately the closest geographically similar location is too far.....forests in India are very different ;) I really cannot judge the quality of the Frontier based on Authenticity...all I have is a sense of what I perceive the North American wilderness to be...

I agree though...the Frontier IS the main city. Where the Boston and NY feel overlooked...it is clear that a majority of the time and effort went into the frontier. I love the topography and the natural feel of it all....sadly the age old console hardware does negatively impact the visuals somewhat and holds the graphics back....but still the frontier is gorgeous....especially during winter or during a thunder storm.
Also, the stealth really comes into form in the wilderness...thanks to AC3s additions like stalking zones, whistling, tree climbing and cover mechanic....sneaking around as Connor in the wilderness is an unparalled experience.

Have you tried doing the following?

1. Target a fort or a bunch of red coats in the wild
2. Equip a tomahawk
3.Sprint from bush to bush...and while doing so press the Square (or Xbox equivalent) button
4. watch as Connor twirls the tomahawk
5. Sprint and twirl before every kill
6. sprint towards every target

I guarantee you it makes for an exhilarating predatory experience...swift, silent and deadly. The devs have absolutely nailed the feeling of being an apex predator in the wild...absolutely fantastic.

pirate1802
11-04-2012, 08:48 PM
Unfortunately the closest geographically similar location is too far.....forests in India are very different ;)

lol

vivaxardas
11-04-2012, 08:58 PM
My list what I miss or do not like (it is about me, others may completely disagree):

1. Poor parkour in the cities. Houses are often just too far, streets are too wide, with no ropes to traverse them. Now you can't really TRAVEL over roof tops. So I mostly just walk or run.
2. No hiring mercenaries or prostitutes. Everything is more unfriendly, I would say. I simply did not like to be in the city, just did missions as fast as I could and returned to the frontier.
3. No puzzles and no tombs. It added a lot of variety to the game. Now the game is bigger but stuufed with some petty missions I have no desire to do.
4. Lockpicking is terrible. I just skipped all optional locked things.
5. A lot of story is skipped. Connor comes to an old man and suddenly starts to hate templars and is ready to murder his own father. We who played previous games know the story, but Ubisoft shouldn't have skipped on presentation. Because now Connor looks like a brainwashed sociopath. With Ezio we had a normal character development, here we have none. I actually wanted for Hythem to kill Connor, that somehow made more sense to me. Call me weird.
6. Frontier missions and design of events is a poor man version of RDR. It would be a terrific addition if the cities' gameplay was as good as in previous installments. But it is not. I understand you can possibly cramp only that much on a disk, and with new addition of see battles and tree parkour something had to go. Unfortunately new features do not compensate for the lost ones.
7. Combat is worse then before. There is a good principle - ain't broken - don't fix it. Ubisoft should follow it
8. The biggest problem for me - the game is simply less exciting and interesting. I was totally unable to put away AC2 before I finished. Now I am taking breaks to break the monotony of AC3. It was fun in the forest, for the first two-three hours, but now I simply do not want to waste time killing animals in order to get some minor objective checked. I do not play multiplayer, so I won't get 100% completion anyway, and I do not see a point of doing some menial gameplay task.

Mr_Shade
11-04-2012, 09:03 PM
Guys,

Remember to post your feedback in the pinned feedback threads - so it is not missed! ;)

sho3s22
11-04-2012, 09:06 PM
Totally agree! Didn't feel connected to connor at all. I feel like everything is just a hassle besides the main objectives for this one. Whereas ACII, ACB, ACR, felt as if getting everything done was all cohesive and all one large experience intertwined with the main story. Large cityscapes was a big plus and i feel as if that's gone. Very few and far apart buildings and things to climb

vorenus73
11-04-2012, 09:25 PM
very well written OP. I agree. Most especially about the lack of music, which was probably what had me playing ACII (all versions) for so many hours on end.

CalgaryJay
11-05-2012, 01:02 AM
I completely understand and can see how more spartan setting and ambience of the cities is more historically accurate....but accuracy does't always translate into an interesting world.

I can assure you that several things in all cities in the AC franchise were exaggerated for dramatic/cinematic effect......I don't think Gypsy troupes were all over Istanbul nor do I believe that Venice and Rome had Courtesans in almost every corner...but I really loved the sense of 'Life' they brought into the city.

This is a video game...and for once I would've liked the devs to emphasize the tropes and cliches us foreigners often associate with pre independance America.

RDR does a good job of mixing history with cinematic fiction to create a real, breathing world.

Also, wouldn't you agree that it was a tad bit disapointing to see such a low density of crowds when the engine purportedly can handle over thousands of characters on screen?

True, but that's the difference between setting it 500+ years ago where you can get away with general overtones, as opposed to just over 200 years ago, during an extremely important & very well documented event in U.S. history. You have to stick to the facts more. In that sense you can argue whether the setting was a good choice or not, but given it was the choice, they had no option but to take the direction they did. Personally I much prefer it, I'm a huge history buff so it adds so much to the experience.

Yes I wish the streets were fuller at times though..


Have you tried doing the following?

1. Target a fort or a bunch of red coats in the wild
2. Equip a tomahawk
3.Sprint from bush to bush...and while doing so press the Square (or Xbox equivalent) button
4. watch as Connor twirls the tomahawk
5. Sprint and twirl before every kill
6. sprint towards every target

I guarantee you it makes for an exhilarating predatory experience...swift, silent and deadly. The devs have absolutely nailed the feeling of being an apex predator in the wild...absolutely fantastic.

Haha pretty much everything you listed there is my absolute go-to, I love walking around doing the tomahawk twirl, I do that everywhere. Nice touch. Ya those running assassinations without breaking stride rules, this is by far the most fluid AC to date.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-05-2012, 02:23 AM
...You can move through this game without... recruiting a single member of your brotherhood nor collecting a single page for Ben Franklin...

These are two of my biggest beefs. There is no brotherhood here, no sense of accomplishment in training assassins. Guild missions (and everything else) are 'shake and bake' rather than creating an enjoyable experience. They made the game simpler but in doing so they lost the heart. Ben Franklin isn't even given the option of becoming an 18th Century version of Ezio's Da Vinci - his inventions are a throwaway and his only interactions with Connor involve bizarre sexual commentary, which may have been historically accurate, but I'm sure Franklin was a bit more than a sexual raconteur and inventor of silly contraptions.

And where are the viewpoints? These are icons of the series, yet in this game they are few and far between and they don't even overlap, so we don't get to open up parts of the cities by climbing them. Instead, we have to wander around on the ground. I realize America at the time did not have huge monumental towers as Europe and the Middle East did, but surely they could have made a few more churches into viewpoints. One building type that could have easily made a nice viewpoint in the game is the windmill, yet these are just plonked onto the landscape with no interactivity at all - you can't even leap onto a sail and take a spin. Which brings up another beef - where is the humor? Ezio had some humorous encounters with his friends, and the game had a lot more time for love, humor and just taking in atmosphere. In this game, nothing!

And why does every new iteration of an assassination game allow less and less killing? In AC1 I could kill ANYONE with no real repercussions, and it was cool! In AC3 I can barely kill anyone. Civilians are off limits except with targeted gunfire. I mean what's up with that?

The whole game seems rushed and cut back. It's fun, but I feel that although it's the biggest AC game to date, it's closer in scope to the original Assassin's Creed than it is to any of the sequels.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 02:33 AM
It's not titled Brotherhood. And thank god, because that installment was subpar at best and a tiny fraction of this game.

Frankly, the side quests and missions in AC3 relate more to the story and themes, are more complex, more rewarding and feel more natural (versus contrived and menial like a checklist) than any AC before it.

Dino_Dave
11-05-2012, 02:36 AM
I don't agree. This is finally my favorite Assassins Creed. It is fantastic. There is sooo much to do in the game; so much CONTENT. And the world is HUGE. The biggest yet. And you can't have music because then you would just end up not hearing animal growls, etc. You wouldn't know when an animal is about to attack you.

adamsocal
11-05-2012, 02:42 AM
Okay, whatever

Greets,
Thomas

P.S.: The ignore list is an awesome feature, don't you think?

LOL. very effective at reducing troll exposure.

zhengyingli
11-05-2012, 02:48 AM
It's not titled Brotherhood. And thank god, because that installment was subpar at best and a tiny fraction of this game.

Frankly, the side quests and missions in AC3 relate more to the story and themes, are more complex, more rewarding and feel more natural (versus contrived and menial like a checklist) than any AC before it.

I agree that AC3's side quests are the best. Instead of recruiting different factions for different tasks, now all the assassin recruits know all the techniques. Plus, these recruits are actually people with character. Homestead also feels really alive due to the denizen's varying personalities.

hyatari
11-05-2012, 02:52 AM
AC3 just feels empty as there is no character development whatsoever. Nothing I do (beside the main) quest adds anything to my character. So why should I bother?

/thread

Did Ubisoft ever think to themselves: "Right, this is a boring task, sure, but let's motivate the player to complete it in order to effect/improve at least one part of their character development".

It's just game design 101.

What is the point in 'open world', when you effectively play the same style, fight the same enemies and fight them the same way. The best open world games (heck, the best any games) give you the opportunity to develop your character's play style and abilities, and that's what keeps you playing. This doesn't, not in any meaningful way, just superficial ways which have no impact whatsoever.

It sounds blunt, but this game honestly felt like one long cut scene, with the core gameplay as an afterthought. I really wish they would have advertised it as that, then I could have looked elsewhere.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 03:30 AM
shobbit777,

The setting is Colonial America. The location is the location. We all debated heavily a year ago when the location for AC3 was announced whether it would be interesting or not. You either find that time interesting or not. Colonial America is not Constantinople or Rome or Jerusalem, it lacks thousands of years of history. It is pretty much like America today, each building and neighborhood developed with the same materials in the same architecture style over and over for blocks upon miles upon miles. Anything different would have just been wrong.

In my opinion, I found it interesting to see these cities presented how they might have looked back then; and in my mind, Ubisoft more than compensated with a wealth of side quests to pursue.


/thread

Did Ubisoft ever think to themselves: "Right, this is a boring task, sure, but let's motivate the player to complete it in order to effect/improve at least one part of their character development".

It's just game design 101.

What is the point in 'open world', when you effectively play the same style, fight the same enemies and fight them the same way. The best open world games (heck, the best any games) give you the opportunity to develop your character's play style and abilities, and that's what keeps you playing. This doesn't, not in any meaningful way, just superficial ways which have no impact whatsoever.

It sounds blunt, but this game honestly felt like one long cut scene, with the core gameplay as an afterthought. I really wish they would have advertised it as that, then I could have looked elsewhere.

This is categorically false.

Everything you do builds into your character. If anything, the Ezio trilogy was filled with things that had no meaning. Chests were everywhere making money easy and it took no effort to raid them. Upgrading your villa had very little impact on the game, other than supply you with limitless amounts of money at no effort whatsoever other than opening the menu once and hitting X. I think I ended up with over a million florins in all three of those games, and buying every single thing was a piece of cake after that. Any improvements you made only went to making you more money which just comes in without any effort at all. The only things which tied into the story were feathers to honor Ezio, Glyphs (which really didn't provide anything relevant to the story, just a history of the Templar/Assassin struggle) and picking up your fellow Assassin's which required killing a small handful of guards at almost no effort.

The same arguments to many of the AC3 quests can be equally applied to the Ezio trilogy.

Two, the Homestead missions directly play into what you can craft and you can trade. The naval missions open up your trading routes and improve your profit. Hunting provides you a free source of revenue (if you apply the effort) and materials to craft and trade. The economic system is deep. Critics and fans have panned the previous economic systems because they simply reward you like clockwork and before you even finished half the game --- money is worthless because you have so much. In AC3, you are motivated to trade - because that is one of your only sources of revenue. Crafting more expensive items allows you to make more and more money, but you have to still send it by convoy. Even sending a convoy isn't brainless, it is likely to be attacked and the player has to literally go to where the convoy is being ambushed and protect it in open combat. That's payoff. That's complexity. It requires involvement and action. It requires player participation and commitment to grow. I'm making fine furniture now after starting with barrels and it's freakin awesome' --- because I built it by playing and the game didn't just give it away.

And the payoff is better weapons, pouch upgrades, quiver upgrades, consumables like bullets, better equipment and weaponry for the Aquila, a few outfits for Connor and more. Not to mention that you actually take an empty valley and turn it into a living breathing community where every single craftsmen or townperson has some back history and plays some part --- other than just another 50 florins every 5 minutes. This whole talk about their being no development and no payoff is utterly false. It's requires the most effort and has more payoff ---- rewarding payoff --- than any of its predecessors.

Honestly, I think some people are just upset that they have to work for money now. That they can't just walk up to a chest and click a button, you know, they have to pick a lock. That instead of just climbing a viewpoint and having everything displayed on a map, that they actually have to explore. That instead of just showing up at the bank, they actually have to work for their money. Instead of just having all the Fast Travel spots pop up magically, you actually have to search for them through tunnels under the cities (historically accurate). Instead of just showing up at a citizen marker on the map and killing a few people, you actually have to engage in missions and side quests and follow their whole storyline. The game gives you nothing, you have to work for everything and it almost all has a payoff.

And how does it play into story? Into character? It's the New World. That's what that world was. Connor is young man, and like so many of the people there, he is trying to build that New World and create a place where things are just and people are free. All the fighting he does is to protect the world he is building at the Homestead or the village he came from. Connor protects the seamstress from someone who beats her, because he is just. He saves the farmer and his wife from the British robbing them and almost killing them, because he defends the weak. The Homestead and all the missions that go with it have everything to do with life in Colonial America and what Connor is struggling with... because the Templars would have enslaved those people, but Connor gives them freedom and leads them to a better life.

The last thing I would ever want is for Ubisoft to go back to the Ezio trilogy way of doing things where everything is just handed to you, and by the middle of the sixth sequence I'm bored because I'm overloaded with money and goods without much effort at all. This game is fantastic, and the developers did an astounding job making a story and side quests that are both fun and worthwhile.

zhengyingli
11-05-2012, 03:41 AM
This is categorically false.


First, long and very detailed post. Second, you don't need to defend your viewpoint to someone who says "/thread"; his/her mind's already made up.

hyatari
11-05-2012, 03:52 AM
My mind was made up after actually, ye know, playing the game and realising how completely hollow it is.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 03:58 AM
I wan't trying to change their mind. :)

I just wanted to voice why I believe these complaints are totally unwarranted and without basis. I'm voicing it for the developers, who actually went to the effort to build meaningful side quests, storylines and economic system --- and I want them to know that it is GREATLY greatly appreciated by myself, and almost everyone I've spoken with personally. And to implore them not to listen to these baseless complaints by gamers who need their perks spoonfed to them like fruit to Pac-Man.

zhengyingli
11-05-2012, 03:58 AM
My mind was made up after actually, ye know, playing the game and realising how completely hollow it is.
If you don't even know how combat works, I highly doubt you actually explored everything you've claimed to know.

zhengyingli
11-05-2012, 04:02 AM
I wan't trying to change their mind. :)

I just wanted to voice why I believe these complaints are totally unwarranted and without basis. I'm voicing it for the developers, who actually went to the effort to build meaningful side quests, storylines and economic system --- and I want them to know that it is GREATLY greatly appreciated by myself, and almost everyone I've spoken with personally. And to implore them not to listen to these baseless complaints by gamers who need their perks spoonfed to them like fruit to Pac-Man.
Look it, there are legitimate complainers. But some of these people have shown that they did/do not understand the basic elements of combat, therefor I don't believe any of their other complaints are actually legitimate.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 04:14 AM
I hear you, there are legitimate complaints. The only legitimate complaint in this thread is the subpar audio mix and lack of ambient music while free-roaming. Clunky hard-to-understand menus, bugs, glitches and occasional frame rate drops are other valid complaints.

Or like shobbit7777, he simply didn't find the setting as interesting as Rome or Constantinople. I can respect that. It's not a fault of the developers as it is the choice of location. I had previously thought I would be the same, but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Colonial America. But I do understand why you might not find it enjoyable.

But complaining because the side quests have no payoff, or don't tie into the story and themes, and that the world is empty of things to do... yes, they are categorically false. They meet all those requirements and so so much more.

hyatari
11-05-2012, 04:14 AM
This is categorically false.

That's your subjective viewpoint, but certainly not what many people think. Read on...


Everything you do builds into your character.

That's a vague statement, which doesn't actually reflect the reality of the gameplay.


the Homestead missions directly play into what you can craft and you can trade.

...Just, why even bother? Why craft or trade, considering you will still be fighting the same enemies who you can easily beat with the starting weapons? What's the long term goal when you do either of those? What motivation is there?



The naval missions open up your trading routes and improve your profit. Hunting provides you a free source of revenue

So....you get more money. Great. To do what with? What great things can you get with so much money that will add replay value?



Crafting more expensive items allows you to make more and more money

Great. More money. See my above post. There is a pattern here...


And the payoff is better weapons, pouch upgrades, quiver upgrades, consumables like bullets, better equipment and weaponry for the Aquila, a few outfits for Connor and more.

Disregarding the 'few outfits' (even you couldn't spin any enthusiasm for that!), tell me why anyone would be motivated to get better weapons? Serious question. They all have virtually the same scripted move sets, and this is the key thing; they don't allow you to do ANYTHING you couldn't otherwise do with the most basic start out weapons. Be honest, did you at any point think: "****, I really need to upgrade my weapon to beat that section/enemy" or: "wow, that weapon is amazing/different". The weapon system/combat is an after thought and incredibly light weight in ambition. It's straight embarrassing compared to games like Dark Souls.


Honestly, I think some people are just upset that they have to work for money now.

And again. Money. I have more money than I know what to do with, and quite honestly, there's nothing that interests me to use it. Others have mentioned this, too.


The game gives you nothing

At last, we agree on something.

TrueAssassin77
11-05-2012, 04:15 AM
heres my expereince.

AWBiggs
11-05-2012, 04:15 AM
The setting is Colonial America. The location is the location. ...it lacks thousands of years of history. It is pretty much like America today,

I'm sorry, but that's not only factually, but historically totally incorrect. Northern America has hundreds, if not thousands of years of unexplored history, certainly in regards to gaming - it's just not America as we know it. Having Connor as a half native American protagonist was a brilliant move, and I thoroughly enjoyed his main story stuff in the game... however, I imagined a game where I would spend more time with the Native American tribes, perhaps areas on the frontier where Connor would explore his own Native American Heritages and unlock special skills or story elements related to that history. No, I'm sorry the location is far more suited to exploration outside of just "...and then the white folk arrived and things got interesting" which is pretty much what ACIII is built around. Even though, it's established the first civilization has "something" there both sides want, yet we spend no real time learning about the rich, deep history of Connor and his people.


...the Ezio trilogy was filled with things that had no meaning. Chests were everywhere making money easy and it took no effort to raid them. Upgrading your villa had very little impact on the game, other than supply you with limitless amounts of money at no effort whatsoever other than opening the menu once and hitting X.

Actually, upgrading the Villa in ACII directly related to how the town looked, and as you progressed further more and people came to live with you and outside of that, the whole concept of the villa restoration was directly connected to the narrative arc. As Ezio grew in himself as a man, leader and Assassin so to did his Villa. Upgrading the homestead isn't connected to Connors journey whatsoever, because his major driving arc is saving HIS PEOPLE. The Villa (and, really, Achilles also) is simply a means to an end. Connor becomes an Assassin because he feels that's how he can make a difference for his people, but he has no purpose, narratively in restoring the Homestead, other than 'doing it cause it's there' or (as his character) doing it because it feels like the right thing to do. That's not a reason for me, as a player. It's not a WHY


I think I ended up with over a million florins in all three of those games, and buying every single thing was a piece of cake after that.

Money has nothing to do with anything that I've discussed, outside of the main drive to perhaps, buy reloads for guns and you bow, there's really no narrative focus to buy/purchase anything within the game. Money in previous games was easier to come by, but that's because Ezio was connected to the city. He personally restored city monuments, built shops and so on. Doing these actions with your money, connected you emotionally to the city you were. In ACIII there's nothing to upgrade and you're just 'in the city' or 'in the frontier'. Aside from Maxis-style mini-games and crafting (which, unlike restoring Blacksmiths or Doctors) you don't need to do whatsoever to get money, there's no real need to earn money at all! Upgrading the boat is too expensive to even bother with during the main thrust of the narrative, because the sailing stuff isn't integrated into the main narrative there's no purpose to further exploring this, unlike DaVinci's Machines, as an example, which was connected to Ezio's journey and tied into the Borgia influence. I think the easy solution too connecting the narrative on the sailing stuff would have been to have one of the people Connor hunted be a Captain of a Brittish ship, just as a small example on how to connect that stuff within existing narrative.



The Homestead missions directly play into what you can craft and you can trade. The naval missions open up your trading routes and improve your profit. Hunting provides you a free source of revenue (if you apply the effort) and materials to craft and trade. The economic system is deep.

That's all well and good, buy WHY. Hunting, is a great example of a superb concept and implementation within the game... buy why do it? In the previous AC games all the additional stuff was directly tied into the character and made him feel more of a whole. Hunting is certainly tied into the Connor character as it seems like the kind of thing with his background he would do, but why should I spend hours hunting? What benefits do I get? We've established the game gives over hand over fist weapons, uniform and ammunition for free, once I'm an established Assassin around sequence 5 or 6 ...the narrative implies i have no need to go and hunt anymore, because I don't need to buy any weapons, there's no additional (alternate) costume, armor or personalization options and because the Homestead isn't connected to any narrative or reward (other than, it's just there... do it...) there's no need to bother. Same for the Brotherhood. Same for the viewpoints. None of it is connected, none of it makes a difference within the main story. Liberation missions, don't affect the outcome of the main story, whereas you HAD to remove the Borgia influence from Rome (and therefore, the Borgia Towers) to get access to to shops, other areas and continue on with the story. Plus; it just made sense. Eliminating the Borgia influence was logical, Liberating areas of New York or Boston are simply a color on the main map, there's no narrative difference either way, whether you do it or not. Same with the Underground stuff, there's no real narrative purpose to do it, and certainly the "fast travel" reward isn't enough for some people to bother. Again; It's the WHY that is missing.


Honestly, I think some people are just upset that they have to work for money now. That they can't just walk up to a chest and click a button, you know, they have to pick a lock. That instead of just climbing a viewpoint and having everything displayed on a map, that they actually have to explore.

You're mistaking "being lazy" and "not having fun". Part of the established norm of Assassin's creed games is the very viewpoint function and the iconic notion of climbing these huge buildings, running around rooftops to get to them and discovering treasures hidden in tall buildings. Factually (and practically) this is obviously more fantasy than fiction, but it's what made the game fun. Yes, climbing viewpoints is something that's been botched in this game, because that's what makes being an Assassin ridiculously good fun and what makes it an important part of the narrative, your character and the gameplay. If you don't like climbing heights to view the open city and get a wonderful eagle cry on the way down, then you're dead to me! That stuff is of LEGEND now within the series. In ACIII viewpoints are totally irrelevant. I can spend the entire time on the ground (as, lets face, you do most of the time in Boston or New York) and unlock the map, which takes away the FUNDAMENTAL established narrative, themes and gameplay of every other Assassin's Creed Game! It's that "WHY" again... WHY include viewpoints at all if that's NOT the way the map unlocks? Why should I venture onto rooftops now, if the map gives me what I need on the ground? "Just because it's fun" isn't a WHY. All the previous games connected this stuff beautifully and thematically, whether you saw it or not (and if it was by design or not) all these things, like viewpoints, like money and like the very act of stealth and assassination... all woven together. Viewpoints and the Homestead are two examples of features being included, just because... and then loaded up with other evolutionary features (trading/manual map revealing) that take away the core ideas of why we enjoyed the game in the first place.

Basically, if anyone tells me they prefer manual map revealing to viewpoint syncing, they don't understand why this series has been so successful and why the act of climbing up high trees or buildings is inspiring people to create videos, pictures and other artwork homaging this stuff. I can't see the "Assassin Parkour" guys creating a video where they just walk around for 10 minutes...

hyatari
11-05-2012, 04:17 AM
.But complaining because the side quests have no payoff, or don't tie into the story and themes, and that the world is empty of things to do... yes, they are categorically false. They meet all those requirements and so so much more.

They aren't 'categorically' false, and you'd have to be a deluded little fanboy to even utter such nonsense. I'm sorry if some of these comments ring true...

luckyto
11-05-2012, 04:23 AM
Haha... get pwnd and want to call me a fanboy. Whatever bro. I ripped the last to AC games to shreds on these forums. Especially Brotherhood. I'm just fair and not a spoiled little whiner.

Dude, this isn't Dark Souls or Diablo. It never EVER has been. I don't want to have to find that special rare item so that I can beat a redcoat. I can beat AC2 with my base weapons. In AC1, you keep the same weapons with minimal upgrades and I can beat every single enemy with the base set. In ACB, I can beat the whole game with only the minimal one or two recruits and taking only the towers I had to as part of missions. This game is no different than its predecessors.

It's also not an RPG. It's an open-world action adventure. And just like Red Dead, I can beat the whole game with the minimum set of weapons - but I like new weapons. I like being able to carry more bullets. I like that I can buy a battering ram for ship or an additional rudder which makes steering easier. Or that I can purchase a new pistol that reloads faster. Or change out my weapon and --- yes, get ALL NEW KILL ANIMATIONS and combat moves.

Please.

hyatari
11-05-2012, 04:25 AM
You didn't read my post properly and you didn't read Biggs's either. This surprises me.

blacklimoband
11-05-2012, 04:32 AM
As mentioned tombs/puzzles (in their own way) are IN the game..

Agreed about the lack of ambient music, in the Frontier I prefer the natural way it is now, but in the cities there should be something, makes it feel empty, and kinda slow. I'm quite surprised they took this out, I considered the music as much a staple to AC as hidden blades & the select few other "must keep" AC features they carried over.

Completely disagree about the Frontier, I'm blown away by how good it is. I thought it would be cool but would pale in comparison to RDR, but it actually holds its own with it quite well, which is saying a LOT. Actually in some ways its even better, I cannot emphasize enough how impressed I am with the Frontier. Safe to say you probably just prefer the urban environments of previous AC games to a rural one.

And yes its too bad you can't free roam in naval, but outside of that I don't see how anyone could gripe about the Naval aspect in general. Groundbreaking, I was amazed every time I was on a ship.

Over-all I love the fresh start, the AC2 universe had grown stale. But it was expected many would be more resistant to it.

^ Mind reader..... lol :)

Love the frontier, just ambient woodlands sounds, it feels like you are really out in the wilds hunting etc. Ambient mood music in the cities would be nice. As for the Naval aspect... I am so in love with it :) I've played a lot of sailing games (I love that genre) and this is by far the most fun Naval combat I have seen in a game to date... Ubisoft, please make a free-roam sandbox Pirate game (including ship boarding, sea battles, port sacking, and all the other fun stuff pirates get to do) using your new game engine and you will have a loyal fan for life!!!

luckyto
11-05-2012, 04:33 AM
AWBiggs,

If the act of climbing something is rewarding, then why do you need it to give you little points on the map as payoff? I don't need a legend. Because I understand that climbing viewpoints is FUN TO DO. So I do it. I can't wait to do them all. I dont need it to light up everything on the map. The act of climbing up to it is joy enough. You make this long paragraph about how fun it is climb to do viewpoints, and then proceed to say they are useless because you didn't "get" something. Viewpoints in AC3 clue you in on a few items and are fun to climb. That's all they need to be, all they've ever needed to be.

What you are saying is much more applicable to Ezio's trilogy.... your whole argument is more applicable to Ezio's trilogy. None of those side quests or items were necessary. Not AC1 either. You don't have to kill a single Templar to beat the game. None of the side missions have EVER been mandatory. In any AC game. So please, stop. I gave a very long post about exactly how these missions have more meaning and more payoff than the previous titles. I don't intend to repeat. But if you'd like me to rip Brotherhood a new one, I can do that, because nothing in that game is mandatory except the few missions that were story sequences. I can beat all three of those games without any of the extra stuff from rewards... and it has less to do with Ezio's character than homestead, naval campaigns and Assassin recruiting in AC3. I can beat AC1 without doing a viewpoint or saving a citizen for vigilantes. They don't add to to story. They are just things to do that you might could use later. NO DIFFERENT.

And no, you don't have to beat the Borgia towers, just one as part of a story sequence. You can leave the rest untouched. Nor do you have to build your Villa, or recruit any Assassins other than one or two. In fact, I'd recommend beating Brotherhood without defeating the Borgia because the red zones are the only time the combat even gets slightly interesting.

vivaxardas
11-05-2012, 04:33 AM
Yeah, making Connor a Native American simply looks like a politically correct artificial move without any real depth or significance. Like a chance to cash in native stuff without actually paying homage to the culture and heritage. I am a pure-bred European, but I really like Native American culture, and I expected a lot of things Native American in the game. But the end result is as usual. Sad really, there are a lot of possibilities there. History did not just started with the arrival of the Europeans, and Connor should not build a new world order. For him it is his homeland for thousands of years. Also, Mayan ruins are fine, but they are kind of weird in this setting. Why not to make Anasazi ruins, ancient pueblos for some kind of temple parkour missions? Coronado explored Southwest in the middle of 16th century, so it wasn't inaccessible in Connor's times. Huge missed opportunity by my lights.

TrueAssassin77
11-05-2012, 04:40 AM
i never had to go into the underground.
i never needed to go hunt for animals
i never needed to recruit assassoms
i never needed to use a sword
i never needed to do a naval mission
i never needed to craft
i never needed to explore the frontier
i never needed to do frontiermen missions
i never needed to use bait
i never needed to use a trip mine
i never needed to use a snarl
i never needed to use a bow

this game is the prime example of why "bigger doesn't mean better" and why sometimes "less is more".
they put in a whole lot of content yet there was absolutly no incentive to do it. whats the point of leveling up youu assassins? at the max level they still behave the same. they still look the same. whats the point of crafting? in the end you can do everything with your tomahawk, whats the point of hunting? in the end you never really benefit from it. there is no sense of player progreesion in this game. i LOVE this game, but even i can admi t that.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 04:47 AM
And AWBiggs, BTW, maybe you didn't notice, but the Homestead was empty at the beginning and if you actually take the time, it does actually add buildings and grow into an entire community. It doesn't just reskin a building with flags. And all that building actually plays into the economic system --- which is BY FAR --- the most complex of an AC game.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 04:50 AM
i never had to go into the underground.
i never needed to go hunt for animals
i never needed to recruit assassoms
i never needed to use a sword
i never needed to do a naval mission
i never needed to craft
i never needed to explore the frontier
i never needed to do frontiermen missions
i never needed to use bait
i never needed to use a trip mine
i never needed to use a snarl
i never needed to use a bow

this game is the prime example of why "bigger doesn't mean better" and why sometimes "less is more".
they put in a whole lot of content yet there was absolutly no incentive to do it. whats the point of leveling up youu assassins? at the max level they still behave the same. they still look the same. whats the point of crafting? in the end you can do everything with your tomahawk, whats the point of hunting? in the end you never really benefit from it. there is no sense of player progreesion in this game. i LOVE this game, but even i can admi t that.

ALL THE GAMES ARE LIKE THAT. All the side quests have always been OPTIONAL. OPTIONAL. Meaning you don't have to do them. And frankly, you do a number of those things you mentioned as part of story sequences... so you actually did have to do most of them at least once. OPTIONAL ---- to be up to the player's choice, to not be forced into following a set patch, to have the... option.

Excluding part of a main sequence, please tell me how I had to recruit Assassin's in ACB or ACR. Tell my how I had to upgrade my Villa in AC2. Tell my how I had to hunt Templars in AC1. Tell me how I had to go to shops and dye my clothing as Ezio. Or how I had to pick thugs pockets in AC1. Tell me how I had to do any of those things. Because you don't have to do those either.

hyatari
11-05-2012, 04:53 AM
^ Dude, I think some other forums are putting some similar opinions to ours out there. You may want to register so you can tell them they're all wrong...

zhengyingli
11-05-2012, 04:54 AM
i never had to go into the underground.
i never needed to go hunt for animals
i never needed to recruit assassoms
i never needed to use a sword
i never needed to do a naval mission
i never needed to craft
i never needed to explore the frontier
i never needed to do frontiermen missions
i never needed to use bait
i never needed to use a trip mine
i never needed to use a snarl
i never needed to use a bow

this game is the prime example of why "bigger doesn't mean better" and why sometimes "less is more".
they put in a whole lot of content yet there was absolutly no incentive to do it. whats the point of leveling up youu assassins? at the max level they still behave the same. they still look the same. whats the point of crafting? in the end you can do everything with your tomahawk, whats the point of hunting? in the end you never really benefit from it. there is no sense of player progreesion in this game. i LOVE this game, but even i can admi t that.

You needed to do most of what you listed at some point to progress the story, though. If you are referring them being pointless outside of story, I understand. There are just quite a few people who genuinely love derping around the world just to look for stuff to do, however pointless they are. I personally do them just because they speak volumes of Connor's softer side that was not shown within the tense story.

Just for fun, I'll take your argument to the extreme: I never needed to buy the game to know the story; I have youtube, lol.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 04:54 AM
I'm sure. There are lazy gamers who want everything spoonfed to them or expect their happy parts to go tingling every time they do something everywhere.

AdonisDF
11-05-2012, 04:56 AM
ALL THE GAMES ARE LIKE THAT. All the side quests have always been OPTIONAL. OPTIONAL. Meaning you don't have to do them. And frankly, you do a number of those things you mentioned as part of story sequences... so you actually did have to do most of them at least once. OPTIONAL ---- to be up to the player's choice, to not be forced into following a set patch, to have the... option.

Excluding part of a main sequence, please tell me how I had to recruit Assassin's in ACB or ACR. Tell my how I had to upgrade my Villa in AC2. Tell my how I had to hunt Templars in AC1. Tell me how I had to go to shops and dye my clothing as Ezio. Or how I had to pick thugs pockets in AC1. Tell me how I had to do any of those things. Because you don't have to do those either.

If you read what he's saying, he's not talking about if they're optional or not. He's talking about the fact that in previous games we were rewarded for taking the time to do them. We're NOT this time. You don't get anything special for really putting forth the effort in AC3.

hyatari
11-05-2012, 04:56 AM
You must be really enjoying the game, luckyto, because you have the time to tell everybody their differing opinions are wrong. Haha, priceless. This must really bother you.

blacklimoband
11-05-2012, 04:57 AM
i never had to go into the underground.
i never needed to go hunt for animals
i never needed to recruit assassoms
i never needed to use a sword
i never needed to do a naval mission
i never needed to craft
i never needed to explore the frontier
i never needed to do frontiermen missions
i never needed to use bait
i never needed to use a trip mine
i never needed to use a snarl
i never needed to use a bow

this game is the prime example of why "bigger doesn't mean better" and why sometimes "less is more".
they put in a whole lot of content yet there was absolutly no incentive to do it. whats the point of leveling up youu assassins? at the max level they still behave the same. they still look the same. whats the point of crafting? in the end you can do everything with your tomahawk, whats the point of hunting? in the end you never really benefit from it. there is no sense of player progreesion in this game. i LOVE this game, but even i can admi t that.

This is because it's a sandbox game... if these optional elements were compulsory, someone would be on here complaining that we have to do all these things (rather than can do all of these things if we want to). The devs are painted into a corner before they even start working on a game because opinions are like a-holes.... everyone has one, and everyone thinks that everyone else's stinks.

AWBiggs
11-05-2012, 05:00 AM
If the act of climbing something is rewarding, then why do you need it to give you little points on the map as payoff? I don't need a legend. Because I understand that climbing viewpoints is FUN TO DO. So I do it. I can't wait to do them all. I dont need it to light up everything on the map. The act of climbing up to it is joy enough. You make this long paragraph about how fun it is climb to do viewpoints, and then proceed to say they are useless because you didn't "get" something. Viewpoints in AC3 clue you in on a few items and are fun to climb. That's all they need to be, all they've ever needed to be.

The Sync-Points in previous games were all tied into the act of being an Assassin. In fact, the act of jumping from a tower or high point is part of the ritual of becoming an assassin (See ACI, ACII, Brotherhood). Doing these sync points and "unlocking" the map, tied directly into both character, narrative and gave us a reason to "get up high" and view the city from the unique heights that only the true Assassin can view the city. In Boston and New York, the map unlocks as you walk around. There's no need to "Sync" and no need to perform the ritual of climbing and and performing the leap of faith. Does this not strike you as fundamentally against everything established in the series so far? Given the leap of faith being THE SINGULAR act that defines an Assassin outside of killing someone? By your logic, they may as well remove the hidden blades and be done with it.


What you are saying is much more applicable to Ezio's trilogy.... your whole argument is more applicable to Ezio's trilogy. None of those side quests or items were necessary. Not AC1 either. You don't have to kill a single Templar to beat the game. None of the side missions have EVER been mandatory.

Again, you're not understanding nor reading anything that I'm saying. I never said they were mandatory, however in previous games you were more compelled to do them, because of the story thematics at work, the narrative and the integration of the additional stuff (Tombs, Side Quests, Recruitment etc...). Hell, the NAMED a title after the very side-quest of building a brotherhood. I'm sorry, but your argument just falls to pieces. There's no drive to visit sync points or the underground, because it's not connected to the narrative of the story. In all the previous titles, these things were often very closely alligned to the main story thrust, certainly the Brotherhood is a great example of a feature (now included in three games) that in TWO of them, gave you not only tanglible rewards and benefits to spending the time upgrading them... but made Ezio as a character far more nuanced and deeper as he became the true leader, mentor and fulfilled his destiny of expanding and giving re-birth to the Brotherhood. In ACIII - none of that stuff matters to Connor, as his is a personal journey for his people.


And no, you don't have to beat the Borgia towers, just one as part of a story sequence. You can leave the rest untouched. Nor do you have to build your Villa, or recruit any Assassins other than one or two. In fact, I'd recommend beating Brotherhood without defeating the Borgia because the red zones are the only time the combat even gets slightly interesting.

Again, your argument falls to pieces, because the Borgia towers were a physical presence in the game world, connected to sync-points and opening up not only the map but played a role in expanding the city and bringing down the Borgia, thus connected to the narrative. You're talking about how the GAME FUNCTIONS on a mechanical level, that's not what I'm talking about whatsoever. On a fundamental story-driven basis everything was connected in ACII, Brotherhood and Revelations in these little mini-games and sidequests... You have multiple examples in this thread (and many others) of people not performing any of this stuff, and feeling let down as a result. They feel that way, because the story doesn't link these strands together nearly as well as previous titles, and in fact, you can get by not exploring 70% of the new stuff at all, because there's no story-drive or purpose to do so. There is no "Why" to a lot of this stuff...

zhengyingli
11-05-2012, 05:00 AM
If you read what he's saying, he's not talking about if they're optional or not. He's talking about the fact that in previous games we were rewarded for taking the time to do them. We're NOT this time. You don't get anything special for really putting forth the effort in AC3.
An argument can be made if you need to be convinced with rewards to do anything, the activity itself is probably not good. In ACIII's case, you actually get SPOILER for doing secret lairs via naval combat, and it's similar to Altair's armor. You upgrade your ship for easier battles, just to name a few.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 05:03 AM
If you read what he's saying, he's not talking about if they're optional or not. He's talking about the fact that in previous games we were rewarded for taking the time to do them. We're NOT this time. You don't get anything special for really putting forth the effort in AC3.

What did you get before? Nothing but florins or stuff that I could buy with after sequence 6 at almost no effort. Yay, they hung a flag on that building for upgrading it. Cool.

In AC3, You build a whole town, take control of the high seas, build a true business of trade, rebuild the Assassin Order and help win the Revolutionary War... what more do you want. Of course, you don't HAVE TO. That's why they are optional. But the payoff is the same, and MORE --- because it wasn't ridiculously easy to achieve.

So yeah, I understand. They did something easy and didn't get a big shiny medal and 100,000 florins for it. In AC3, you actually have to spend time crafting, building, trading or searching for things to get just the basics. But people are spoonfed and need big payoffs for no effort. To me, that's not rewarding at all. Upgrading my Villa twice and setting it on auto-pilot while I rack up a million florins is not rewarding.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 05:08 AM
AWBiggs,

Beating the Borgia is no different than beating the British as part of the Revolutionary War. That's "tied" to the story. Building a new world, your homestead and your Assassin's Guild is "tied" to the story and integrated into the overall theme. The exact same if not more than any in the Ezio trilogy.


------------------ Here, I corrected what you wrote:

Again, you're not understanding nor reading anything that I'm saying. I never said they were mandatory, however in AC3 you were more compelled to do them, because of the story thematics at work, the narrative and the integration of the additional stuff (Homesteading, Naval, Liberation missions...). I'm sorry, but your argument just falls to pieces. There's no drive to visit Glyphs or the Tombs, because it's not connected to the narrative of the story. In this title, these things were often very closely alligned to the main story thrust, certainly AC3's economic system is a great example of a feature (now included in future games), gave you not only tanglible rewards and benefits to spending the time upgrading them... but made Connor as a character far more nuanced and deeper as he became the true leader, mentor and fulfilled his destiny of expanding and giving re-birth to the Brotherhood and his Land. In Ezio's trilogy - none of that stuff matters to Ezio, as his is just a revenge journey for his family.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-05-2012, 05:11 AM
...tell me why anyone would be motivated to get better weapons? Serious question. They all have virtually the same scripted move sets, and this is the key thing; they don't allow you to do ANYTHING you couldn't otherwise do with the most basic start out weapons...

It's true, and it's true of a lot of things in the game. You can choose the best weapons in the game from day one. There's no building up to get better weapons because the developers didn't make it necessary. Same with the taverns and the boardgame mini-games - you get them all at once, so what's the point of having varying difficulty levels? Why not have the easy modes open up first, then intermediate, then hard?. As someone said, developing this stuff as the game progresses is game design 101. There is none of the 'working to build a character', no 'work and reward' - it's all just handed to you in a way that no previous installment did, and it makes the game boring.

They did one thing right, in my opinion, and that's the homestead missions. The rest was either done better in previous AC titles or it's so compromised by bugs and obviously rushed content that what's good about it is overwhelmed by the frustration (and I'm talking now mainly about the Frontier - it's beautiful, but God help anyone who wants to actually move through it like an assassin should be able to).

Ubisoft has a series in Assassin's Creed that often shows flashes of incredible brilliance. Sadly, these brilliancies are always counterbalanced by frustrating issues that prevent the series from attaining true greatness. The worst offender is still the Den Defense feature from Revelations, but in my view the underground tunnels in AC3 come close to being that stupid. I mean it's a maze that you have to walk around in for hours, just so you can get a bunch of fast travel points, of which you actually only need about three or four in each city. All the previous AC games did this better.

AdonisDF
11-05-2012, 05:29 AM
An argument can be made if you need to be convinced with rewards to do anything, the activity itself is probably not good. In ACIII's case, you actually get SPOILER for doing secret lairs via naval combat, and it's similar to Altair's armor. You upgrade your ship for easier battles, just to name a few.

Not everyone has all the free time in the world. So they don't have time to waste doing optional things that provide nothing but a way to waste time.

zhengyingli
11-05-2012, 05:32 AM
Not everyone has all the free time in the world. So they don't have time to waste doing optional things that provide nothing but a way to waste time.

I just said you actually earn something as meaninful as something from ACII.

AdonisDF
11-05-2012, 05:33 AM
What did you get before? Nothing but florins or stuff that I could buy with after sequence 6 at almost no effort. Yay, they hung a flag on that building for upgrading it. Cool.

In AC3, You build a whole town, take control of the high seas, build a true business of trade, rebuild the Assassin Order and help win the Revolutionary War... what more do you want. Of course, you don't HAVE TO. That's why they are optional. But the payoff is the same, and MORE --- because it wasn't ridiculously easy to achieve.

So yeah, I understand. They did something easy and didn't get a big shiny medal and 100,000 florins for it. In AC3, you actually have to spend time crafting, building, trading or searching for things to get just the basics. But people are spoonfed and need big payoffs for no effort. To me, that's not rewarding at all. Upgrading my Villa twice and setting it on auto-pilot while I rack up a million florins is not rewarding.

What you got before is subjective to the games. What's the point of upgrading your assassins in this? In Revelations when you level up your assassins they become better. Better armor, better weapons, better gear. They last longer in combat, can do more. On this... there's no point. Yes, I like that the assassins can do more than just run in and kill enemies like they used to, but what's the point in using them for anything if I can charge a group of enemies and kill them all faster? The assassins themselves are useless in the game except for certain story missions.

Kaipur
11-05-2012, 05:37 AM
Great letter. Well thought out. I just beat the game and I'm disappointed. Not surprised. Just disappointed. All the great features from the previous games are missing, the character development is weak, and the conclusion ignores all the promises that were made in previous iterations. Where is this SHE that was spoken of by Juno? The one that would accompany us through the gate? How about the resolution to the story we were told we would get? Why is this game so GLITCHY!? I'm not a fan of the anvil next engine. I'm just saying. It makes things so much more finicky. ACIII feels like a shadow of its former self. It's also very somber and sad with an aura of cynicism that has been running amok in gaming as of late. It's a fun game to be sure. But it's definitely lacking in certain departments. I won't spoil things on events for those who haven't beaten it, but I'm really saddened by the haste that Ubisoft has put into the present day sequences. I'm a Desmond fan. He's the reason I got hooked on the series to begin with. He deserves his own game and to be fleshed out better than he has been. Maybe people wouldn't hate him as much if some time were taken in developing him. I feel like he has been treated with nothing but disrespect and this game highlights it to a glaring degree. The Assassin Order, as well, seems to be a shadow of its former self. I think maybe the problem with the series is that the company doesn't know how to handle the Templar/Assassin conflict anymore and have gotten so caught up in the Call of Duty mentality that they can't see clearly for all the depression and sorrow of the broader world around us. Disillusioned with modern day politics maybe? I don't know, but whatever it is truly rears its ugly head in ACIII.

It's a beautiful and maddenly glitchy game with a contemplative protaganist and an environment that really exists just to run through. There's a lot to do but none of it as necessary as in previous games. The rewards aren't really worth the effort this time around and the game is beaten very easily on basic equipment. I miss the armor and missions that built upon your lifelines making you stronger. In this game, there is no getting stronger and it shows. Conner is weaker than Ezio and not nearly as skilled. This may be due to the lack of the Assassin presence in his time. And the combat certainly showcases this. I understand they were trying to make the player use some skill but the combat is infuriating even when you get the controls down. I don't expect to blaze through enemies like a god on steroids but I do expect some efficient play mechanics. The counter takes a lot of getting used to and even then it's spotty. Certainly I wouldn't recommend this game as the jumping on point for the series.

Overall I'd rate the game a 7 out of 10 mostly because of beautiful environments. And I love the music that is in the game. The poster brings up a lack of music and I will disagree on that point only. There's plenty of atmospheric music to be found. And to be fair it's not like AC is renowned for nonstop music anyhow. Every game in the series has portions of just background noises. It works well here. But for all the environments and the things populating it, there isn't much to fill the landscape with. It feels empty. The shops are limited and the people non interactive. And what happened to the grab button!? I miss tossing guards off roofs. Stealth in this game also brings the rating down. The emphasis is on attack not stealth and that bothered me. The naval sequence is superb. I think it's the best feature and would love to see Ubisoft do some sort of pirate game set in this environment. I have no gripes about those missions. Spot on. Haytham was a definite treat and surprise. I liked him for the most part though later on he's kind of a ******. But yeah, an all right game with lots of issues and no respect for Desmond. Sigh. It reminds me of how I felt after Mass Effect 3. Would it kill developers to have a positive outlook on life or are things so bad in Canada that the rest of the world needs to hear about it? Sheesh.

AWBiggs
11-05-2012, 05:49 AM
AWBiggs,

Beating the Borgia is no different than beating the British as part of the Revolutionary War. That's "tied" to the story. Building a new world, your homestead and your Assassin's Guild is "tied" to the story and integrated into the overall theme. The exact same if not more than any in the Ezio trilogy.

I don't think we played the same game. In AC3 it's established, on a fairly regular basis, that Connor isn't picking sides. In fact the "Liberation" missions you refer to, have nothing to do with the Brittish and it's actually the templar influence you're removing, in the guise of the Brittish. However, that being said... the story masterfully weaves you between sides, always focused on the goal of Connors personal mission. It's never about "Liberating" the city in the narrative. I think that's possibly what is confusing you, or perhaps you skipped past those story pieces to get to the stabby-stabby. Either way, there's little to no correlation between many of the side-quests and the main story drive. It's like the story throughline was conceived years in advance of any mission side quest features, to that end, Cory May has done a wonderful job of a compelling narrative, it's the rest of the game that feels less than a whole.

I think the FUNDAMENTAL difference between us is simply we play Assassin's Creed for different reasons. You look for the traditional arcade gaming experience, the thrill of stabby-stabby and the Maxis-style mini-games of crafting and whatever else, and seek no link between them to explore them as you wish/need/require. I play Assassin's Creed for what I call "Intelligent Gaming". What I mean by this is, the Assassin's Creed series has established a level of integrity of story, scope and thematic integration between all the elements. Benchmark things like Leap of Faith, Hidden Blades and feeling a part of the people and city around you, either by exploring rooftops, looting chests or meeting the townsfolk (...as Prostitutes, Thieves etc...) is all woven into the intelligent story and thought-provoking gameplay mechanics. Everything had a reason and I was compelling to explore everything, downloading DLC to expand the story further.

In ACIII ...I simply don't get that same feeling, certainly the story is everything I wanted, but everything else feels less of a whole, because it's just not as smart as previous iterations of the series. There's the intelligent stuff there, but it's in smaller doses and confined to the main narrative The rest of the stuff, is simple point-and-click and no connection to anything in the main narrative. You look at the game and see everything you want, the exploration, the battles, the gameplay and technology is important to you, whereas I see it from another perspective of intelligent STORY, intelligent THEMES and narrative connections between everything that happens before, during and after the game finishes.

There's a fundamental difference in the reason why we enjoy this series. We're coming from different perspectives, but Assassin's Creed has proven in the past four games they can balance the intelligent story and gameplay almost to perfection in Brotherhood/Revelations. In ACIII they've looked to expand arbitary things like technology, map size and gameplay mechanics (and controls) with little thought on integrating them into the total narrative as a whole. That's my problem, in a nutshell really. Does this make the game LESS enjoyable for some? Of course it does, there's not that many intelligent story-driven games out there anymore. In media as a whole, there's very little intelligent cinema happening these days, you get the odd "Skyfall" blockbuster, which blows away the Bond fans, and the casual audiences alike. Then you get Battleships, Transformers and the like which are nothing more than pretty looking displays of technology.

I would hate Assassin's Creed to go in the direction of less-intelligent gaming simply to jam their games full of new technology to wow those with flashing lights. The reason I began the trip with this series was for the History, the unique storytelling and the characters within it. In ACIII, outside of the main story, there's no narrative purpose to any of the side-missions or mini games. We're given it all up front, weapons, uniform, blades and the map. Nothing feels earned. It's less Skyfall, more Battleship.

There is no why



Note: As an aside, nothing I've written needs edit or correction by anyone, as it's my opinion I stand by everything I say, regardless of ill advised attempts at wit or sarcasm. Thanks.

Assassin_M
11-05-2012, 05:50 AM
This thread is still going and everyone is still at the same position as they were from page 1.

Obviously, This thread was not made for a discussion, because a discussion is sometimes a change in views coming forth from the various opinions and experiences, but this just turned into those who liked the game vs those who did not and its not getting anywhere. I can say that I did not enjoy reading the past 8 Pages. half of the comments belong to someone on my ignore list, the other half is circles again and again and again.

I did not enjoy it..

Farlander1991
11-05-2012, 06:05 AM
I haven't played AC3 yet (it's not out on PC), and there are a lot of valid (at least seemingly valid arguments... as I said, can't judge, didn't play AC3) arguments here, but I can't help but be amused when amongst some really valid arguments there is stuff like 'what's the point of money if you can defeat everybody with your default set', which I don't consider to be valid since it's kind of a plague of the series ever since AC2 (and, just so we're clear, this argument is clearly presented as mechanical rather than narrative-based). I'm not defending AC3 (I can't, I haven't played it). But I would like to talk about the state of things in AC2/ACB/ACR.

Upgrading the Villa in AC2 has aesthetic value (it's really rewarding to see how Villa changes overtime, even if you don't buy a single thing from the shops), but it's pure busywork in AC:B and AC:R. Why wouldn't it be, when in all games you get the best armor for free by doing more interesting stuff? Where you get the best weapons for free by completing challenges and secondary quests? (with the exception of AC2 where sword of Altair needs to be actually bought, and the crossbow). Okay, in AC:B you get the Auditore Cape for renovating everything... still, renovating everything is absolutely boring and they got rid of the aesthetic reward of AC2's Villa.

And don't start with 'no need to use this or that certain weapon'. Ezio's trilogy is full of those. I never use anything but sword and hidden blades in battle. Never used knifes, heavy weapons, or spears (with the exception of when I wanted to watch the coolest counter ever when the spear breaks, but that's pure aesthetical reason). Because, honestly, the combat system in Ezio's trilogy is inherently broken - and thanks to counter kills + kill streaks there's absolutely no need to even think about upgrading a weapon. You can use only the hidden blade throughout the whole game and still be a killing machine... I mean, come on, in AC2 they've added different enemy archetypes that all could be easily defeated with a hidden blade. They rectified that by making each archetype more unique and requiring different methods to be defeated in AC:B/AC:R but at the same time totally ruined it by adding kill streaks (although, I would call Janissaries an exception).

And armor is also essentially useless thanks to medicine. And each consecutive game in Ezio trilogy introduced a weapon or item that just broke everything even more. Poison darts rendered hidden blade poison useless. Crossbow rendered both knifes and hidden gun useless. And the bomb crafting system in AC:R... well, it didn't render the smoke bombs useless, it's just that the system as a whole is pretty much useless, there's no need for 90% of the bomb variations you can make (at the least).

I love AC series and Ezio's trilogy in particular to death, but in a lot of cases using it as a good example of anything other than a good narrative and aesthetic connection between the story and mechanics is kind of... not that valid of an argument, because most of those same mechanics that are neatly narratively-tied are also broken or useless (books in AC:R come to mind... I mean, you could at least LOOK at the paintings in AC2/AC:B).

And for everything good that each consecutive Ezio game introduced, it also introduced something really broken. For example, AC:B's Rome had really good design when it came to Borgia flag locations - a lot of these flags (especially those on the ruins) required some thought in how you need to approach them to get to them (not incredibly complex situations, of course, but it still was a mini-challenge of sorts, and getting a flag was pretty rewarding by itself). At the same time, AC:B, while being focused on rounding up not only the brotherhood, but also thieves, courtesans and mercenaries, totally disposes of any need to actually use any of said mentioned thieves, courtesans and mercenaries (with the exception of a few story missions). And, let's face it, the use of the guilds is simple - hire them to distract guard posts to get into a secured area to avoid a fight, but there are barely any such areas in Rome.

So, yeah... Ezio's trilogy is far from being perfect itself. Still love it to death, though.

EDIT: This discussion really pushed me into wanting to write an analysis of the mechanics of AC series, what each game did right and... well, not. In my opinion, at the least.

blacklimoband
11-05-2012, 06:18 AM
These things are in the game, and you can choose to do them, or not.

As with any new game release there will be the blind drooling faithful fanboys, the equally blind drooling haters, those that think it's the best thing since sliced bread, those that think it stinks more than a fart in a tannery, and those that just enjoy it for what it is.

After reading all the whiner's posts, all I can think of is "Curse your sudden but inevitable QQ"... (I'd be interested to see how many people get the reference :))

abbitha7
11-05-2012, 06:18 AM
There's a fundamental difference in the reason why we enjoy this series. We're coming from different perspectives, but Assassin's Creed has proven in the past four games they can balance the intelligent story and gameplay almost to perfection in Brotherhood/Revelations. In ACIII they've looked to expand arbitary things like technology, map size and gameplay mechanics (and controls) with little thought on integrating them into the total narrative as a whole. That's my problem, in a nutshell really. Does this make the game LESS enjoyable for some? Of course it does, there's not that many intelligent story-driven games out there anymore. In media as a whole, there's very little intelligent cinema happening these days, you get the odd "Skyfall" blockbuster, which blows away the Bond fans, and the casual audiences alike. Then you get Battleships, Transformers and the like which are nothing more than pretty looking displays of technology.

I would hate Assassin's Creed to go in the direction of less-intelligent gaming simply to jam their games full of new technology to wow those with flashing lights. The reason I began the trip with this series was for the History, the unique storytelling and the characters within it. In ACIII, outside of the main story, there's no narrative purpose to any of the side-missions or mini games. We're given it all up front, weapons, uniform, blades and the map. Nothing feels earned. It's less Skyfall, more Battleship.


OP, I just wanted to say you original post was excellent, as was this one. We are in total agreement.

Farlander1991
11-05-2012, 06:19 AM
After reading all the whiner's posts, all I can think of is "Curse your sudden but inevitable QQ"... (I'd be interested to see how many people get the reference :))

We will rule over all this land, and we will call it... This land. ;)

apacherose2012
11-05-2012, 06:22 AM
This thread is still going and everyone is still at the same position as they were from page 1.

Obviously, This thread was not made for a discussion, because a discussion is sometimes a change in views coming forth from the various opinions and experiences, but this just turned into those who liked the game vs those who did not and its not getting anywhere. I can say that I did not enjoy reading the past 8 Pages. half of the comments belong to someone on my ignore list, the other half is circles again and again and again.

I did not enjoy it..

This. Someone is stating his opinion, and isn't open for discussion, this thread is pointless and is not going to go anywhere

AWBiggs
11-05-2012, 06:54 AM
This discussion really pushed me into wanting to write an analysis of the mechanics of AC series, what each game did right and... well, not. In my opinion, at the least.

I actually started a fairly large piece a while back on the themes and historical narrative running through all the games a while ago, I might go back and look into it, unless you beat me to it! There's so much really smart, intelligent story stuff going on, especially in the wider themes of the series (Revenge, Love, Leadership, Redemption, Resolution) that are tied into lots of little intricate story elements across each of the games, there's so much to take from the games as a whole.

Farlander1991
11-05-2012, 07:09 AM
I actually started a fairly large piece a while back on the themes and historical narrative running through all the games a while ago, I might go back and look into it, unless you beat me to it! There's so much really smart, intelligent story stuff going on, especially in the wider themes of the series (Revenge, Love, Leadership, Redemption, Resolution) that are tied into lots of little intricate story elements across each of the games, there's so much to take from the games as a whole.

I agree with that. In fact, in my opinion AC series have one of the best stories in games (heck, I frequently send videos of the games to my mother because she likes the story and really likes to listen the dialogues and what people discuss in the game, although she would never play the game herself... I consider that to be a proof of how compelling the story is as a whole). The only two big disappointments to me are the way Templars were handled in AC2/ACB (they're not as compelling as Templars from AC1 and ACR... just power-hungry villains... although in multiplayer files of ACR they kinda lampshade that, saying that Borgia were a disgrace of the Templar order) and how it seems that after ACR the bleeding effect will not play any role at all (I just think that there were so much possibilities with the bleeding effect tormenting Desmond and having him constantly lose gripe with reality which would be a big challenge for him to overcome in the end, when it seems that it won't be the case).

And I don't know if I will beat you to the analysis or not. I think, considering that I don't have that much time, I'll try to write a bunch of smaller articles rather than one big one (because all the big ones that I started stay... kinda unfinished).

Rogkun
11-05-2012, 07:20 AM
I'm glad that the post has actually spawned a legit discussion about the mechanics and storyline of the game
as a basis for analysis of its overall presentation and form.

There are people that actually agree, some disagree, and there are some interesting ideas floating about
justifying different points. This isn't a bad thread- it's just a polarizing one. Some people see no point, others
see it as a foundation for discussion and attention.

Good work, OP. Intention or not, you made some eloquent points- argued they may be.

CheryPopinNinja
11-05-2012, 07:22 AM
They're not the puzzles, nor the tombs, we've come to enjoy from the past. As I said, everything feels slightly off... and unlike the other games, there's no story motivational reason to bother with the underground at all, unlike past games where the tombs and puzzles were directly connected to the narrative. You can move through this game without visiting the majority of the underground, without recruiting a single member of your brotherhood nor collecting a single page for Ben Franklin. It just feels smaller. It actually feels like the narrative was worked on completely separately from the rest of the game. Like the story and missions were made far in advance of things like the naval, underground and side quests. There's just no connection between a lot of this stuff, whereas previous games (especially Revelations and Brotherhood) connected everything as part of the narrative, thus making you emotionally connected to the protagonist in all your actions.

...but yes, it is rather long. As I said. Cathartic.


Finally someone who understands how I feel!!! The game does feel smaller and it just seems they went back a few steps rather tan going forward. Just my opinion, but I agree with you 100 percent sir.

shobhit7777777
11-05-2012, 08:19 AM
Again, your argument falls to pieces, because the Borgia towers were a physical presence in the game world, connected to sync-points and opening up not only the map but played a role in expanding the city and bringing down the Borgia, thus connected to the narrative. You're talking about how the GAME FUNCTIONS on a mechanical level, that's not what I'm talking about whatsoever. On a fundamental story-driven basis everything was connected in ACII, Brotherhood and Revelations in these little mini-games and sidequests... You have multiple examples in this thread (and many others) of people not performing any of this stuff, and feeling let down as a result. They feel that way, because the story doesn't link these strands together nearly as well as previous titles, and in fact, you can get by not exploring 70% of the new stuff at all, because there's no story-drive or purpose to do so. There is no "Why" to a lot of this stuff...

100% Agreed

The above ties in beautifully to OP's point about narrative interconnected with gameplay. While not mandatory the idea of reducing Borgia/Templar influence by attacking their strongpoints tied in heavily with the theme of rising up and defeating a decadent empire.

Consider the following:

1. Borgia towers directly influenced and controlled territory - representing Borgia's hold over the city
2. It directly lead to areas which needed to be liberated - another strong and recurring theme in the game
3. This was tied into gameplay as more liberated areas lead to shops
4. The procedure to claim a tower involved a mini-sandbox environment offering a variety of approaches and an Assassination target - the core of the AC games

Ezio did Assassiny stuff which tied in perfectly to the story

The towers were instrumental in enforcing the tone and theme of the game's narrative and did so through direct gameplay. Same goes for renovating the Brothels and the Thieves guild....Ezio rebuilding the underground network.

Assassin's Creed 3 has a lot of stuff but most of which involves doing things which are not too Assassin like or tie in to the narrative (or fuel it)

AWBiggs
11-05-2012, 11:00 AM
Assassin's Creed 3 has a lot of stuff but most of which involves doing things which are not too Assassin like or tie in to the narrative (or fuel it)

There's also the Assassin-like stuff which has been included, I'll use the 'Brotherhood' as an example, which although makes you feel like it's something you should do (because two games have conditioned us into believing the Brotherhood is an important part of being a leader, an Assassin) ...except the story-driven elements eschew any need to incorporate a group into the narrative whatsoever. Connor goes out of his way to be his own man, discover his own course and look out first and foremost for his people. If anything, Haytham is the man who SHOULD (...and does) form a Brotherhood to support his ideals, as he needs many minds to accomplish his goals. Connor doesn't, he walks his own path.

Connor, doesn't need a Brotherhood, and certainly narrative-wise doesn't need to "restore" it because he's chosen the route of the Assassin not for any noble, revengeful or predestined course... but because it was a means to an end (via the "Oracle in his Village") to protect his people and his way of life. It's a different route to take to be an Assassin, one quite different from Ezio or Altair and I actually like it, but then including Assasin-ish features like "The Brotherhood" in the game goes against the established grain of the story. It's why it doesn't feel right, why it's a feature that's there, but has no "why" to it... much like the newer features (Crafting and Trading) which is something that has nothing narratively to do with Connors end game, unlike restoration of monuments or buying shops in Rome etc in previous games, which tied directly into the reason for Ezio being there in the first place.

...now, by the same token, you couldn't have Connor going around buying up shops in Boston, because that would run counter to his mission also. But the TRADING element would have made a lot more sense being done by his Village*, since that's exactly how Native American contact worked back in that time, so rather than building a Village on a random homestead, Connor should have been trading from his Village, for his people, adding to the growing wealth and prosperity of his people and expanding their influence in the world, whilst walking the path of the Assassin and learning what that means to him, and his people. Historically, of course... that's not entirely accurate, but we're not debating that. Integrating the trading element THAT way would have given us a story driven motive within Connors journey to do that stuff, and would have had more emotional payoff and connection for us to explore it further.


* I imagine a slew of interactive characters from his Village, all offering various items or products for trade, the ability to upgrade them and the Village as a whole, would have had far more meaning to me as a player to invest in that stuff, since it would've connected to the narrative and at the same time, run in conjunction nicely with the theme of his people being NECESSARY in the world, rather than the Templar outlook which saw only the need to destroy/oppress them to get their hands on the First Civilization Technology.

hyatari
11-05-2012, 02:11 PM
This thread is still going and everyone is still at the same position as they were from page 1.

Obviously, This thread was not made for a discussion, because a discussion is sometimes a change in views coming forth from the various opinions and experiences, but this just turned into those who liked the game vs those who did not and its not getting anywhere. I can say that I did not enjoy reading the past 8 Pages. half of the comments belong to someone on my ignore list, the other half is circles again and again and again.

I did not enjoy it..

The truth hurts. And no, discussions don't require anyone to change their views, merely to exchange them. That explains why every one of your posts is so bitter and defensive; you can't stand the fact that people dislike chunks of this game and can actually back it up. Don't like seeing well reasoned, thought out opinions? Click off...

NumberSix1967
11-05-2012, 02:41 PM
I concur with many points raised already in this thread but mainly on this page. There was no reason to do anything in this game other than the story missions and they were clunky-enough. The trading should have been village specific, as stated. The village artisans could have been the basis for your trading and manufacture of good to supply the native people with the life they wanted. It would have been in-keeping with Connor's drives to see his people saved and flourish. In stead he's sent to bland towns to deal with a story that has little or no interest other than by proxy to us as players. The revolution should have been involved of course, but the main point of the game should have been the threat to Connor and his people, and how he uses his culture and environment to fend for himself and for everyone else.

Game-wise, it would have been brilliant to do away with shops largely, and have your own weapons and items created by the efforts of your labour in getting people to work on your land. It would have been a more direct manifest of your play time. As it stands The Frontier, although impressive, is a waste and the cities are rather dull. As mentioned, he only trained to be an Assassin not for 'the cause' but as a means-to-an-end and as a result wasn't as aligned with the history of the Order. He was a stand alone entity, which Achilles knew and accepted. In adding in the assassins missions etc, it simply harked back to a time when they were relevant to Ezio. Ezio had to form a brotherhood in Rome because his task required it. He helped bolster the efforts of Constantinople's Order because his duty and standing called for it while he searched for answers to do with the philosophy of what he found himself to be involved - not by choice but by circumstance when his family were killed in AC2.

AC3 could have been oh so brilliant if perhaps given another year to develop but of course, there was always the December 2012 time limit holding the games to a development time. I actually don't think people would have minded if the 2012 storyline had been altered or, just told within the context of an in-context game; something that made us want to play it. As it stands it's all rather dull. Still, there's a lot of fun to be had, it's just that it's full of many let down. Onwards to pastures new and AC4.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 06:58 PM
Pr0metheus 1962


Why not have the easy modes open up first, then intermediate, then hard?. As someone said, developing this stuff as the game progresses is game design 101. There is none of the 'working to build a character', no 'work and reward' - it's all just handed to you in a way that no previous installment did, and it makes the game boring.


Actually, in every single AC, you have everything you need to beat the game. Only AC1 actually allowed you to level up by giving you new moves and combat abilities. The Ezio Trilogy is the exact same as you describe. And Brotherhood is better off not buying armor, using Assassins or taking down Borgia towers; because it's too easy otherwise.


Pr0metheus 1962

but in my view the underground tunnels in AC3 come close to being that stupid. I mean it's a maze that you have to walk around in for hours, just so you can get a bunch of fast travel points, of which you actually only need about three or four in each city. All the previous AC games did this better.


First, AC1 didn't have fast travel. Second, the others simply gave you fast travel stations for climbing a building or buying them for 20 of the 812398 florins that you had. There was no reward, no effort, no story and no gameplay element there.

The Underground Tunnels actually took the real historical information about Boston's underground tunnels and weaved that into a fundamental part of gameplay. For the first time, the player is actually involved in exploring the underground network and the payoff is a fast travel station which is very useful for free roaming or travel. This is precisely how "story" should be tied to gameplay and core mechanics. Exploring the underground tunnels is a nice change of pace from the story, based on real history, was critical to the Revolution at the time, and actually rewards you with a fundamental gameplay device which is useful from there on out. It is brilliant example of action by the player giving you a reward integrated into the story.



AdonisDF


What's the point of upgrading your assassins in this? In Revelations when you level up your assassins they become better. Better armor, better weapons, better gear. They last longer in combat, can do more. On this... there's no point. Yes, I like that the assassins can do more than just run in and kill enemies like they used to, but what's the point in using them for anything if I can charge a group of enemies and kill them all faster? The assassins themselves are useless in the game except for certain story missions.



The Assassins in both Brotherhood and Revelations are useless aside from story missions. The combat in Brotherhood is ridiculously easy. The only time it even begins to get challenging is on the toughest Borgia Towers; and even those are easily beaten with minimal armor and the weapons you start the game with. Chain kills are easy to execute, And you have 20 vials of medicine. You did not need them in that game either excluding the story missions that you had to use one on.

In AC3, they become better and develop and grow just the same. Yes, the Brotherhood is not the focus of the story, like the AC entitled "Brotherhood." But these Assassins recruits actually have personalities, back history and some character to them. They are not some dot on a map to visit and kill a handful of guards and suddenly have available Assassin Recruit with the least amount of effort possible.



AWBiggs


It's never about "Liberating" the city in the narrative.


It's not about liberating a city. It's about liberating a person. Exactly the same as the citizens in distress in Assassin's Creed I. It's about justice.



AWBiggs


Cory May has done a wonderful job of a compelling narrative, it's the rest of the game that feels less than a whole.


I will say that the story is so compelling and powerful, that there doesn't seem to be time to free roam. Each story missions begins or ends with something that compels the player to take action immediately and start the next sequence; and never do I feel like the game just allows Connor the freedom to explore. Of course, you can. But the story is far more engaging than Brotherhood or Revelations, and so there seems little time to stop and free roam.

And I think that's the source of some of these complaints about side quests being not necessary stem. It's not really that the side missions are "less." It's that the story is "more" and by comparison, makes them feel less important. Less critical. But they were never critical to the story. In any of the games. And in Brotherhood, they were often better than the terrible story they were telling. If you think back to AC2, beating up husbands wasn't critical to the story either - and not nearly as good as the story.



AWBiggs


I think the FUNDAMENTAL difference between us is simply we play Assassin's Creed for different reasons. You look for the traditional arcade gaming experience, the thrill of stabby-stabby and the Maxis-style mini-games of crafting and whatever else, and seek no link between them to explore them as you wish/need/require. I play Assassin's Creed for what I call "Intelligent Gaming". What I mean by this is, the Assassin's Creed series has established a level of integrity of story, scope and thematic integration between all the elements. Benchmark things like Leap of Faith, Hidden Blades and feeling a part of the people and city around you, either by exploring rooftops, looting chests or meeting the townsfolk (...as Prostitutes, Thieves etc...) is all woven into the intelligent story and thought-provoking gameplay mechanics. Everything had a reason and I was compelling to explore everything, downloading DLC to expand the story further.


Ha ha. I'll ignore the veiled insult.

Cutting off the Assassin's finger was part of the core theme in AC1, and in AC2, they ditched it. Because the order evolved. Connor's time period is no different. Those Assassin's have evolved as well. Achilles is not the sprite nimble Assassin anymore, but an old man who has more less given up and retired to the world. It would make no sense from the story perspective to have climbing up trees for a ceremony. So when you talk about "benchmark", please remember that AC2 broke AC1's benchmarks just as AC3 breaks Ezio Trilogy benchmarks, and there is a story reason behind it.

AC3 more intelligent now than the franchise ever has been. You talk about "intelligent" gaming and how there should be some reward and incentives tied to the story and it's thematic elements. Yet, the Ezio trilogy was more arcade than AC3. In Ezio's trilogy, chests were scattered everywhere and sitting out in the open for any NPC to loot, as if chests just occur everywhere. One could make all the money you needed from a quick roam of Florence in your first few sequences. They were opened with merely a click of a button. As simple as Mario jumping up to grab a big coin and as frequent. In AC3, there are less chests and they are tucked away or guarded. To open them, the player must pick the lock. The player isn't just given anything like an arcade game, action returns reward. That's intelligent.

As I stated previously about underground tunnels, previous installment simply gave you fast travel locations with little or no effort. In AC3, the developers took a piece of history and involved the player. They took an existing mechanic, fast travel, and tied it to the theme and history of the story, underground travel. And they then made it so that the player isn't given these things for "leveling up", but the player involves himself and actively searches the tunnels for other exits. For the first time, I, the player, actually feel actively involved in what was a simple mechanic for fast travel. That's outright brilliant.

Assassin's were nothing but a point on a map that you travel to, kill a few guards, and then you play a "Facebook" click game with them over an over. They had no story, a randomly generated name, no background, no character. That's arcade. Now, I meet them. I talk with them. I hang out with them at a bar or wherever. I help them through a variety of ways. And finally recruit that CHARACTER, not just a random name generated out of hyperspace.

The economic system in AC2 and followed involved being given a Villa, some money, opening up a menu, hitting upgrade as a pretty flag skins a building ... and sitting back and letting the Florins roll in. That so not intelligent. That's brainless. And none of it had to do with Ezio's quest. Not one of the three stories involving Ezio were about him becoming a wealthy landowner, it was a side story. And like clockwork, the arcade would reward me with more credits for playing. AC3 is the first economic system where the land is barren when you arrive and you build an entire town. Each single person in that town has personality. I know that the farmer's are trying to have a baby, and the miner is trying to woo the hunter. You can't say that about ANY of the other guilds or economic systems at all. Crafting items for trade, actively hunting in the forest, establishing trade routes through Naval mission (the most fun side quests ever), protecting convoys in open battle, inviting new artisans to come settle my community, and finding new stores to sell my wares at by free roaming to shape a New World is deep, complex and intelligent --- and perfectly suited to the time period and world in which Connor would have lived in.

Everything in AC3 has a reason. All of it is tied to the setting of the story and story of Connor's coming of age. The side characters have personality and back story and are a part of your tale from the drunk guy who saw the Krakken to the young couple who finally have their first child. Nothing is "given" to the player like fruit to Pac-Man. Players are actively involved beyond simply one-click of a button in a menu. But players who roam, explore, or take the time to pick a lock or hunt a ****** are given reward. And because it takes effort, it is far far more rewarding. Everything in the game that is unlocked is done so because the player earned it, they experienced it, they lived it. That's intelligent, and that's exactly what good free roam games should do. AC3 did it better than ever before in the Franchise.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 07:11 PM
Connor, doesn't need a Brotherhood, and certainly narrative-wise doesn't need to "restore" it because he's chosen the route of the Assassin not for any noble, revengeful or predestined course... but because it was a means to an end (via the "Oracle in his Village") to protect his people and his way of life. It's a different route to take to be an Assassin, one quite different from Ezio or Altair and I actually like it, but then including Assasin-ish features like "The Brotherhood" in the game goes against the established grain of the story. It's why it doesn't feel right, why it's a feature that's there, but has no "why" to it... much like the newer features (Crafting and Trading) which is something that has nothing narratively to do with Connors end game, unlike restorationConnor's sense of justice is absolutely core to WHO he is and his character. Naively and blindly so. He never goes out trying to build recruits, he HELPS PEOPLE. And in turn, he makes a friendship. He's not on a "mission" to build the Order or do anything but kill Templars. But he HELPS PEOPLE. That's what the Liberation contracts are for and that's how he ends up recruiting Assassins. They are normal people with real problems being bullied and he protects them. That's exactly what his character would do. And as a result, he makes friendships.The whole town is built the same way. Connor's character is to HELP PEOPLE. And he does, and in return, he makes alliances which rebuild the Homestead and the Order. It's totally about his character. He's not vengeful or lofty nobility. He's just trying to protect and help the world around him and make it a better place.
...now, by the same token, you couldn't have Connor going around buying up shops in Boston, because that would run counter to his mission also. But the TRADING element would have made a lot more sense being done by his Village*, since that's exactly how Native American contact worked back in that time, so rather than building a Village on a random homestead, Connor should have been trading from his Village, for his people, adding to the growing wealth and prosperity of his people and expanding their influence in the world, whilst walking the path of the Assassin and learning what that means to him, and his people. Historically, of course... that's not entirely accurate, but we're not debating that. Integrating the trading element THAT way would have given us a story driven motive within Connors journey to do that stuff, and would have had more emotional payoff and connection for us to explore it further.Again, you didn't pay attention to the story. You must have skipped that scene.But Connor is trying to protect his village. The Indian Shaman woman has been hiding their village for years. The LAST thing that she would want or Connor would want is to start trading with the outside world and have Europeans coming and going on sacred land. That makes no sense at all. Oh yes, I'm sure the Indian mother would love it when Convoys of white men come an go on the land, and the British start to investigate and raid along the borders. Involving the tribe in the Colonies during the War was the last thing that Connor wanted. And two, Achilles talked specifically about rebuilding the Homestead and it's one of the first things Connor mentions. It is his personal quest, and his Master's request, to rebuild the Homestead. Again, part of the story.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 07:41 PM
I haven't played AC3 yet (it's not out on PC), and there are a lot of valid (at least seemingly valid arguments... as I said, can't judge, didn't play AC3) arguments here, but I can't help but be amused when amongst some really valid arguments there is stuff like 'what's the point of money if you can defeat everybody with your default set', which I don't consider to be valid since it's kind of a plague of the series ever since AC2 (and, just so we're clear, this argument is clearly presented as mechanical rather than narrative-based). I'm not defending AC3 (I can't, I haven't played it). But I would like to talk about the state of things in AC2/ACB/ACR.

Upgrading the Villa in AC2 has aesthetic value (it's really rewarding to see how Villa changes overtime, even if you don't buy a single thing from the shops), but it's pure busywork in AC:B and AC:R. Why wouldn't it be, when in all games you get the best armor for free by doing more interesting stuff? Where you get the best weapons for free by completing challenges and secondary quests? (with the exception of AC2 where sword of Altair needs to be actually bought, and the crossbow). Okay, in AC:B you get the Auditore Cape for renovating everything... still, renovating everything is absolutely boring and they got rid of the aesthetic reward of AC2's Villa.

And don't start with 'no need to use this or that certain weapon'. Ezio's trilogy is full of those. I never use anything but sword and hidden blades in battle. Never used knifes, heavy weapons, or spears (with the exception of when I wanted to watch the coolest counter ever when the spear breaks, but that's pure aesthetical reason). Because, honestly, the combat system in Ezio's trilogy is inherently broken - and thanks to counter kills + kill streaks there's absolutely no need to even think about upgrading a weapon. You can use only the hidden blade throughout the whole game and still be a killing machine... I mean, come on, in AC2 they've added different enemy archetypes that all could be easily defeated with a hidden blade. They rectified that by making each archetype more unique and requiring different methods to be defeated in AC:B/AC:R but at the same time totally ruined it by adding kill streaks (although, I would call Janissaries an exception).

And armor is also essentially useless thanks to medicine. And each consecutive game in Ezio trilogy introduced a weapon or item that just broke everything even more. Poison darts rendered hidden blade poison useless. Crossbow rendered both knifes and hidden gun useless. And the bomb crafting system in AC:R... well, it didn't render the smoke bombs useless, it's just that the system as a whole is pretty much useless, there's no need for 90% of the bomb variations you can make (at the least).

I love AC series and Ezio's trilogy in particular to death, but in a lot of cases using it as a good example of anything other than a good narrative and aesthetic connection between the story and mechanics is kind of... not that valid of an argument, because most of those same mechanics that are neatly narratively-tied are also broken or useless (books in AC:R come to mind... I mean, you could at least LOOK at the paintings in AC2/AC:B).

And for everything good that each consecutive Ezio game introduced, it also introduced something really broken. For example, AC:B's Rome had really good design when it came to Borgia flag locations - a lot of these flags (especially those on the ruins) required some thought in how you need to approach them to get to them (not incredibly complex situations, of course, but it still was a mini-challenge of sorts, and getting a flag was pretty rewarding by itself). At the same time, AC:B, while being focused on rounding up not only the brotherhood, but also thieves, courtesans and mercenaries, totally disposes of any need to actually use any of said mentioned thieves, courtesans and mercenaries (with the exception of a few story missions). And, let's face it, the use of the guilds is simple - hire them to distract guard posts to get into a secured area to avoid a fight, but there are barely any such areas in Rome.

So, yeah... Ezio's trilogy is far from being perfect itself. Still love it to death, though.

EDIT: This discussion really pushed me into wanting to write an analysis of the mechanics of AC series, what each game did right and... well, not. In my opinion, at the least.

^ Precisely. All of the arguments put forth in this thread apply equally, if not more so, to Ezio's trilogy and AC1. I love those games, but none of that extra stuff was necessary. In Brotherhood, I would argue you were better off not beating Borgia towers because they were the only thing that kept the game interesting. Once beaten, the environment becomes empty and dull. In AC3, players are actually having to make an effort to get money, build their town, recruit their guild or find a fast travel point - and before that stuff was given away like candy - and now they are complaining because it takes "time" and effort. It does all of the things the previous ones did and MORE, it just requires more effort. Plus, the story is so much better than ACB or ACR that players are compelled to skip it all. But this is exactly the kind of intelligent and rewarding design that I would like to see the series - all games for that matter - move towards.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-05-2012, 07:43 PM
First, AC1 didn't have fast travel.

Yeah, but it didn't need it.


Second, the others simply gave you fast travel stations for climbing a building or buying them for 20 of the 812398 florins that you had. There was no reward, no effort, no story and no gameplay element there.

Yes, but at least it didn't suck.


The Underground Tunnels actually took the real historical information about Boston's underground tunnels and weaved that into a fundamental part of gameplay. For the first time, the player is actually involved in exploring the underground network...

Yeah, just what I've always wanted - a game in which I explore an historically accurate and intensely boring sewage system, lighting oil lamps along the way. It's the future of gaming! If only they had this feature in Revelations - Ubisoft could have won an award for 'most boring game ever'.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the subject came up in development discussions at Ubisoft:
Steven Masters"Ooooh, I've got this great idea! How about, to open up the fast travel system, we send Connor into a maze of tunnels with nothing in them apart from oil lamps that he has to light along the way?"
Everyone else in room (stifling shocked expressions, eye rolls, facepalms and giggles): "Yes boss, sure, we'll get right on it."
(Steven Masters leaves the room)
Everybody in unison: "Jeez, this game is gonna SUCK!"

I suppose if Steve Masters gets to make another AC game, we'll get to spend hours looking through animus code, or doing laundry, or washing windows. Such realism, such attention to detail. After all, we can't assassinate people without clean clothes and windows. It's gonna be amazing!


The Assassins in both Brotherhood and Revelations are useless aside from story missions.

You must be about the only one to think so. Pity you didn't express that opinion back when Brotherhood first came out - it would have been good for a laugh.

As for me, I used the Assassin's Guild folks all the time. They made AC: Brotherhood perfect for me.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 08:04 PM
You know, that's the point of optional side quests, DON'T DO IT. Noone said you had to go sorting through Underground tunnels. I wouldn't want to spend all day doing it, but it is interesting for a change of pace. Once I get into my second playthrough and my 50+ hours of game time, I'm going to be thankful they are there.

And since we are talking "fun", how fun was Den Defense? Or chase the monkey time trials? Is ANY side mission as fun as the Naval Combat in AC3? None of them. None of them are even close. AC3 could botch everything else up, and Naval missions alone would make its side quests more entertaining. And then it adds so so much more.

I have said that since Brotherhood came out. Recruits were cool, but totally unneeded and often got in the way. That game was a joke. Only ACR comes close to its suckiness. The map is small, the combat is ridiculously easy and dull, the story was weak and side missions were tiresome. The only time that game gets challenging is with no Borgia towers beaten, your base armor and no medicine. The only redeeming feature of that game was Multiplayer.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-05-2012, 08:41 PM
You know, that's the point of optional side quests, DON'T DO IT. Noone said you had to go sorting through Underground tunnels...

In that sense, the whole game is 'optional'. But if you want to get around quickly, you must open up the fast travel system.

What you're saying is that I have the option - either go through a tedious and lengthy maze of tunnels or, because of the game's immense scale, go through a tedious and lengthy process of navigating a maze of trees or buildings. Wonderful! Just what I was hoping for in a stealth/action game.

Why do I get the feeling that you'd defend anything the AC3 developers had thrown at us? If AC3 had AC: Revelations' Den Defense feature, you'd be here claiming that it was an example of great design, integral to the game and optional for those who didn't want it.

Is there anything about AC3 you don't like? Or is it all perfect?

Pr0metheus 1962
11-05-2012, 09:03 PM
The reason I began the trip with this series was for the History, the unique storytelling and the characters within it.

I agree. Before AC1, I had given up on the idea of games presenting an historically accurate, intelligent and and unbiased presentation of historical events. Then, out of nowhere came AC1, in which we got Christians and Muslims who were not mere cardboard cutout heroes and villains. In AC2 we got a nuanced and intelligent viewpoint on the Italian Renaissance. Sadly, AC3 (outside of the main storyline and Shaun's commentaries) has cast all that aside and we have the tired old story of nefarious British vs. heroic colonists, despite the fact that the main storyline points out the falsehood of that myth. Never before has a single game so badly betrayed the theme of its creators.

luckyto
11-05-2012, 09:03 PM
In that sense, the whole game is 'optional'. But if you want to get around quickly, you must open up the fast travel system.

What you're saying is that I have the option - either go through a tedious and lengthy maze of tunnels or, because of the game's immense scale, go through a tedious and lengthy process of navigating a maze of trees or buildings. Wonderful! Just what I was hoping for in a stealth/action game.

Why do I get the feeling that you'd defend anything the AC3 developers had thrown at us? If AC3 had AC: Revelations' Den Defense feature, you'd be here claiming that it was an example of great design, integral to the game and optional for those who didn't want it.

Is there anything about AC3 you don't like? Or is it all perfect?

In this forum, I have posted lengthy criticisms of Brotherhood and Revelations. I ripped Den Defense to shreds, because it deserved it. I understood why the developers included it, because they were trying to address the problem from Brotherhood that Borgia Towers remained beaten and you couldn't replay them. And without them, free roaming is boring.

As for Fast Travel, the game gives you all the fast travel stations you need without effort. It's just that if you want more, you have to explore. You can't simply walk up and buy one with a tiny fraction of coin from your obscene wealth you obtained by sitting on a bench. Because those games give you money for sitting on a bench.

Anything I don't like --- well, the ambient music is lacking in the cities. The overall sound mix is weak and probably the poorest of the series. The game is buggy, very very buggy. It has bad screen tearing and frame rate drops when it is doing anything else in the background (like loading). The viewpoints don't uncover "enough". They don't need to show everything on the map, but they should show more. There are way way too many loading screens during the story sequences. I counted a dozen up through sequence 6 which could have been easily cut, and for that matter, it needs to be easier to go from story mission to story mission. The way it is written, it just begs to go immediately to the next mission --- give me that option. Also, the writers should found a pause in the action in Sequence 7 or 8 that encourage players to free roam. Maybe you have to do a few side missions first before progressing through the story. And last and most unforgivable, the menu system is outright atrocious. Not only does it break previous convention from AC titles, but it needs "loops" (like Map to Main Options screen as previous titles), the menus need tips and quick how-to's written on every screen and little things like changing your outfit should be included. Those are the biggest complaints. It's the bugs, screen tearing and menus which will cost it GOTY.

But to me, it more than makes up for it with fantastic story, deep and fun combat system, complex economic system and lots of places and things to do in free roam.


Sadly, AC3 (outside of the main storyline and Shaun's commentaries) has cast all that aside and we have the tired old story of nefarious British vs. heroic colonists, despite the fact that the main storyline points out the falsehood of that myth.

So the main storyline points out that it's not the "tired old story", yet you say the game betrayed its roots by being biased. What? Do you even hear yourself? The main story completely presents many and all sides. It's constantly changing, depending on who is speaking and who's point of view you are hearing. The main story tackles all points of view, even the Templars. Moreso than either ACB or ACR.

zhengyingli
11-05-2012, 11:44 PM
So the main storyline points out that it's not the "tired old story", yet you say the game betrayed its roots by being biased. What? Do you even hear yourself? The main story completely presents many and all sides. It's constantly changing, depending on who is speaking and who's point of view you are hearing. The main story tackles all points of view, even the Templars. Moreso than either ACB or ACR.

Even if every aspect of the game fails miserably, I will back this morally grey story. Probably won't play it, but I'll praise the story, anyway.

NumberSix1967
11-05-2012, 11:55 PM
Den Defence was poorly applied, which is a shame because with a few tweaks and implementations it could have been a decent tactical side-mission. Naval Battles in AC3 are actually quite fun, I find (searching for the map was great also, invoking the tombs of the previous games). I have no idea why, I just like them. In future games should this element be developed, I'd like to see the manual boarding of ships and some Wind Waker-style roaming around. Maybe you could even go fishing in a little row boat and have a chat with your crew. Aww. I also happened to enjoy the combat in AC3. In Brotherhood and Revelations perhaps it was a bit too easy to do away with a raft of guards but in AC2 it was a wee bit clunky, but challenging and thus fun. AC3 was clunky but entertaining. If perhaps we refer to the recent Arkham games, we see an excellently refined action game combat system in motion. I'd be happy for Ubisoft just to rip that off. Maybe the control system and computer AI does let the AC combat down a tad, but again I had fun performing double counters and suchlike. It did seem very counter prevalent, but overall it was fun. The new tools were good. I loved the rope dart idea. It should have been of wider use in the game. I will have to make a visit to a city and try it out for kicks. As someone has mentioned, all you need is a sword and a hidden blade. The rest should be about options and preference. The lockpicking was tedious but so it was when dealing with frequencies in the Arkham games (same principle). The presentation saved that in those titles however. AC3 does have a lot of good ideas knocking around, it just didn't apply them as well as it could have. The underground tunnels were...well...boring. I was hoping there'd be more reason to explore and travel manually but fast travel is here to stay.

AWBiggs
11-06-2012, 05:23 AM
You know, that's the point of optional side quests, DON'T DO IT. Noone said you had to go sorting through Underground tunnels. I wouldn't want to spend all day doing it, but it is interesting for a change of pace. Once I get into my second playthrough and my 50+ hours of game time, I'm going to be thankful they are there.

This is, again, where your argument falls completely to pieces. In ALL the Assassin's Creed games, they had additonal side-quest missions that were OPTIONAL, that you didn't HAVE to complete before, during or after the main narrative. However all of them (with the exception of perhaps Den Defense) universally were enjoyed and would often be completed DURING the course of the story. Moreso, you were COMPELLED to do them simultaneously during the main narrative to add depth of character, story and so forth. This is the first Assassin's Creed game where the MAJORITY of the side quests do not feel a) connected to the main narrative, or b) do you feel ANY need to complete them either during, or before the next story event. The homestead is a prime example of something you simply CAN NOT do during the main narrative nor are compelled to bother with. The underground is another example of this, as is any of the Naval stuff, as it's only accessible from one location. In dozens of threads all over the forum, there is a unifying belief that NONE of this stuff felt necessary (or was missed entirely) because of a) the strong through-line story but predominately b) wasn't connected thematically, emotionally or narratively to the MAIN story. You can keep saying "there were always optional side missions" but that's not an argument anyone, certainly me, are making. What we're saying is in the past the SIDE missions added depth and value to the story, the character and gave more emotional resonance to the MAIN story being told and directly connected us to the world we were experiencing. In Assassin's Creed III ...it simply does NOT do this. It's as simple as that. I suggest if you can't grasp this, perhaps read around the forum and see the many voices and fans saying this exact same thing.

...all that aside, nevermind the fact you're telling me I should buy a game then ignore whole elements? That's a ridiculously backwards way or arguing your point. All the stuff packed into these games, up until now, has served a purpose both for gaming entertainment (Stabby, Stabby) and for story purposes. This is the first Assassin's Creed game where the mini-game elements don't seem to fit within the story narrative as a whole, truly feel "optional" and in case of many, didn't even realize half of them were there because the game has a HORRIBLE way of telling you what can be found, where and how. I'm not expecting my hand held here (I'm very smart, haha) ...but for a lot of other people, it was completely missed once things like the Underground, Brotherhood and so on were mentioned once, and then never again in the main story narrative. Unlike upgrading shops and so forth in previous games, you couldn't physically SEE much of this stuff if you weren't constantly exploring (on foot) the surrounds - against every other game where sync-points provided story-driven reasons to expolore, along with tying into what made and Assassin... an Assassin, in his leap of faiths!

...If you can't see any of this stuff, then as I said, we're playing these games for totally different reasons. Yours is no less or more valuable than mine, we play for different reasons and different perspectives. Up until now, we've had a reasonable level of intelligence and integrity within the game, now it's moving away from that into a broad-based Maxis-style mini games and side-quests having little to nothing to do with the Character. Which is a bit of a let down as it's not as smart as previous games. Which is why it feels very different, very distant for me, and many others.


The Indian Shaman woman has been hiding their village for years. The LAST thing that she would want or Connor would want is to start trading with the outside world and have Europeans coming and going on sacred land. That makes no sense at all.

Yet, it's historically accurate and exactly what would have happened, nay, did happen. I suggest researching a bit of Native American History to learn some more about the period, because I don't think you understand the role Native Americans played (or didn't play) in colonial times. Never mind the fact they were often hired by the Brittish as scouts and traded with them on regular basis for weapons and supplies, along with helping scout new areas etc, all to their detriment of course, but it was a way for them to survive during this period. There's lots of really interesting stuff involving Native American history during this period which, for whatever reason, wasn't even looked into outside of including the beautful spoken language in the game and in favor of "Americans Good, Brittish Bad... FIGHT!" in almost all the side quest stuff. Where Connors main drive is his people, yet he spends the entire game apart from his people and helping out white folks in his Homestead? Makes no narrative sense. It's why there's a disconnect there.


AC3 could have been oh so brilliant if perhaps given another year to develop but of course, there was always the December 2012 time limit holding the games to a development time. I actually don't think people would have minded if the 2012 storyline had been altered or, just told within the context of an in-context game; something that made us want to play it. As it stands it's all rather dull. Still, there's a lot of fun to be had, it's just that it's full of many let down. Onwards to pastures new and AC4.

It's a really good point you raise. Devils Advocate but what if they had expanded Revelations and released that as the final before the December 2012 storyline. I'm sure that would have been discussed at some point at UbiSoft, but it would (to me) have made more sense. I (personally) was getting tired of Ezio and I think he had certainly run his course by the time Revelations came around, but that seemed like the perfect opportunity to tie up Desmond's story, the Ezio narrative and move on to a new Protagonist in the future and the past. Having Desmond's NEW story arc begin with his "end" personally, and then introducing a new character in Connor seems, like a weird uneven way - when the series has tied Desmond's Arc into his historical characters one almost flawlessly. I dunno, it just seems a bit off... Ezio finishing his narrative in Revelations seemed like the perfect out for Desmond too, but perhaps they hadn't moved the Desmond end-game fast enough in previous iterations so had to move that Arc into ACIII - or perhaps I'm putting too much thought (and expectation) into these games and they simply want to sell more units to make money.

Farlander1991
11-06-2012, 06:35 AM
Well, Revelations... I enjoyed Revelations, but it's kind of a game that was never supposed to be made. And, if any game of the series can be given a moniker 'a way to sell more units to make money', it's Revelations. ACIII was one year steady into development, they had a spin-off project for 3DS to close off Ezio's and Altair's stories (ala Bloodlines to connect some of the dots between AC1 and AC2), and then suddenly, boom! It's a full fledged project. Revelations had LESS than a year of development time as a game, since after Brotherhood came out there was an announcement about NO big console AC game in 2011, and since this is a console title, the game had to be finished somewhere a month before release, which leaves us with approximately 10 months.

I would say that 2 months of that were pre-production where they were planning out the game, including how to adapt the story of Lost Legacy into the main narrative and how to include Desmond in that story, something that I'm sure has shaken somewhat whatever the devs had ready for him in AC3, by this point 14 months in development. You don't just cancel that. And I'm sure AC:B didn't shake things up as much as AC:R did, because AC:B and AC3 development started at the same time, plus AC:B was made up for the most part of the stuff that didn't get into AC2 (AC2 was originally supposed to end in 1503 for Ezio, I have a feeling it was supposed to have Desmond's side of AC:B story in there too).

Now, I haven't played AC3, but I have seen the first 30-40 minutes of it on YouTube (couldn't resist), and it feels to me that Haytham part of the game was supposed to be played while Desmond was in the coma. It feels like it would be so much better to find the third piece of the puzzle with Subject 16 instead of the triggered bleeding effect that we've got. Obviously, Desmond wouldn't spend all game in a coma in AC3, but that's just my theory.

Well, we've got what we've got, and I'm still very excited for AC3.

AWBiggs
11-06-2012, 06:53 AM
Now, I haven't played AC3, but I have seen the first 30-40 minutes of it on YouTube (couldn't resist), and it feels to me that Haytham part of the game was supposed to be played while Desmond was in the coma. It feels like it would be so much better to find the third piece of the puzzle with Subject 16 instead of the triggered bleeding effect that we've got. Obviously, Desmond wouldn't spend all game in a coma in AC3, but that's just my theory.

Yup, I actually hadn't even thought about that angle on the game, but that works absolutely perfectly and far better than implemented, as Desmond essentially 'faints' again back into a Coma at the beginning, then suddenly reappears out of the Animus after sequence one is completed (you can virtually leave the Animus right after the 'training' portion and introductions). I think you're on to something there, as that would work FAR better with the mixed-memory stuff in ACR and subject 16 and would be a nice way of introducing a new character in Connor, alongside Ezio and Altair.

Given that, I think you're definitely on to something there.

Farlander1991
11-06-2012, 07:13 AM
Yup, I actually hadn't even thought about that angle on the game, but that works absolutely perfectly and far better than implemented, as Desmond essentially 'faints' again back into a Coma at the beginning, then suddenly reappears out of the Animus after sequence one is completed (you can virtually leave the Animus right after the 'training' portion and introductions). I think you're on to something there, as that would work FAR better with the mixed-memory stuff in ACR and subject 16 and would be a nice way of introducing a new character in Connor, alongside Ezio and Altair.

Given that, I think you're definitely on to something there.

Also, thinking about it more, I actually think that Haytham venturing to America to find the Grand Temple is how Desmond and co were originally supposed to find the location of the Temple itself (unless Haytham doesn't find it... but they show the key and everything, so he must find it... anyway...).

The Da Vinci Disappearance DLC was released in March 2011. A few new models, approximately 8 missions, one totally new location (well, two, including Leonardo's workshop), I think 2 months would be enough for that. Maybe three. In any case, in January-February Revelations already would've been in development, and by that point the devs would know that Desmond wouldn't be able to stay in the coma in AC3, and that he'll get out of it in the newly developed ACR. And AC3 should get us to the Grand Temple which was alluded to in the AC2's ending. So, how do they know where to find the Grand Temple, if Desmond's already out of coma? They add the coordinates in the DLC. So instead of following Desmond reliving Haytham's memories to get to the Temple, they follow him reliving Ezio's discovering the location of the Temple. (Also, perhaps the main narrative part of the story of ACR wasn't fully fleshed out at that point yet, as Desmond finding the coordinates in ACR would make sense too)

Again, that's pure speculation, but I think that makes sense.

shobhit7777777
11-06-2012, 08:11 AM
...now, by the same token, you couldn't have Connor going around buying up shops in Boston, because that would run counter to his mission also. But the TRADING element would have made a lot more sense being done by his Village*, since that's exactly how Native American contact worked back in that time, so rather than building a Village on a random homestead, Connor should have been trading from his Village, for his people, adding to the growing wealth and prosperity of his people and expanding their influence in the world, whilst walking the path of the Assassin and learning what that means to him, and his people. Historically, of course... that's not entirely accurate, but we're not debating that. Integrating the trading element THAT way would have given us a story driven motive within Connors journey to do that stuff, and would have had more emotional payoff and connection for us to explore it further.


* I imagine a slew of interactive characters from his Village, all offering various items or products for trade, the ability to upgrade them and the Village as a whole, would have had far more meaning to me as a player to invest in that stuff, since it would've connected to the narrative and at the same time, run in conjunction nicely with the theme of his people being NECESSARY in the world, rather than the Templar outlook which saw only the need to destroy/oppress them to get their hands on the First Civilization Technology.

Couldn't agree more.

The Village and the tribe are obviously a huge part of Connor's identity. Protecting his people fuels this guy. I too feel that the culture, customs and the village should've played a larger role in the overall narrative arc tying into it via the gameplay elements you mentioned.
This would also be an awesome way to get an accurate viewport into the life of Native Americans during that period. Thats one area I was really curious about....the people, their lives, their culture...since my exposure to it has been 0, most of it based on-what I assume- stereotypical portrayals in different mediums

Also agree on the Brotherhood bit. It kind of goes against the whole Lone Wolf deal and also erodes the canonical fact that Assassins had been wiped out in that area and were at the nadir of their power curve. It would also lend an interesting bit of duality to Connor y'know....like you mentioned...he doesn't see the Assassin's Guild and its principles as his life's goals.....its a means to an end. I would have (TBH since I haven't finished it...I still may) loved to see Connor bending a few Assassin rules, questioning the guild's decisions (Read: Achilles's) and actually taken a stand against the brotherhood because HE felt that a certain order was unjust.

The above would lead to a more interesting and conflicted character not to mention pragmatic. Connor, IMO, has a naive way about him yet a strong sense of right and wrong...Justice is pretty important to him...I'd like to see him slowly shed this cloak of "innocence" and assume a "grayer" coat in the pursuit of justice.

Duality and conflict is a strong undercurrent in the massive ocean that is the story of this game....I wish they explore it more (later on perhaps) with the juicy origins of the main character.

AWBiggs
11-06-2012, 08:51 AM
Also agree on the Brotherhood bit. It kind of goes against the whole Lone Wolf deal and also erodes the canonical fact that Assassins had been wiped out in that area and were at the nadir of their power curve. It would also lend an interesting bit of duality to Connor y'know....like you mentioned...he doesn't see the Assassin's Guild and its principles as his life's goals.....its a means to an end.

That, to me anyway, is what actually made Connor COMPELLING as a character. It's the first time we've seen someone become an Assassin to PROTECT something, rather than avenge something. Altair was a noble, rebellious but ultimately respected member of the Assassin order, who may have pushed the laws in place, but learned to respect them. He was BORN into the order, really. Ezio used revenge and family (a guiding theme throughout) as purpose for a destiny, to continue what his father was, and fufill what he would become and restore the order and become the greatest Assassin. His goal was always Family first, hence why a "Brotherhood" made sense for his journey, as he had little family left, a purpose to restoring the Assassin Order was he, essentially, was creating his own Family. He gave his life for the order, in a way, to fill that gap of losing so many family members along the way.

Connor seeks the Assassin's not for family or revenge, but to bring safety and peace to his people. He realizes there's something "bigger" at play, but that's always secondary to his cause. The plight of his people is always foremost before any need to be involved in Liberating Boston or New York or joining the revolution. He weaves between both sides with the singular purpose of righting the perceived wrongs of the Templar organization towards his Village,his people and their quest for influence in the New World. He has ZERO desire to restore the Brotherhood, or even become a leader (he eschews this in story elements once or twice) ...he's USING the Assassin's to make himself a better person, but to protect his people. This element, is ultimately unexplored.

It's an intriguing dynamic for a character, to essentially use an organization for their own means. He wasn't born into it. He had no history with them, his father is a Templar! He was told by the Oracle that he should "seek out the symbol" of the Assassin's to accomplish his goal, and therefore, protect their interests. They're, in a sense, just using him as they did Ezio - so there's a recurring theme, however, where Ezio realized something bigger was at play, he used that to his advantage to restore the Brotherhood and therefore, give himself a family of his own, albeit, of Assassin's ...Connor doesn't really have any interest, outside of keeping his people safe. I'm not sure that quite makes him an Assassin, in my eyes, but it's certainly something I would like to see explored in another game, because he'll have to come to terms with the choices he's made, because much like any organization, there is always a cost to choosing the road you walk, and you have to be doing it for the right reasons. I'm not sure such a singular focus, for Connor anyways, would make him the kind of character people would follow as a leader (and why the inclusion of the 'Brotherhood' feature simply doesn't fit into the game terribly well).

Duality of birth, Duality of goals, Duality of the stakeholders ...all recurring themes in this game. Yet we spend little time exploring Connors dual nature, in favor of helping random folk move onto Connors homestead? It just doesn't fit... it's like a completely separate game feature from a completely different game. The trade element would have worked FAR better integrated into how Connor and his tribe interacted with the outside world, as they obviously would have... and given the "Trade" mini game far more emotional meaning as they money earned could have gone into perhaps, feeding his people, growing crops around the tribal lands, upgrading housing, all sorts of things... Would've made it far more relevant. Perhaps his "Brotherhood" could have been formed from people from his village? The kids he played hide and seek with, eventually growing up to become Assassin's themselves, viewing Connor not just as family, but as a leader... Meeting the brittish and the revolutionaries along the way, bringing them all together to work together as a Brotherhood of men, for the purpose of free will, in a new nation. A man of two worlds, bringing them together under the Assassin order.

Poetic.

I'm sure I'm [we're?] putting too much thought into all this, haha. I do trust Corey May and he's done a fabulous job with Connors story, would love to sit down and chat with him to see what was left out, and whether or not we're right about that ACR/Haytham theory.


Also, thinking about it more, I actually think that Haytham venturing to America to find the Grand Temple is how Desmond and co were originally supposed to find the location of the Temple itself

I completely agree with your speculation. It always irked me at the end of Revelations how Desmond said "I know what has to be done..." and then they just drive straight to the temple. How did they find it? Desmond's experience wouldn't have given that specific location (there were plenty to select from!) ...and even if it did give him that particular location, why? Now they explore that with Haytham, but that fits FAR better in conjunction with Desmond in the Coma and his memories all be jumbled up and needing to 'play through' that portion of Ezio's Journey. It fits with the theme of "Revelation" as well as Rebirth a little better. The rebirth also being Haythams son, Connor. The revelation not only being of the First Civilization, or Ezios end, but of Haytham being a Templar and Desmond having those connections in his past... it all fits.

...there is, however, something poetic about the Birth of a new Assassin in Connor, and the End to Desmonds story being in one narrative, although it's clunkier, it still works as it's placed in the game. Just not as smart as I hoped it would be. Your theory on ACR/ACIII and Haytham I think is spot on, however. That fits much better, into the overall themes of the last two games.

That certainly would have made the game a "Revelation" - perhaps a "special edition" where those scenes/levels are re-scripted and placed into ACR at the end of the game wouldn't be a bad idea?

pirate1802
11-06-2012, 08:53 AM
Shobhit 7777777, (not sure I typed the correct number of 7's), beyond agreement or disagreement, I just want to say your posts are always a delight to read. You a writer? :D

AWBiggs
11-06-2012, 09:04 AM
Intelligent, well written debate is ALWAYS the best kind... ;)

NumberSix1967
11-06-2012, 11:40 AM
The point about Haytham's travel to the Americas being the prime reason Desmond became aware of the location of The Grand Temple is an excellent one and surely a more fitting and structured narrative path to see out the end of whatever game was to follow Assassin's Creed II. The point made by AWBiggs, about Ezio and Desmond's (...and Altair's, if you think about it) path coming to an end simultaneously is also great. Both work, and both are a fork in the road story-wise which could have led to a good Assassin's Creed/2012 round up. You can perhaps see how things were 'supposed' to go. AC1 was Altair, AC2 was Ezio and AC3 was perhaps Connor, provided we had the 'revelation' of the Templar association in a previous game (although, playing AC3 as Haytham would have been fine, because it could have been revealed he was a Templar towards the end and it still would have meant we discovered the temple and as opposed to spending time down there milling around in the Animus, the story could have just got straight to it once the key had been found). This would have set up that portion of the world perfectly and helped deal with the duality themes mentioned previously.

It's possible to almost see how and why things were initially planned, and how and why they were chopped up to such a degree. It's hard to look away from the financial incentive of making more games being a prevalent cause in the way things have gone. As it stands, the Animus concept is threadbare and perhaps done with, as is Connor's participation in the overall AC lore. It has been mentioned that there is some in-game way of scanning through other people's genetic memories without having to secure the genetic host, if you like. I'm not sure what game that is referenced in, mind. Perhaps that is the future of the series although I struggle to see how delving into the past in any recent iteration will help fight of a holographic space lady (I'm being flippant with that description, naturally). It may be difficult to believe going to 12th Century China (or 19th Century Britain, which would be quite entertaining thinking about it; London anyone; climb the Houses of Parliament?) is necessary in order to find some item or other that will help with a modern quest, again. I fear that's the route we may take as the modern day angle of these games is a kind of ethereal presence. I'm not sure what Juno's plans will entail. Will she be some kind of supreme overlord sitting atop a mountain of death and fire? Will she pretend to be a human who worms her way into all the powerful halls of influence across The World? Will she use some kind of technology to enslave seven billion people?

I would have been rather pleased if this series had been three or four excellent games and then, well, moved on. That's not capitalistically eager I'm aware but it would have made for a less saturated experience. Again, the mess AC3 has left is salvageable. Or at least, I hope so.

NumberSix1967
11-06-2012, 11:43 AM
2: Oh, perhaps the audience association and preference, as well as the success of the games, influenced the somewhat over-indulgence of the Ezio and Altair storyline. Again, I did love the Revelations' ending but ultimately, those men were just cogs in a larger wheel. Argh, I'm maddened by this Haytham point. I want to SEE that now. Ubisoft, recall AC3 and do it again. We'll forgive you.

dandins
11-06-2012, 12:59 PM
No, i dont agree with many points.

The whole authors post is extremly subjective and i dont think that his "opinion" represents the majority of gamers

i actually think he´s a nerd that wants another AC1/2.

But this is AC3.

its senseless to discuss about every point he mentioned - all in all he says: everything gone bad.

Graphic: ps3 hardware is extremly limited/your subjective opinion
Sound: your subjective opinion - i like
Tombs/puzzles: your subjective opinion - i dont like senseless riddle tombs because i want a realistic and logic world.
upgrade system: sure the could be more depth, but just "depth" doesnt make a game more successfull (somehow i think about the awesome item system of nintendo´s zelda)
tutorial system: i agree - some things like robedart should be explained more detailed (tutorial usage)
fact is: this game has still many bugs like "reload on R2" - its actually not R2.. (PS3) or the hood bug (cant put on the hood after finishing storys) and alot more graphic bugs
but when all these are fixed - game will be the best AC ever.

and what about all the new things.. animals, ships..

some people would complain about the "producing" system because of too much depth

my opinion

nultma
11-06-2012, 02:08 PM
Thank you so much for sharing this AWBiggs, I agree entirely with all your points that you've made however I do have some differences. Assassin's Creed was the first game that I got on my Xbox 360, it shipped with the console and I loved it to pieces. When AC2 came out, I was eccentric and for the 2 weeks prior to release I would bug my friends every day and when I picked it up it was special. When Ezio and his brother climb that church (or tower, specifics fail me) and the main title flashes was one of the most memorable moments I've seen in a video game. I remember first learning about the armour of Altair and from that point, before starting any missions in a new town or sequence, I would go out and search for the tombs, desperate to get the fabled armour of Altair. When Brotherhood came out, I was sceptical and hesitated on buying it for a week but dug in and loved it just the same as I did Assassin's Creed 2. Even Revelations, I enjoyed greatly as well, although Den Defence was a pain in the ***.

Assassin's Creed 3 however, felt lacking...It was a good game, I won't say I disliked it but I felt like it was missing something. Boston and New York are great cites to run around and explore but they miss some kind of connection I had with Florence and Venice or Rome. I enjoyed the Homestead Missions a lot, as it seemed to give the game a bit more personality. As with the past 4 games, I plan to get 100% total sync and I'm at 96% now but I have little driving me to continue. The underground sections seemed pointless as Connor can run from a harbour or a previously unlocked one significantly faster than walking through the sewers which I'll admit could've been cool if it delved a bit and you found some hidden cache or something. I've finished all the Naval Missions which I felt were fantastic and a great addition to the series. I'm up to the point in the game now where I'm doing the club challenges and their tasks as well as the collection tasks too. Although I'm starting to lack a point to it. In the previous games I'd spend hours running around, without a specific objective or mission to follow just because it was fun to do. Hunting, while it could be enjoyable seems to forced as a system and I don't enjoy the exploration of the map. One of the most iconic parts of an Assassin's Creed game was to climb up to a view point and observe a breathtaking vista of an area and while they are present in AC3, they only show a small circle on the map, which will eventually be the downfall of this game. The challenges that require the player to discover the whole map will be nigh impossible as their is no full reason to, other than a trophy or an achievement. Like the Encyclopaedia of the Common Man, I only feel like Ubisoft included them to say "Hey we put this small detail about life for civilians in the Revolution!" While little extras like this are cool and unusal, I feel they detract too far away from the game and time spent doing these things could've been spent constructing missions with meaning to the character. I really do hope I can find something more in Assassin's Creed 3 through, 35 hours in and its the first AC game where I've personally felt like saying enough is enough and putting it down.

I couldn't help but draw a parallel between this game and a pufferfish. While this game looks big it is really much smaller than meets the eye.This could be because Ubisoft has had such a great prior history with this series that they simply built too far and overlooked some major details into what makes them great.

luckyto
11-06-2012, 04:43 PM
This is, again, where your argument falls completely to pieces. In ALL the Assassin's Creed games, they had additonal side-quest missions that were OPTIONAL, that you didn't HAVE to complete before, during or after the main narrative. However all of them (with the exception of perhaps Den Defense) universally were enjoyed and would often be completed DURING the course of the story. Moreso, you were COMPELLED to do them simultaneously during the main narrative to add depth of character, story and so forth.

AWBiggs, Congratulations, you managed to ignore my entire lengthy post before about exactly how it does tie to story, and focus on a one-off comment.

First of all, I have been making that argument that side quests were optional throughout this whole thread. A huge part of your complaint was that the side quests weren't needed, and no, they weren't.

Second, NO, I was not compelled to go courting Christine, beating up husbands, and running a timed race on foot against a thief or some random NPC. I was not compelled to deliver a letter for some no name NPC that I will never ever see again and know nothing about. AC2 was full of side quests which had nothing to do with the story, and were nothing more than busy work. In every AC, most of the side quests were saved to the end. AC1 only had Templars to kill and flags to gather, so you did them as you found them. But you never knew anything about them other than "Flag" or "Templar". It's been like this throughout the franchise.

I did the side quests in Brotherhood because the story missions were terrible, and frankly, there wasn't anything better to do. You couldn't merely walk about Rome in Brotherhood and get into fights, if you did, they only last 5 seconds because the combat was so obscenely easy. Gathering feathers, taking out Borgia Towers and killing Templar agents were the only things remotely interesting in that title, so of course, people did them during the story --- because the story sucked.

They've been optional always. Please stop telling me how awesome the side quests and close to the narrative they were. More than half of the guild missions in every AC title was pointless to the story. The entire bomb crafting mechanic --- how did that affect Revelation's overarching story? Tell me how the Christine missions added to the overall story of Ezio, especially since he ended up with someone else entirely. Tell me how the "Deliver a letter in this amount of time" in AC2 added to the story? They didn't.

And the Assassin recruiting, there was no story. It was a DOT on a MAP and you killed a few guards, got a random name generated character, and played a Facebook game with them. If you got extremely bored, you could signal them. But you would never ever need to because the combat was ridiculously simple that even a 3-year old could demolish 20 guards in a matter of seconds.

Connor's story is about seeking Justice and Freedom for all peoples... not just his own. About following the sign that the Spirit told him to follow. It's about helping people who are bullied or in trouble. So if you hear some woman screaming for help on the side of the road, you should be compelled to help her. If you see couple of innocents about to die via a firing squad, you should be compelled to help them. If you can stop a plague from killing the poorest in New York, you should be compelled to prevent it. Because Connor - his character - would be.


you couldn't physically SEE much of this stuff if you weren't constantly exploring (on foot) the surrounds - against every other game where sync-points provided story-driven reasons to expolore, along with tying into what made and Assassin... an Assassin, in his leap of faiths!

What about getting their fingers cut off? That's what made an Assassin an Assassin in AC1. The order has evolved. Its' moved on. It's a different master who is old and tired. It suits the story.

All the view point did in AC1 was allow the map to be visible. Once it was visible, things showed up on it after checking in with the local Guild. Yes, I too would like to see the view points reveal a little more than they do. General stores would be nice. As it is, you have to go witness it in person. It requires an effort on the part of the player. All a viewpoint does now is save you from exploring a specific area.

Yeah, I do agree, that the game does make it far more challenging for you to go do the side quests. Part of it is the way the story is written and that like a good book --- it simply begs you press forward. Part of it is the terrible menu system and lack of tutorials. Part of it is where it drops you after story sequences (the Ezio Trilogy often dropped the player right next the side quest after a story sequence.) Part of it a map that is a little too unforgiving.

But none of those reasons mean that the side quests are "smaller" or not tied into the story. They are extremely deep, time-consuming and integrated into the story and themes.


Yet, it's historically accurate and exactly what would have happened, nay, did happen.

Yes, it's historically accurate.

But in the context of the story, the historical behavior of Native Americans doesn't apply to Connor's tribe. You must have skipped those scenes where they discussed sacred ground, temples, and keeping the outside world away from the valley. I mean, you are so intelligent, surely someone as smart as you would remember the reasons why they would want to keep the tribe hidden if you heard them?

You keep talking about how things don't apply to story --- but they do. You may not like the story, and that's your choice, but THEY DO TIE INTO THE STORY. Equal or moreso, than all the previous titles.



Connor seeks the Assassin's not for family or revenge, but to bring safety and peace to his people. He realizes there's something "bigger" at play, but that's always secondary to his cause. The plight of his people is always foremost before any need to be involved in Liberating Boston or New York or joining the revolution. He weaves between both sides with the singular purpose of righting the perceived wrongs of the Templar organization towards his Village,his people and their quest for influence in the New World. He has ZERO desire to restore the Brotherhood, or even become a leader (he eschews this in story elements once or twice) ...he's USING the Assassin's to make himself a better person, but to protect his people. This element, is ultimately unexplored.

Actually, his character is explored. I just don't think his motivations as told in the story mesh with your view of him. Connor's struggle is against injustice for all people, not just Natives or his own Tribe. Connor is about defending the weak and helping people, and that's why he wants so badly to help his own tribe. Though, not why he joined the Order.

Connor's Assassin recruits are just normal people with problems, and he helps them because that's his character. Eventually, he builds an alliance. He isn't motivated to "recruit an Assassin" or "build a Brotherhood" as you say. He's just trying to help people - all people - not just his tribe. He fights injustice moreso than the Templars, whom he sees as a major cause of injustice. Same for the Homestead missions. He helps people because that is in his character to do so, and in turn, builds a New World. Getting a recruit is an organic byproduct of how he interacts with world, not the purpose of his action -- a purpose totally separate of the player's motivation to complete a game task, but perfectly suited to the story.

Connor isn't about helping just Native Americans, he sees all people created equal and that's why the War for Independence persuaded him and he scoffed at Achilles' remark about being a black in Boston. Connor's primary motives are justice, for all people --- so the side missions are about him helping them. Not because he "needs more men to take out the Borgia", but because it's the essence of who he is --- and after helping, he rebuilds the Order and creates a community where Black, White, Irish, Indian or whomever is welcome, equal and a part of his "New World" through a natural organic process, not because it's his mission (that would be a different story.)

Second, he's not USING the Assassins Order. As far as he is concerned, the Spirit of his People ordered him to go seek out that symbol and become an Assassin. Once he becomes an Assassin, he fulfills his promise to protect his people and keep his tribe hidden away from the world. But he is an Assassin to be an Assassin. It's the equivalent of the Angel Gabriel (or whomever your deity is) asking someone to go be a chef, of course, you will start cooking. He believes it is his path to be an Assassin, and saving his people is a byproduct, as is bringing Justice and Freedom to the world.


The underground sections seemed pointless as Connor can run from a harbour or a previously unlocked one significantly faster than walking through the sewers which I'll admit could've been cool if it delved a bit and you found some hidden cache or something.

They did need a hidden cache or something. They weren't pointless. It was a clever way to unlock fast travel points. But I will concede that there should have been little more at the end of that rainbow. Same for forts.

AWBiggs
11-06-2012, 07:16 PM
The point about Haytham's travel to the Americas being the prime reason Desmond became aware of the location of The Grand Temple is an excellent one and surely a more fitting and structured narrative path to see out the end of whatever game was to follow Assassin's Creed II. The point made by AWBiggs, about Ezio and Desmond's (...and Altair's, if you think about it) path coming to an end simultaneously is also great. Both work, and both are a fork in the road story-wise which could have led to a good Assassin's Creed/2012 round up. You can perhaps see how things were 'supposed' to go. AC1 was Altair, AC2 was Ezio and AC3 was perhaps Connor, provided we had the 'revelation' of the Templar association in a previous game (although, playing AC3 as Haytham would have been fine, because it could have been revealed he was a Templar towards the end and it still would have meant we discovered the temple and as opposed to spending time down there milling around in the Animus, the story could have just got straight to it once the key had been found). This would have set up that portion of the world perfectly and helped deal with the duality themes mentioned previously.

100% Agree with everything you've said, especially this. I'm willing to bet somewhere, Haytham was originally the main character for ACIII and the through-line (and reveal) of him being a templar was to be the major "revelation" - either woven into the Revelations game, or this game. As it is, I think he's a **** great character in ACIII, infinitely more interesting than Connor, I can see a sequel appearing with Haytham as the main Protagonist. His unexplored history, why he carries the Assassin's blade would make for a riveting "prequel" to this game. Genuinely more interested in how the Templar angle fits into Desmond's world, and therefore, the modern day repercussions of that reveal...

...hell, I think even as additional DLC I'd love to see more Haytham. His voice actor was magnificently cast, certainly superior to Connor, but I understand why they went in the direction with Connors voice/style and tone. But compared to the "colour" of Ezio, Leonardo etc... it takes a bit of getting used to!

Luckyto ...great post, will reply to you in the morning. I'll agree to disagree, But you have a few valid arguments...

vivaxardas
11-06-2012, 08:03 PM
A very interesting and intelligent discussion here ;) Well, more I play more I feel alienated from this game. I would hardly consider it ASSASSIN'S game, it is more of "A Native American warrior coming to town" game. Connor's duality if presented correctly would make this character rock. A man who is committed both to his tribe and his role as an assassin of the ancient brotherhood, fighting a fight that is larger then life. But in reality Connor is neither here nor there. This assassin thing is just a convenient way to get to his goal, but I do not feel any real commitment. I mean you can't be a US Marine without certain worldview, ideology and psychological attitude. You'll wash out very fast. The same with mafia or any other organization or occupation that requires a certain commitment and life style. But even Connor is called an assassin, what he is doing is just fighting, doing naval missions and other stuff. I know developers added a lot, but they took away much more, and by my lights a lot of what made AC series games about assassins. Now we have hunting simulator, farming simulator, trading simulator, tarzan-style parkour, and one pretty dumb native warrior carving his way through Boston and New York. I don't want even start on Connor's derision-making process. As somebody remarked in one of the comments, it is clearly a game for a younger audience, because a story is not really for grown-ups. It is just not as intelligent and compelling.
OK, he is not an assassin by calling, but a Native American who uses this organization to further his goals. And here it gets even worse.
It feels to me that Ubisoft made Connor a Native American as a fashionable move, a politically correct thing to do. And as usual in such cases, there is no real depth or meaning to it. If you make a Native American your protagonist, please explore and depict his culture. What do we have? Connor is running down frontier stories (Native Americans have a lot of lore as well), he builds a homestead instead of securing his tribe financially by increasing its economic significance in local economy, he explores some pirate's treasure, but what about Native American ancient historical sites? What about more interaction with his people? What about their needs and missions, relations with other tribes? There is none. Connor is doing all kinds of other stuff, while Native American culture is just a politically correct background. Shame, really.
The game is still quite interesting, certain missions are really good, the forest parkour is fun, and I would keep this game just for this part .But in my opinion it strayed so far from the winning formula of AC2 that it is more a spin-off then the proper AC game.

luckyto
11-06-2012, 08:23 PM
I do feel like there should have been a few more elements tied to his Tribe and Native American customs. It's pretty prevalent in the early part of the story, but clearly, Connor himself begins to become European and emulate his father. And while that is good story-telling, I can't help but wish that his Native American heritage had been more fully explored through some form of side quests similar to the search for Captain Kidd's treasure or replacing the Frontiersman and Hunting challenges with something similar but more native.

Again, I don't see how Connor is using the Assassins. He was told by a powerful "Spirit" to go be an Assassin. He went and became an Assassin. I personally wish they hadn't cut Achilles initial history lesson out as it would have shed more light on this topic, and better illustrated his commitment. He is led to believe it will save his people, and he personally would like see the world rid of injustice; but first and foremost, he became an Assassin because a "God" told him to and he bought into Achilles' teachings on the Assassin's Order.

As per the Order, what it means to be an Assassin had radically changed from Altair's time (AC1) to Ezio's time. Some of these same arguments were made (the most notorious about the cutting of the finger.) Judging by what we know Desmond, modern day Assassin's are also much different. I didn't ever see Desmond's dad, Shaun or Rebecca wearing Assassin's robes, having their finger cut or otherwise. Desmond never had a ceremony and for that matter, I never ever remember seeing him do a leap of faith (perhaps once or twice.) Conventions about what it means to be an Assassin in Ezio's time period are not all applicable, and previous installments teachings with Desmond or Altair more than illustrate this.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-06-2012, 08:27 PM
...If you make a Native American your protagonist, please explore and depict his culture. What do we have? Connor is running down frontier stories (Native Americans have a lot of lore as well), he builds a homestead instead of securing his tribe financially by increasing its economic significance in local economy, he explores some pirate's treasure, but what about Native American ancient historical sites? What about more interaction with his people? What about their needs and missions, relations with other tribes? There is none.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Essentially, Ratonhaketon, as a Mohawk is kind of like South Park's 'Token' (indeed, 'token' is anagrammatically the last part of his name). He's the token ethnic kid in a world of white folks. Once he gets a taste of the white man's world - once he goes 'off the Res', so to speak, he dumps his family as fast as you can say 'Connor'. Sure, he comes back a couple of times, but again, it's just a token gesture - there is no gameplay at all invested in Connor's heritage, and 'Connor' is as much a 'slave name' as 'Achilles' appears to be. The game makes only token efforts to bring Mohawk culture into the game, but it's all very superficial. It's nearly as offensive as a black and white minstrel show. I guess we should be happy that they hired actual Mohawks to play the roles, rather than employing Mexicans or other folks who could put on a vaguely convincing accent to play the Lone Ranger's 'Tonto'.

There are no true Mohawk games (no Lacrosse, no Sacred Bowl Game - hide and seek is fairly multicultural), no folklore, no ceremonies. The most we get is a taste of the Mohawk language and a vague sense that women were community leaders. On the other side of the coin, we get European games (checkers, nine men's morris), European ceremonies (the wedding), European folklore (the frontiersmen stories), etc., etc., etc.

Another lost opportunity in a game chock full of lost opportunities.

Oh a token rant (anagram of Ratonhaketon)

vivaxardas
11-06-2012, 08:50 PM
Desmond and his family lived in seclusion, and he left only after he rebelled. Their struggle with the templars, and the ancient legacy were the only important thing in life for them. None of them tried to have any kind of a career outside of the order. All of these guys devoted their lives to it. They all live like marines on active duty, and it is a real commitment.
Altair organized his entire family around assassin's order, it was his life's calling. Ezio did not become an assassin by choice, but before he retired, he was completely committed to the guild. He changed cities and followed leads whether he really wanted or not, orchestrated major events, and in general it became his career. For him to build a brotherhood, to recruit followers felt very natural, a normal progression of his involvement with the guild. But Connor feels like a guy who just uses Achilles' help, and likes to run in a fancy outfit. Why a hell he would need non-native followers if his only goal is to secure his tribal lands???
BTW, as I know, historically, some tribes never lost their lands because they realized a simple white men truth - you should not fight fire with fire when you can fight it with money. What they did is became rich enough and BOUGHT their own lands from the government. If it sounds like extortion it is probably because it is. :) But as soon as they had their land deal, they were on the same footing as any landowner in the US. For a guy who is well versed in European ways, it would be a counter-productive to develop some farm land, and not his village, if his goal was to secure his tribe's future. Were Connor not to be involved in any such activity, his struggle for his tribe would be more understandable. But if he is capable enough to develop a freaking huge farmland to a fullest extent, and to get rich enough to run missions on his own ship, there would be a simple solution to all his problems - just get your competitors out of the way and buy the land yourself. If to start really thinking about the story in AC3, the way one might consider to reach his goal, it all starts to make less and less sense. And I blame the fact that there are too many different features in the game, that simply do not work well together, and do not really mesh well with the concept, while some features from the previous games are lost. AC3 is like a Frankenstein's monster, made out of pieces, each may be good on its own, but do not add up to a compelling whole.

luckyto
11-06-2012, 08:57 PM
but before he retired, he was completely committed to the guild.

Key words. A full two sequels later.

And Altair was reckless arrogant jerk for the first half of AC1. It wasn't until Revelations that we knew anything about his later role as Master. Desmond totally dumped the Guild and was only brought back into the fray out of self-preservation. All of these characters had sequels to build on their foolish youth, which is all we saw of Connor in his first appearance in the franchise.

I actually do find them adding up to a "compelling whole." I thoroughly agree with your assessment that there is far too much European and early Colonial history and not enough Native American history. But hardly enough to call the game a disaster.

vivaxardas
11-06-2012, 09:06 PM
Oh no, it is not a disaster. I feel somewhat frustrated only because this game had a chance to be so much better, to be a real masterpiece, both in terms of a gameplay, and a story. They should have spent more time, and should not have rushed it. Contrary to all prophecies, 12.21.2012 is not the end of the world ;) (I hope???), and it would be fine to have the game published a bit later. I doubt too many people pay attention to the timing of the events in the game anyway, and AC3 would not be a financial disaster were it be published in 2013.

luckyto
11-06-2012, 09:26 PM
Yes, it needed six more months. I completely agree with that. For technical reasons more than anything. It has bad technical issues. To polish out many cutscenes for side missions (some of it is really bad). To do a final edit and trim loading screens, tweak menus, etc.

You know, there is a whole fort location in the western part of Boston that is modeled and in the game --- yet, no fort gameplay. The walls are there, the encampments, everything. But it's empty. They must have cut it for lack of time. I do see how it could have easily been Game of the Year with just a few more months of work. But to me - they got far more right in this title than the two before it. And especially got the big things - combat, stealth, free roam, maps, story - in fantastic shape.

vivaxardas
11-06-2012, 09:41 PM
Also I can't shake a feeling that all of the game elements would make more sense if we were to play as Haytham or some other white protagonist. Frontier missions? Makes perfect sense for him to investigate - he is looking for the temple, and requested to report about all strange occurrences. Developing a farm? Makes perfect sense. Rich white landowners were a backbone of a society, and had a huge influence on politics. As a newcomer with not too much money it would be paramount for him to get involved into a local economy and politics, more influence and power to the templars. Personal ship and naval missions? Again, it is more convincing for an Englishman to do this then for a Native American kid. Liberating forts? Connor was neutral, and cared only that much. Haytham had more involvement, and it seems he was invested in independence more, and much earlier, since his acquaintance with Ben Franklin. So for him liberating forts was to further his cause. Also Englishmen love different clubs, they love hunting, and travel, and here we have our club challenges. And why would CONNOR chaise Almanac pages for a guy he has never met in his life, when it was Haytham who was asked to do it is simply beyond me.

So as I see it, this entire game fits more for Haytham as a propagandist. BTW, it would be cool to learn a necessary information needed by assassin's from a Templar, plus it would be cool to look at the templars from inside, and to learn first-hand about their goals, ideology and morality.

luckyto
11-06-2012, 10:30 PM
I'll all on board that Connor began to take to European customs and the ways of Colonial America. I believe it suits his story very well. I just wish there had been more balance. Maybe Ubisoft assumed that because several story sequences were dedicated to it, that would be sufficient. But there should be more just to better illustrate that he is a person of two worlds.... that, like you describe, he had not forgotten his roots.

NumberSix1967
11-06-2012, 11:34 PM
100% Agree with everything you've said, especially this. I'm willing to bet somewhere, Haytham was originally the main character for ACIII and the through-line (and reveal) of him being a templar was to be the major "revelation" - either woven into the Revelations game, or this game. As it is, I think he's a **** great character in ACIII, infinitely more interesting than Connor, I can see a sequel appearing with Haytham as the main Protagonist. His unexplored history, why he carries the Assassin's blade would make for a riveting "prequel" to this game. Genuinely more interested in how the Templar angle fits into Desmond's world, and therefore, the modern day repercussions of that reveal...

...hell, I think even as additional DLC I'd love to see more Haytham. His voice actor was magnificently cast, certainly superior to Connor, but I understand why they went in the direction with Connors voice/style and tone. But compared to the "colour" of Ezio, Leonardo etc... it takes a bit of getting used to!

Luckyto ...great post, will reply to you in the morning. I'll agree to disagree, But you have a few valid arguments...

I can see it now. The whole Revelations game is based around the the fact that Desmond has Templar heritage; his coma leads to the discovery of The Grand Temple and also sets out AC3's start by showing Haytham's son born to a woman who throughout the game we had come to know and experience ourselves. AC3 could pick up a few years after Revelations and at the reason for Desmond going into the Animus is that after discovering that Haytham was a Templar, it shocked him awake - right before he found out where the grand Temple door/key/power source was/is. He would desperately want to get back to the story to see how it plays but when he jumps back in, he finds out that years have passed and he is now Connor. That suits much better than his feinting in AC3 as it stands. This leads on to another point...


Also I can't shake a feeling that all of the game elements would make more sense if we were to play as Haytham or some other white protagonist. Frontier missions? Makes perfect sense for him to investigate - he is looking for the temple, and requested to report about all strange occurrences. Developing a farm? Makes perfect sense. Rich white landowners were a backbone of a society, and had a huge influence on politics. As a newcomer with not too much money it would be paramount for him to get involved into a local economy and politics, more influence and power to the templars. Personal ship and naval missions? Again, it is more convincing for an Englishman to do this then for a Native American kid. Liberating forts? Connor was neutral, and cared only that much. Haytham had more involvement, and it seems he was invested in independence more, and much earlier, since his acquaintance with Ben Franklin. So for him liberating forts was to further his cause. Also Englishmen love different clubs, they love hunting, and travel, and here we have our club challenges. And why would CONNOR chaise Almanac pages for a guy he has never met in his life, when it was Haytham who was asked to do it is simply beyond me.

So as I see it, this entire game fits more for Haytham as a propagandist. BTW, it would be cool to learn a necessary information needed by assassin's from a Templar, plus it would be cool to look at the templars from inside, and to learn first-hand about their goals, ideology and morality.

EXACTLY!!!!


A very interesting and intelligent discussion here ;) Well, more I play more I feel alienated from this game. I would hardly consider it ASSASSIN'S game, it is more of "A Native American warrior coming to town" game. Connor's duality if presented correctly would make this character rock. A man who is committed both to his tribe and his role as an assassin of the ancient brotherhood, fighting a fight that is larger then life. But in reality Connor is neither here nor there. This assassin thing is just a convenient way to get to his goal, but I do not feel any real commitment. I mean you can't be a US Marine without certain worldview, ideology and psychological attitude. You'll wash out very fast. The same with mafia or any other organization or occupation that requires a certain commitment and life style. But even Connor is called an assassin, what he is doing is just fighting, doing naval missions and other stuff. I know developers added a lot, but they took away much more, and by my lights a lot of what made AC series games about assassins. Now we have hunting simulator, farming simulator, trading simulator, tarzan-style parkour, and one pretty dumb native warrior carving his way through Boston and New York. I don't want even start on Connor's derision-making process. As somebody remarked in one of the comments, it is clearly a game for a younger audience, because a story is not really for grown-ups. It is just not as intelligent and compelling.
OK, he is not an assassin by calling, but a Native American who uses this organization to further his goals. And here it gets even worse.
It feels to me that Ubisoft made Connor a Native American as a fashionable move, a politically correct thing to do. And as usual in such cases, there is no real depth or meaning to it. If you make a Native American your protagonist, please explore and depict his culture. What do we have? Connor is running down frontier stories (Native Americans have a lot of lore as well), he builds a homestead instead of securing his tribe financially by increasing its economic significance in local economy, he explores some pirate's treasure, but what about Native American ancient historical sites? What about more interaction with his people? What about their needs and missions, relations with other tribes? There is none. Connor is doing all kinds of other stuff, while Native American culture is just a politically correct background. Shame, really.
The game is still quite interesting, certain missions are really good, the forest parkour is fun, and I would keep this game just for this part .But in my opinion it strayed so far from the winning formula of AC2 that it is more a spin-off then the proper AC game.

I was JUST thinking about this. I and others have mentioned before that Connor's heritage is a wasted opportunity so I won't tread over that ground again (village homestead missions etc). Ubisoft missed a trick, big time. In making him a kind of watered down Native American they pandered to all sides. They picked his ethnicity to try and appear neutral in the face of a story whose morals they wanted to lambaste. They didn't want to be pro-British or pro-American as the sentiment involved (as demonstrated by the in-game actions and Sean's moralising later when out of the Animus) was from a negative slant. In not making Connor TOO native, they were trying not to alienate people who might have not been into a truly cultural hero. In making him a kind of middling non-entity they went down the easy route. He was like what we know...but he wasn't what we know. He was like the enemy, but he wasn't the enemy. The end result was that he is a tiresome bore and a massive wanker. He all but leaches from Achilles for the entire game (housing, training, contacts, resources) and still has a bad attitude when the man is on his death bed (what a way to go for our new teacher...he just kind of...flitters out of the game without thanks). It's like there was a fear there of making Connor (surely pride would mean he wouldn't accept a Western name; think about it) too partisan.

Everything has been mentioned already about how the game is flawed. It is. It's also been mentioned that this game is most probably the result of some last minute game production/story reorganisation and as a result, not even the finished article. It's a half-made game rushed out in the wake of some rush decisions about how many titles the series wanted out.

Again, and I'm repeating, in making the game's operations focus around Connor's village, people, their interactions with each other and the outside world and so on and so on, we'd have had a richer experience. Hiring some better voice actors may have helped also. Haytham had the run of the drama. Speaking of drama in fact, this is a game, like a film or television show. We need some polarising for dramatic purpose. Ezio was your stereotypical Italian because it worked. It was a check list of European brashness mouledd over the course of three games. He developed. Altair was boring but he only had one game before the decision to move on was made and he had a stoic end anyway, which was quite upsetting. In making a game in between AC2 and 3 about Haytham and thus the Templars and Assassins establishment in America the whole story would have undergone its own pre-development and setup, then payoff. Of course, I'm not saying Connor should have gone around speaking in empty proclamations or saying "How" whenever he met someone knew, but giving him SOME character would have helped.

It's a ****ed shame. A ****ed shame. You just know that everything we've all said was discussed and probably planned but, dismissed for pressurised reasons, perhaps.

I can't help but kind of remake the game in my head to how we would prefer it. I can see a game with Haytham and how the experience would play out. I can see how AC3 would have turned out and how even if Ubisoft wanted to go with the Juno Deception angle, it could have worked out so much better if it had time to breath as opposed to being the expositional outpouring during the ending cutscene to a game we'd finished by chasing a man through some streets. I mean...a chase level...as the final mission? Really? What happened to infiltrating The Vatican, or chasing a man across a burning battlefield to fight atop a crumbling castle? I know the Revelations quicktime ending was a bit poor but that was cinematic as hell and was okay by me. I mean this was Charles Lee, the man we'd been chasing both positively and negatively from the beginning. Haytham needed his services, Connor wanted to run him through - even though he had nothing to do with burning his mother to death, at all...he just romped around like a cheesy 70s Dracula.

Think on this. Hands up who HATED those traitor bastards in ACII who had Ezio's family hanged? Yep, me too. I was obscenely satisfied by going after those guys, spending time slowly building my approach and then getting to stick them with revenge. Who hated that Borgia swine from Brotherhood? Me too; he was a loon and needed to go. The bad guy in Revelations was a side point, it was all about giving Ezio a fond farewell. Even he knew that the whole plot was a side point at the end of the world. He just wanted to put and end to his quite horrific life. Did anyone care about Charles Lee? No. The drink at the end of the game, at the tavern table, would have been poetic if they'd shared a dual struggle. In fact if that was Connor and Haytham (following our version of Revelations and our version of AC3) then it would have been brilliant. "Here's to the game, see you later" *stab*. GAME OVER.

Argh. I'm going to have to let this go soon or it'll get the better of me.

jhohn160
11-15-2012, 06:04 PM
First off - this is a great thread. Informative and well thought out on both sides of the discussion. I literally found myself agreeing with both sides after each and every post. Great work fellas.

I started reading this thread when I was in Sequence 4 or 5; I am currently in 9. I have to say that earlier on the game, I did have a very difficult time getting into Conner and his story. That said, as I have progressed, I've come around a little. I'm not saying I feel whole heartedly for either side, but I can agree with the fact that I, personally, do not find Conner as compelling as Ezio. I believe this does have to do with the disconnect between his background and the progressing storyline. If the plan was to have a Native American protagonist, I feel as if the story and missions along the way should have more relation to his personal journey. Just MO.

I do agree that the side missions are a little "off". Now, understanding Assassin M's point of view, that strictly speaking they have always been optional, I do think they lack substance in this edition. Maybe that was Ubi's intention all along. Start to wean the player from 'side missions' and into another type of format - which I believe to be the case. I think (at least it is my opinion), that they should expand greatly on the Homestead angle.

The homestead addition is an AWESOME concept. The idea, the story the crafting - all of it. This is actually the aspect of the game that allowed me to connect with Conner. Granted there are some major tweaks needed in terms of general lay out, progression and the manner in which the missions need to be completed. When and if they clean this up, I think you'll see this aspect play a much larger role in games moving forward. Ideally I would like to see order of importance: 1. Main Story line 2. Homestead (or similar) 3. Trinkets, chests etc.

In conclusion, I relate this to a great band's progression. Some fans will always like the early music better and some will prefer the later albums. Just appreciate the passion everyone shares for the game and take what YOU want out of it.

Assassin's Creed 3's failures are product of their previous success. The AC series changed the game IMO. Sure there are bugs, holes in the plot and a hint of haste in this release but all-in-all, this game (and all other AC's) are legit as F.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-15-2012, 07:16 PM
The homestead addition is an AWESOME concept. The idea, the story the crafting - all of it.

It would be an awesome concept if it had any chance of working within the game system, but it doesn't. They are trying to bring some cut scenes into the secondary mission structure, which would be fine if they hadn't drastically reduced the main storyline cut scenes to do it. In my view, they took a tried, tested and proven winner of a game system - that of Assassin's Creed 2 - a system that wasn't broken, tried to fix it and ended up with a messy result that doesn't work half as well. In my view, since AC2, they keep trying to mess with what is already a perfectly good game structure, and the result always ends up being disappointing. Why not stick with what works? Storyline should change, but once a game system has achieved the kind of success that AC2 achieved, the framework on which you drape the storyline should not change unless it's broken, and it wasn't broken.

jhohn160
11-15-2012, 07:46 PM
@ Prom - I agree with you, it is hardly flawless as it appears in this version of AC. I actually wrote a longer piece in the Homestead thread about the significant problems with its implementation which basically reflects your thoughts from above. But I do love the idea and the concept. With the right format and implications to the story line/protagonist - it could be an awesome feature that adds a lot of depth to the game.

RatonhnhakeFan
11-15-2012, 07:51 PM
I do feel like there should have been a few more elements tied to his Tribe and Native American customs. It's pretty prevalent in the early part of the story, but clearly, Connor himself begins to become European and emulate his father. And while that is good story-telling, I can't help but wish that his Native American heritage had been more fully explored through some form of side quests similar to the search for Captain Kidd's treasure or replacing the Frontiersman and Hunting challenges with something similar but more native.


I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Essentially, Ratonhaketon, as a Mohawk is kind of like South Park's 'Token' (indeed, 'token' is anagrammatically the last part of his name). He's the token ethnic kid in a world of white folks. Once he gets a taste of the white man's world - once he goes 'off the Res', so to speak, he dumps his family as fast as you can say 'Connor'. Sure, he comes back a couple of times, but again, it's just a token gesture - there is no gameplay at all invested in Connor's heritage, and 'Connor' is as much a 'slave name' as 'Achilles' appears to be. The game makes only token efforts to bring Mohawk culture into the game, but it's all very superficial. It's nearly as offensive as a black and white minstrel show. I guess we should be happy that they hired actual Mohawks to play the roles, rather than employing Mexicans or other folks who could put on a vaguely convincing accent to play the Lone Ranger's 'Tonto'.

There are no true Mohawk games (no Lacrosse, no Sacred Bowl Game - hide and seek is fairly multicultural), no folklore, no ceremonies. The most we get is a taste of the Mohawk language and a vague sense that women were community leaders. On the other side of the coin, we get European games (checkers, nine men's morris), European ceremonies (the wedding), European folklore (the frontiersmen stories), etc., etc., etc.

Another lost opportunity in a game chock full of lost opportunities.

Oh a token rant (anagram of Ratonhaketon)Agree with both of you. Lack of Lacrosse when they had 'western' games, lack of Kanien'kehá:ka customs showed (Databasase entries are not the same at all), and most importantly - very few actual Kanien'kehá:ka and other Native characters in the game. Only 4 are with names and any significant screen presence- Ratonhnhaké:ton, his mom, Kanen'tó:kon and the Clan Mother. It really is a huge missed opportunity. Please support the petition in my signature guys, we need it fixed in DLC!

tcplotts
12-20-2012, 12:36 PM
I'd just ask that they stop making SP games. It's clear from this year that multiplayer is getting the love, budget and attention and i's tearing up some venerable titles. Many of us get it: you want microtransactions to be the norm so your game can spike to 130+ bucks. Just finally do it and we can let ethical developers emerge in the market to compete with this greedy vision. thanks!

AWBiggs
01-09-2013, 09:26 AM
I'd just ask that they stop making SP games. It's clear from this year that multiplayer is getting the love, budget and attention and i's tearing up some venerable titles. Many of us get it: you want microtransactions to be the norm so your game can spike to 130+ bucks. Just finally do it and we can let ethical developers emerge in the market to compete with this greedy vision. thanks!

I totally disagree, however I will say that they should prolly separate the Single Player and Multiplayer Games into different releases, because there's a substantial lack of depth of storytelling in ACIII and part of me thinks that's because resources are being split so thinly between different departments, and whole sections of the business are being put into Multiplayer stuff, which while it has it's fans... ever since it's implementation in Brotherhood, it's been at the greater-loss for the storytelling singleplayer elements of the series.


In my view, they took a tried, tested and proven winner of a game system - that of Assassin's Creed 2 - a system that wasn't broken, tried to fix it and ended up with a messy result that doesn't work half as well. In my view, since AC2, they keep trying to mess with what is already a perfectly good game structure, and the result always ends up being disappointing. Why not stick with what works? Storyline should change, but once a game system has achieved the kind of success that AC2 achieved, the framework on which you drape the storyline should not change unless it's broken, and it wasn't broken.

A lot of the new mechanics in ACIII are reinvented for reinventions sake. When you look back objectively at ACI, there was a core structure that NEEDED to be overhauled. Missions WERE to repetitive, there was a lack of character to Altair and a lot of the game, other than a few missions (and the final battle) was an incredibly simple structure; Sit on bench, listen to conversation, walk away. That stuff NEEDED to be fixed in ACII - as well as a greater depth of combat. Then you build three hugely successful games with incredibly story depth and heart to them using essentially the same combat system, all wrapped in an incredible story and character. Small tweaks here and there, but they got it right.

...then with ACIII for whatever reason, as you said, they went and reinvented the wheel AGAIN, when they didn't need to. Small tweaks would have been fine, all the resourcing that went into coming up with a whole new combat system, for example, could've been put into R&D to get the cutscene stuff working corectly, or at the VERY least having connor wearing the correct uniform that we put on him during the game, rather than the game default. It's part of what makes the game feel smaller, because you're locked in story-wise and locked in visually to doing things a specific way... the way THEY want you to look, play the game and that sense of open-world freedom is a mere colourful coat on a bit of a goat the longer you play.


Agree with both of you. Lack of Lacrosse when they had 'western' games, lack of Kanien'kehá:ka customs showed (Databasase entries are not the same at all), and most importantly - very few actual Kanien'kehá:ka and other Native characters in the game. Only 4 are with names and any significant screen presence- Ratonhnhaké:ton, his mom, Kanen'tó:kon and the Clan Mother. It really is a huge missed opportunity.

That was one of the biggest disappointments for me, they had plenty of interviews talking about how the native American-side to Connor was a "Huge Part" of the game and how it wasn't all "rah rah, America" and so forth. Yet other than the tiny portion of playing Connor as a child, there was very little actual Native American characters in the game at all. You never needed to visit the village for any reason at all, there were NO Native Americans in any of the major cities as NPC's or really any further plot-points featuring anything remotely connected to Connor during the side-quests or major portions of the game.

As an aside, I've not revisited this game once since completing it. Perhaps I should, I want to FEEL like I SHOULD keep wandering through the underground mini-game and finishing that, but is there really much point to all that? The puzzles seem awfully repeatative after the first 4 or 5 and it's not like I'm learning anything or being drawn into the story anymore doing them like I was in ACIII ...worth completing them?

erel96
02-24-2013, 05:57 PM
Very well written post that gives constructive criticism, this is rare and exceptional on the internet:
http://thatschurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maq77ecMHG1qejf6u.gif

Agreed. I couldn't place what I felt was missing in the game, but the post in spot on.

Wolf-kitten
02-24-2013, 06:27 PM
I read the post and I don't really know on what section I should reply...I agree and disagree with certain portions and it is indeed well written. Personally, I liked AC3's story but since the open letter doesn't really discuss this I'm not delving deeper into this.
Some things that we, as players, wanted to see returned were difficult to do in the current game's setting. The big tombs...where would we have implemented them? What could have been possible is making the access to underground Peg Leg trinkets the same as the underground puzzles.
And as mentioned before here, the puzzles were only optional and liked by the massive core community that posts on forums and such. I have a friend who does the puzzles and enjoys the games...and I have a friend who doesn't even synchronize with the viewpoints and enjoys the games as well.
The feeling I got from AC3 was that the gameplay, story and...well...everything, was more subtle. Which is good in my opinion! It takes time to get into and that gives me the same feeling I got from solving subject 16's puzzles in AC2...like I'm getting involved with the Assassin order.
The fortunate and unfortunate aspects of the AC series is that they need to keep innovating and keep things fresh. I'm certain that if the new assassin was similar to Ezio the comments would've been "he's basically the same guy" and now that he's diffirent we see negative comments about Connor's personality (also positive, don't get me wrong).
The point is, it's difficult to please everyone and keep the same "freshness" and that's understandable.

AWBiggs
03-03-2013, 05:18 AM
So... Pirates huh... :rolleyes:



The fortunate and unfortunate aspects of the AC series is that they need to keep innovating and keep things fresh. I'm certain that if the new assassin was similar to Ezio the comments would've been "he's basically the same guy" and now that he's diffirent we see negative comments about Connor's personality (also positive, don't get me wrong).
The point is, it's difficult to please everyone and keep the same "freshness" and that's understandable.

I think this is a valid point, however a lot of things were reinvented just "because they could" ...they never stopped to think whether they should. The whole "crafting" thing was utterly pointless. The Assassin's Creed experience has ALWAYS been about spending time in the world ...not in sub-menus crafting baking goods! That's a hangover from the background of the lead producer, but face it... you come for the history, the stories and you stay for the world they've built and to spend time visiting the people, the shops and wandering around ancient cities. Not visiting a house you "own" to buy wood or meat!

It's important to keep things fresh and to innovate, but that freshness and innovation should NEVER take away from the core reasons of why people keep coming back in the first place. There's many people in this thread that have already pointing out where ACIII went horribly wrong, nobody wants a retread of the same characters or stories or ideas. But what we DO want is to take the existing mechanics that work, build and improve on them but NOT at the expense of why we loved the game as a whole. It's a fine balancing act, one that ACIII never "felt" like it had accomplished. A massive departure from the "Ezio Trilogy" (I hate calling it that) which built each time on the character, stories but also the features we enjoyed most. Every time they "added" a new gimmick or something completely different, it either worked wonderfully (Brotherhood) or failed horribly (Den Defense) but they limited the "New" and built upon the existing.

...ALL the building they did on the "existing" stagnated or was forgotten in ACIII (Brotherhood, Glyphs, Puzzles and Tombs) and expanded upon things that never needed more focus (Combat, for better or worse in some opinion and obviously crafting). Yes, there were some good things that were tweaked, but overall it felt so different from any of the other games, but there wasn't much heart or soul... just lots of flashy new graphics and concepts. Like I said back on the first post, I never felt like I was PLAYING an assassin. Just someone pretending to be one the whole game.

Anyways, just thought this might be worth a shunt up the forum list as we approach another seemingly massive departure from the "usual" in the Assassin's Creed series. Now we're on boats and water and not even really in an interesting era. Pirates. Haven't seen much of those lately? Lost opportunity. I would have thought the natural progression would have been to the French Revolutionary period... Napoleon, Egypt, Paris, Naval battles with the British. ...all seems infinitely more interesting than running around as a "Pirate" next to Jack Sparrow and BlackBeard, but who knows. I don't have much hope, but perhaps going in with a half-empty glass is the best way to approach this franchise now, since it seems WatchDogs seems to be where the "A" team is working at UbiSoft.

XgasmloverX
03-10-2013, 02:34 AM
bro
dat wall of text

dafuq

tl:dr