PDA

View Full Version : Ubi should include a patch to disable full sync



NeverThat
11-25-2012, 07:55 AM
I'm new to the series, playing them in order and am now on Brotherhood. I am very disappointed to see full sync requirements needed to properly sync 100%, especially after enjoying AC2. I see these full sync requirements are included in Revelations and AC3.

I imagine many gamers enjoy the extra challenge of 'don't touch the water', throw Borgia captain into scaffold' or my favorite 'completing a Romulus maze in 8 minutes' since full sync adds to replay value I suppose. These requirements restrict player freedom of playing how you want and killing your target whatever way you choose. Another thing that disappoints me is there seems to be some sort of bonuses you can only achieve but getting full sync.

Every time these full sync requirements pop up at the start of a sequence, I feel as if Ubi is telling how to play the game their way instead of playing the way I want to play. I am not suggesting to remove full sync altogether, but a patch to disable full sync and still be able to earn whatever benefits full sync rewards the player would be nice. I know the obvious choice would be to completely ignore the full sync requirements altogether, but it wold be cool to start a sequence and not be given a set of guidelines before I get a chance to explore and figure things out. I'd rather play a game on the hardest difficulty and have options to play as I want versus the game telling me 'not touching the water' is the only way to fully complete this sequence.

Assassin_M
11-25-2012, 07:57 AM
Optional...

You feel restricted ? See "guidelines" ? Your fault..

Again..OPTIONAL..

aaaaaaaaaand Welcome:)

NeverThat
11-25-2012, 08:09 AM
Thanks for the welcome. I feel restricted because I imagine if I don't achieve 100% sync, I'll be missing out on some sort of bonus or whatever the reward is. It would be cool if I could complete sequences the way I want without any optional guidelines, and still get whatever bonuses full sync offer, even if that meant playing at a higher difficulty.

Assassin_M
11-25-2012, 08:12 AM
Thanks for the welcome. I feel restricted because I imagine if I don't achieve 100% sync, I'll be missing out on some sort of bonus or whatever the reward is. It would be cool if I could complete sequences the way I want without any optional guidelines, and still get whatever bonuses full sync offer, even if that meant playing at a higher difficulty.
Well....Just Ignore it..Seeing as that can`t work either...

Your Fault:p

Jexx21
11-25-2012, 08:13 AM
They're optional objectives, but you get rewarded for meeting them.

A lot of games do things like this.

NeverThat
11-25-2012, 08:18 AM
Well....Just Ignore it..Seeing as that can`t work either...

Your Fault:p

Are there any worthwhile rewards/bonuses for achieving full sync? If not, then I would definitely ignore them as they take away from my immersion and I don't really care about trophies or achievements. It's like having a chef cook a delicious looking meal, but then they tell how you how to eat it. Bad example maybe, but you get the point! Lol!

zhengyingli
11-25-2012, 08:20 AM
Are there any worthwhile rewards/bonuses for achieving full sync? If not, then I would definitely ignore them as they take away from my immersion and I don't really care about trophies or achievements. It's like having a chef cook a delicious looking meal, but then they tell how you how to eat it. Bad example maybe, but you get the point! Lol!
Not as rewarding as it was in Brotherhood, so you can definitely ignore it. Personally, I do it for the challenge anyway.

Assassin_M
11-25-2012, 08:21 AM
Are there any worthwhile rewards/bonuses for achieving full sync? If not, then I would definitely ignore them as they take away from my immersion and I don't really care about trophies or achievements. It's like having a chef cook a delicious looking meal, but then they tell how you how to eat it. Bad example maybe, but you get the point! Lol!
No....no rewards....or anything....of worth..

Yeah You can Ignore them:D

NeverThat
11-25-2012, 08:24 AM
They're optional objectives, but you get rewarded for meeting them.

A lot of games do things like this.

True a lot of games are doing whatever's trendy like trophies and multiplayer I suppose but that doesn't necessarily make it better. One of the things I enjoyed most about AC2 was being able to play the way I wanted to play without any 'optional requirements'. I assume replay value is the purpose of having full sync but some of the requirements like 'don't push or shove anyone' are cheesy guidelines that didn't need to be included.

psf22
11-25-2012, 08:48 AM
If you clear that particular chase mission with the 'cheesy' "Don't push or shove anyone" objective, it does look a lot more professional or seemless as opposed to stumbling and pushing everyone all over the place. It's just reflex and timing that's all.

People always talk about making games challenging, but the definition of challenging is always contextual per person and situation, concerning games in general. This is sort of Ubisofts way to find a balance. If it didn't have that ^^ particular objective everyone would say it's easy. Now the opinions on it and as a whole (of the game) is varied.

I think it would be better if the rewards would be more satisfying than just unlock 1 outfit though as far as 100% Sync in ACIII goes. It's mostly for bragging rights as it now, but then the supposed challenge or dfficulty 'we' want is for the exact same reason right, with the exception of relevant rewards?
Negative scripting usually results in 'more frustration' and that's how it will always be from a general perspective.

NeverThat
11-25-2012, 11:18 AM
If you clear that particular chase mission with the 'cheesy' "Don't push or shove anyone" objective, it does look a lot more professional or seemless as opposed to stumbling and pushing everyone all over the place. It's just reflex and timing that's all.

People always talk about making games challenging, but the definition of challenging is always contextual per person and situation, concerning games in general. This is sort of Ubisofts way to find a balance. If it didn't have that ^^ particular objective everyone would say it's easy. Now the opinions on it and as a whole (of the game) is varied.

I think it would be better if the rewards would be more satisfying than just unlock 1 outfit though as far as 100% Sync in ACIII goes. It's mostly for bragging rights as it now, but then the supposed challenge or dfficulty 'we' want is for the exact same reason right, with the exception of relevant rewards?
Negative scripting usually results in 'more frustration' and that's how it will always be from a general perspective.

I can respect your viewpoint and a good challenge is always a plus in my book. I feel these 'full sync' requirements are nothing more than a lazy way of adding a challenge instead of actually putting more time into making a challenging level overall for the player to figure out. Ubi should definitely keep the rewards for full sync sub par imo because not everyone plays the same and some players may want to explore all options instead of following guidelines to levels they are experiencing for the 1st time.

Brotherhood's full sync bonuses for example, include unlocking additional memories which is something could have been included regardless instead of having to meet guideline and requirements. These full sync requirements almost seem like they hold your hand before you even begin the sequence since they give you an idea of what to expect. I'd rather just have a more challenging game in general and feel a sense of accomplishment figuring it out on my own instead of the constant guidelines and hand holding every time I begin a new level.

BeCk41
11-25-2012, 11:22 AM
haha, honestly the ones in the other game were a "piece of cake" compared to the ones in AC3 to get total sync. Those things are intentionally hard to do!

Assassin_M
11-25-2012, 11:22 AM
Optional

BeCk41
11-25-2012, 11:25 AM
Optional

Yes... we know their optional, but for people who want to get them all (dang over achievers) their incredibly hard.

D:

Assassin_M
11-25-2012, 11:28 AM
their incredible hard.

D:
I thought they were INCREDIBLY EASY D:
I 100%ed Hickey`s Chase first try for God`s sake...without reading the Optional objectives even...how is that hard ??

psf22
11-25-2012, 12:08 PM
I can respect your viewpoint and a good challenge is always a plus in my book. I feel these 'full sync' requirements are nothing more than a lazy way of adding a challenge instead of actually putting more time into making a challenging level overall for the player to figure out. Ubi should definitely keep the rewards for full sync sub par imo because not everyone plays the same and some players may want to explore all options instead of following guidelines to levels they are experiencing for the 1st time.

Brotherhood's full sync bonuses for example, include unlocking additional memories which is something could have been included regardless instead of having to meet guideline and requirements. These full sync requirements almost seem like they hold your hand before you even begin the sequence since they give you an idea of what to expect. I'd rather just have a more challenging game in general and feel a sense of accomplishment figuring it out on my own instead of the constant guidelines and hand holding every time I begin a new level.

Honestly, I just play the game and don't care about the objectives at all, except of course the mandatory, situational ones which i think should remain like for ex, don't be detected etc. Then after i've finished a sequence or multiple I go for full sync just for kicks.

Without attacking you, I think if the game didn't do a lot of hand holding a LOT would have severe problems in this game. I've seen the most outrageous comments and threads in regards to literally whatever*. I think the games have always done a decent job of giving the player options by making them mandatory via a tutorial-esque mission. You or anyone else can or may not prefer this, but then a lot of users wouldn't know about these options now would they? You or even I could argue well, what about doing things for yourself, experimenting etc. But again a lot of players don't like that and they come to their own, mostly wrongful, conclusions way too fast. Although they might say they want 'freedom', when it's given they don't know what to do with it.

I find it ironic that the game since basically the original does a lot of handholding yet when it 'once' (differs per situation) doesn't, then 'everybody' flips out.

*To give a few examples:

"It's impossible to throw guards off the docks/ship into water"
"It's impossible to climb with a musket"
"Pass-through through windows are useless"
"Chase missions are broken"
"I can't see it clearly when i'm blending"
"Game doesn't tell me where to jump in the burning ship"
"Hunting too easy"

I could make a counter argument for all mentioned above as to why it makes sense or why it doesn't or why or not it's optional and how it could've been made more harder, challenging but then it will all come back to frustration for the user. For example lets say hunting bears had a strict 1 frame input for killing them in QTE, I know that 90% would never engage in a bear fight, rather avoid it or find another way. Well what other way, because they surely don't want you to avoid it? Then the game or at least this particular aspect should be expanded upon, when all they want is to give the user an option to just slash bears without too much hoo-haa. You can go more in-depth on this but it's just an example of finding a balance without too much intricate features that only true purists will master.
You could also argue well remove the QTE, but if the game would let the bear insta-kill you then what? Then you would rather have the QTE? It goes in circles.

Basically, the game should be accessible to everyone and not just the hardcore gamer (or a fan of the series per see)
I'm quite a dexterous player if I say so myself and maybe you are too, but not everyone is. But usually the ones with the least skill are the loudest, all storylines aside of course, strictly gameplay speaking.

zhengyingli
11-25-2012, 12:22 PM
I find it ironic that the game since basically the original does a lot of handholding yet when it 'once' (differs per situation) doesn't, then 'everybody' flips out.

The real irony is the wanting to remove every tutorial section by certain people, yet the same group contradicts themselves by falsely claiming certain things are broken, or in your words, flips out.

Reading your past posts, you seem to be one of the very few that actually derp around with the controls for a good while, which is a must in my opinion because the AC series controls are pretty unconventional. My point of view is why play a game if you don't do a little exploring. If a tutorial's forced on me, I'll pay attention. If there is no tutorial, I always start out fooling around with the controls. ACIII just has too many nuances in the control schemes for it to plan out a full frontal tutorial for.

ProdiGurl
11-25-2012, 12:22 PM
True a lot of games are doing whatever's trendy like trophies and multiplayer I suppose but that doesn't necessarily make it better. One of the things I enjoyed most about AC2 was being able to play the way I wanted to play without any 'optional requirements'. I assume replay value is the purpose of having full sync but some of the requirements like 'don't push or shove anyone' are cheesy guidelines that didn't need to be included.

I just did that mission last night.......... let's just say I plan on never 100% synching ACIII with no shoving anyone thrown in there ! This game imo is already harder than previous games plus some of the synchs make it even more difficult. :-0

I try my best to sync what I can, but some of it is just too much for my skill level so I don't sweat the compulsion to get 100% on it but I do admit it sucks seeing the red dialog pop up.

*edit in* I agree with your post up there psf. So true

psf22
11-25-2012, 12:32 PM
The real irony is the wanting to remove every tutorial section by certain people, yet the same group contradicts themselves by falsely claiming certain things are broken, or in your words, flips out.

Reading your past posts, you seem to be one of the very few that actually derp around with the controls for a good while, which is a must in my opinion because the AC series controls are pretty unconventional. My point of view is why play a game if you don't do a little exploring. If a tutorial's forced on me, I'll pay attention. If there is no tutorial, I always start out fooling around with the controls. ACIII just has too many nuances in the control schemes for it to plan out a full frontal tutorial for.

Full agree. Thing is look at for example the throw off dock/ship point i mentioned. During fights that occur plentiful in the game, don't you ever throw someone? If so, don't you try and see what kind of throw's there are or whether you can aim it etc.
Just one example of what to do with the supposed freedom people claim they want. Yet ingame during the mission, since the game doesn't tell or explains this (maybe they did i forgot, but you get the point) then it's garbage all of a sudden, because they don't know or learned how to throw. What? Exactly

zhengyingli
11-25-2012, 12:38 PM
Full agree. Thing is look at for example the throw off dock/ship point i mentioned. During fights that occur plentiful in the game, don't you ever throw someone? If so, don't you try and see what kind of throw's there are or whether you can aim it etc.
Just one example of what to do with the supposed freedom people claim they want. Yet ingame during the mission, since the game doesn't tell or explains this (maybe they did i forgot, but you get the point) then it's garbage all of a sudden, because they don't know or learned how to throw. What? Exactly
Yes. The objectives are restrictive as hell, but they provide so many different means to us, the short-tempered players.

ProdiGurl
11-25-2012, 12:51 PM
In Seq 7 there's a mission to stop the cannons on the 2 ships from firing into the city... as I did the mission I noticed how much longer it was taking to do the objective 'air assassinate a Grenadier' -
as they bomb the city & kill people, I'm taking my sweet time not being detected & trying to air assassinate :nonchalance: I could have had that mission done alot sooner if not for the 2 or 3 sync objectives.
That's when I noticed synching is sometimes counter productive to your mission. Not to complain... I enjoyed trying to do that & sync'd it.

psf22
11-25-2012, 12:55 PM
Yes. The objectives are restrictive as hell, but they provide so many different means to us, the short-tempered players.

You and I are on the same level :o

LightRey
11-25-2012, 01:43 PM
In Seq 7 there's a mission to stop the cannons on the 2 ships from firing into the city... as I did the mission I noticed how much longer it was taking to do the objective 'air assassinate a Grenadier' -
as they bomb the city & kill people, I'm taking my sweet time not being detected & trying to air assassinate :nonchalance: I could have had that mission done alot sooner if not for the 2 or 3 sync objectives.
That's when I noticed synching is sometimes counter productive to your mission. Not to complain... I enjoyed trying to do that & sync'd it.
Once again that seems unrealistic though. I see no reason for Connor to have wasted his time on something so pointless if lives were at stake.

MasterAssasin84
11-25-2012, 04:25 PM
Thanks for the welcome. I feel restricted because I imagine if I don't achieve 100% sync, I'll be missing out on some sort of bonus or whatever the reward is. It would be cool if I could complete sequences the way I want without any optional guidelines, and still get whatever bonuses full sync offer, even if that meant playing at a higher difficulty.


You dont have to follow the constraints but i reccomend you because you get rewards and it makes the game more challenging because lets face it you dont want to be running around like headless chicken hacking and slashing your way through because you might as well go and play Call of Duty.

But welcome to the forums on a lighter note and welcome to our community :)

montagemik
11-25-2012, 04:30 PM
The main objectives in AC missions are to do what is neccessary.

The OPTIONAL objectives in AC missions are to do exactly what your ancestor did.

We are supposed to be replaying events in our ancestors lives - Not doing what WE want to do no matter what . (That's Grand theft Auto you're thinking of)
UBISOFT have maintained this option & premise since AC1 - Day 1 . Why is it so difficult for the 'fan-base' to get on board & fully accept this notion.

OPTIONAL IS OPTIONAL.

LightRey
11-25-2012, 05:13 PM
The main objectives in AC missions are to do what is neccessary.

The OPTIONAL objectives in AC missions are to do exactly what your ancestor did.

We are supposed to be replaying events in our ancestors lives - Not doing what WE want to do no matter what . (That's Grand theft Auto you're thinking of)
UBISOFT have maintained this option & premise since AC1 - Day 1 . Why is it so difficult for the 'fan-base' to get on board & fully accept this notion.

OPTIONAL IS OPTIONAL.
You're completely right, but I think it's pointless optional stuff that has has now become unrealistic to the point of continuity errors.

montagemik
11-25-2012, 05:32 PM
Good thing they're optional then ........:o

LightRey
11-25-2012, 05:36 PM
Good thing they're optional then ........:o
They deny you content if you don't do them though, unlike in previous games when it'd just take you longer, and optional or not, they contradict reasonable storyline. They're supposed to be things Connor actually did, which in many described cases is preposterous. They're obviously a sad excuse to add challenge (where it generally isn't even wanted) and even at that they fail because many of them depend so much on chance.

montagemik
11-25-2012, 05:45 PM
They deny you content if you don't do them though, unlike in previous games when it'd just take you longer, and optional or not, they contradict reasonable storyline. They're supposed to be things Connor actually did, which in many described cases is preposterous. They're obviously a sad excuse to add challenge (where it generally isn't even wanted) and even at that they fail because many of them depend so much on chance.

Half the missions the assassin's accomplish throughout the series , Would in reality (if you want realism) rely heavily on more than just a little luck or chance.

How often in AC gameplay have you seen 3-4 guards wait for their turn in open conflict - instead of just Charging at the assassin on mass - dragging him to the ground - Bayonetting his head & dragging his carcass away . IN Reality - that would probably be the outcome of 1 man vs 6-10 soldiers . Sooooooooooo what then ?

LightRey
11-25-2012, 05:52 PM
Half the missions the assassin's accomplish throughout the series , Would in reality (if you want realism) rely heavily on more than just a little luck or chance.

How often in AC gameplay have you seen 3-4 guards wait for their turn in open conflict - instead of just Charging at the assassin on mass - dragging him to the ground - Bayonetting his head & dragging his carcass away . IN Reality - that would probably be the outcome of 1 man vs 6-10 soldiers . Sooooooooooo what then ?
You're confusing my two points. I'm not talking about the factor of chance in terms of realism, I'm talking about chance in terms of relevance to challenge. Challenge is supposed to be overcome by skill, a factor based on chance denies the player that very thing. No matter how skilled you are, chance is such a major factor in many of these challenges that you will fail often enough purely because you had some bad luck.

My other point is that many of the optional objectives involve Connor doing things that he would never have done. Wasting time on trying to air assassinate a guy on a ship while people are being bombarded with cannonballs, tackling his assassination target so he can kill a few more people first, these are things he would never have done, they're preposterous.

montagemik
11-25-2012, 06:04 PM
You're confusing my two points. I'm not talking about the factor of chance in terms of realism, I'm talking about chance in terms of relevance to challenge. Challenge is supposed to be overcome by skill, a factor based on chance denies the player that very thing. No matter how skilled you are, chance is such a major factor in many of these challenges that you will fail often enough purely because you had some bad luck.

My other point is that many of the optional objectives involve Connor doing things that he would never have done. Wasting time on trying to air assassinate a guy on a ship while people are being bombarded with cannonballs, tackling his assassination target so he can kill a few more people first, these are things he would never have done, they're preposterous.


You're confusing what YOU would have done with what the Animus tells us Connor would've / DID do .
We don't have to agree -. no way round that fact.

I wouldn't have chased LEE across the docks - I Would've shot him on sight , But that wasn't what connor chose to do - His reasons were his to know .

LightRey
11-25-2012, 06:16 PM
You're confusing what YOU would have done with what the Animus tells us Connor would've / DID do .
We don't have to agree - we don't have to blindly follow - Again = Optional . no way round that fact.

I wouldn't have chased LEE across the docks - I Would've shot him on sight , But that wasn't what connor chose to do - His reasons were his to know .
And I'm not denying that they're optional. That they're optional is irrelevant to my points. My points are purely based on them failing to achieve their purposes both in terms of gameplay and in terms of story. Regarding what Connor did, it's quite obvious that at the very least when it comes to the ship scenario, it's unavoidable that Connor would've wasted time on an air assassination, and wasting time is exactly what he would never have done in that situation. Ergo, my point still stands.

Regarding the fact that they are options, let me once again point out that they deny the player content if avoided. Yes, they're optional, but that doesn't mean that it's good that they suck in the way they do. Even the most unskilled players should be capable of reaching all content provided by the game.

montagemik
11-25-2012, 06:37 PM
And I'm not denying that they're optional. That they're optional is irrelevant to my points. My points are purely based on them failing to achieve their purposes both in terms of gameplay and in terms of story. Regarding what Connor did, it's quite obvious that at the very least when it comes to the ship scenario, it's unavoidable that Connor would've wasted time on an air assassination, and wasting time is exactly what he would never have done in that situation. Ergo, my point still stands.

Regarding the fact that they are options, let me once again point out that they deny the player content if avoided. Yes, they're optional, but that doesn't mean that it's good that they suck in the way they do. Even the most unskilled players should be capable of reaching all content provided by the game.

Even the most UNSKILLED player should be capable of reaching all content provided by the game ????
They can - Everything 'provided' by the game can be bought in general stores.

The 100% optional objective outfit ISN'T provided - IT IS EARNED . deal with it , practice - replay - & it's earned easy enough.
Where is the reward for putting in the effort IF even the most unskilled can aquire this outfit - & it isn't anywhere near as impossible to achieve as you're making it seem.

Should we petition Ubisoft to patch the Trophy / Achievement list too - So EVERYONE can platinum / 100% AC-3 ?

Behave.

LightRey
11-25-2012, 06:53 PM
Even the most UNSKILLED player should be capable of reaching all content provided by the game ????
They can - Everything 'provided' by the game can be bought in general stores.

The 100% optional objective outfit ISN'T provided - IT IS EARNED . deal with it , practice - replay - & it's earned easy enough.
Where is the reward for putting in the effort IF even the most unskilled can aquire this outfit - & it isn't anywhere near as impossible to achieve as you're making it seem.

Should we petition Ubisoft to patch the Trophy / Achievement list too - So EVERYONE can platinum / 100% AC-3 ?

Behave.
What? No it's not. You have to reach 100% synch to unlock Alta´r's outfit. There is no other way in the game to unlock that outfit. This is content that is denied to the players that are simply not skilled enough to achieve 100% synchronization. Granted, it's a poor outfit and hardly content of any real significance, but content nonetheless.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I 100%-ed the game long ago with little trouble, but I know for a fact that this does not apply to many players, players that have been disappointed significantly by this fact.

Also, "behave"? I'm not sure how that even applies. Do you have some sort of tick that makes you type senseless words in terms of context? If you do, I recommend you see a doctor right away.

Finally, you have yet to respond to my main two points, which you have clearly tried to avoid for whatever reason. The fact of the matter is that they're designed with with two purposes.
The first purpose is its "fake" purpose, the excuse for it to fit into the story. This excuse is that these actions are things the ancestor did while executing the main objective. Not doing them does not desynch the subject, but it does affect synchronization to some extent. In ACB this was emphasized by the fact that the level of synchronization affected access to "repressed" memories.

The second purpose is its actual purpose, the gameplay purpose. It's a metapurpose if you will. This purpose is the actual reason the devs decided to add the feature. Obviously the feature was added to provide the player with the option to challenge him-/herself if they so wished.

Both purposes, however, have not been achieved, as I've explained in previous posts in quite a bit of detail.

i.e. my point is: the optional objectives are a failed concept in the series. It was a nice try, but with each installment it only seems to have degraded further. It technically has the potential to be something fun and interesting, but it doesn't seem to be going that way. My advice to Ubisoft is therefore: ditch it.

However, the suggested patch in this thread is unrealistic imo and similarly a waste of effort.

Dangerzone50
11-25-2012, 07:08 PM
most of these have some sort of foolproof trick to them as well that makes the requirements about 100 times easier... no skill required, just thought!

for example: The one where you need to stay undetected on the 2 boats and air assassinate a grenadier, its easy... but so many people whined about this one. just pop up till a guard sees you, go back down the ledge, as he comes over, legdge assinate him... rinse and repeat till only the grenadier remains :) (hell even the strategy guide missed this simple tactic, giving some overly convoluted "path" to eliminating all the guards at a point where another would not witness the kill)

Even the tank mission in ACB had a trick... if you saw that you were going to be hit by a round, just exit to the menu and reload, and the courtyard where you had to fight 2 tanks actually had a corner where you would be shielded from the other 2 tanks... how do i know this? cause i took the time to figure it out instead of just getting frustrated and failing the same way repeatedly

LightRey
11-25-2012, 07:11 PM
most of these have some sort of foolproof trick to them as well that makes the requirements about 100 times easier... no skill required, just thought!

for example: The one where you need to stay undetected on the 2 boats and air assassinate a grenadier, its easy... but so many people whined about this one. just pop up till a guard sees you, go back down the ledge, as he comes over, legdge assinate him... rinse and repeat till only the grenadier remains :) (hell even the strategy guide missed this simple tactic, giving some overly convoluted "path" to eliminating all the guards at a point where another would not witness the kill)

Even the tank mission in ACB had a trick... if you saw that you were going to be hit by a round, just exit to the menu and reload, and the courtyard where you had to fight 2 tanks actually had a corner where you would be shielded from the other 2 tanks... how do i know this? cause i took the time to figure it out instead of just getting frustrated and failing the same way repeatedly
This is true, but that only emphasizes my point about wasting time.

bhammer1964
11-25-2012, 07:13 PM
Lots of game designers see tedium as variety or complexity. Even great games have some tedious missions, AC3 has more than there share and I think the entire synchronization concept is lame.

LightRey
11-25-2012, 07:17 PM
Lots of game designers see tedium as variety or complexity. Even great games have some tedious missions, AC3 has more than there share and I think the entire synchronization concept is lame.
I think it should never have moved beyond the very literal concept of optional objectives. I'm talking about things like assassinating extra targets while trying to reach or gain access to your main target, sabotaging cannons, that kind of stuff. In the first half of the game there were many such optional objectives and I liked those a lot more than the "challenging" ones.

montagemik
11-25-2012, 07:38 PM
most of these have some sort of foolproof trick to them as well that makes the requirements about 100 times easier... no skill required, just thought!

for example: The one where you need to stay undetected on the 2 boats and air assassinate a grenadier, its easy... but so many people whined about this one. just pop up till a guard sees you, go back down the ledge, as he comes over, legdge assinate him... rinse and repeat till only the grenadier remains :) (hell even the strategy guide missed this simple tactic, giving some overly convoluted "path" to eliminating all the guards at a point where another would not witness the kill)

Even the tank mission in ACB had a trick... if you saw that you were going to be hit by a round, just exit to the menu and reload, and the courtyard where you had to fight 2 tanks actually had a corner where you would be shielded from the other 2 tanks... how do i know this? cause i took the time to figure it out instead of just getting frustrated and failing the same way repeatedly


^^^^^ THIS
Absolutely spot on - just requires thought & effort ..........NO Skill .

Dangerzone50
11-25-2012, 07:52 PM
I think it should never have moved beyond the very literal concept of optional objectives. I'm talking about things like assassinating extra targets while trying to reach or gain access to your main target, sabotaging cannons, that kind of stuff. In the first half of the game there were many such optional objectives and I liked those a lot more than the "challenging" ones.

I agree... give us something extra to do instead of trying to tell us how to play the game in a certain way

Im also aggravated that they removed the entire game play layer with the various characters coming up to Connor and giving him quests, that added so much to the demos.... but yet it was completely absent from the final product

In fact,,, im having a hard time seeing where/what this mythical "3 year development window" went into... other smaller companies have produced 3 times as much content in just ONE year... the only large map is the frontier, (and its not very impressive) the 2 main cities are tiny compared to previous locales most of the gameplay features were just rehashed, offering only one or 2 truly new ones (hunting and navel missions) the story was actually quite short for a "full title"... their "totally new" engine has been proven to actually lift over half of its running code from its previous iteration, with its only major improvements being graphical... and it looks as if they only spent a week in QA testing for bugs

Baked_Cookies
11-25-2012, 09:24 PM
The optional stuff is just that optional. I mean I understand the fact it doesnt let you exactly carry out missions the way you want. But it is just another element in the game. If you want why not run through the game playing as you want to and then just go back and re do it to get all the little extra stuff. Thats kinda what I always do. Just make one run through of the game and then go back and do all the tedious optional stuff

Assassin_M
11-25-2012, 09:51 PM
Lets just say that Connor was an Idiot..

bhammer1964
11-26-2012, 12:22 AM
There's a lot in the game. Its probably 3 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption when you add the homestead and Naval missions. Its a good game - maybe great - but flawed. I still don't know how naval battles tie in. Is it just more trophies and accomplishments? I'm hoping this type of gaming is just a phase. Is 100% completion, achieving silly bonus objectives and doing missions only for "trpphys" or completion percentage really worth it? Give me something as a reward I can use in the game.




I agree... give us something extra to do instead of trying to tell us how to play the game in a certain way

Im also aggravated that they removed the entire game play layer with the various characters coming up to Connor and giving him quests, that added so much to the demos.... but yet it was completely absent from the final product

In fact,,, im having a hard time seeing where/what this mythical "3 year development window" went into... other smaller companies have produced 3 times as much content in just ONE year... the only large map is the frontier, (and its not very impressive) the 2 main cities are tiny compared to previous locales most of the gameplay features were just rehashed, offering only one or 2 truly new ones (hunting and navel missions) the story was actually quite short for a "full title"... their "totally new" engine has been proven to actually lift over half of its running code from its previous iteration, with its only major improvements being graphical... and it looks as if they only spent a week in QA testing for bugs

montagemik
11-26-2012, 12:51 AM
You get an inaccurate poorly animated ALTAIR costume you can wear in game - if that's any good to ya.
Or a Native connor outfit with No quiver since the patch - for collecting all feathers .

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 01:41 AM
Honestly, I just play the game and don't care about the objectives at all, except of course the mandatory, situational ones which i think should remain like for ex, don't be detected etc. Then after i've finished a sequence or multiple I go for full sync just for kicks.

Without attacking you, I think if the game didn't do a lot of hand holding a LOT would have severe problems in this game. I've seen the most outrageous comments and threads in regards to literally whatever*. I think the games have always done a decent job of giving the player options by making them mandatory via a tutorial-esque mission. You or anyone else can or may not prefer this, but then a lot of users wouldn't know about these options now would they? You or even I could argue well, what about doing things for yourself, experimenting etc. But again a lot of players don't like that and they come to their own, mostly wrongful, conclusions way too fast. Although they might say they want 'freedom', when it's given they don't know what to do with it.

I find it ironic that the game since basically the original does a lot of handholding yet when it 'once' (differs per situation) doesn't, then 'everybody' flips out.

*To give a few examples:

"It's impossible to throw guards off the docks/ship into water"
"It's impossible to climb with a musket"
"Pass-through through windows are useless"
"Chase missions are broken"
"I can't see it clearly when i'm blending"
"Game doesn't tell me where to jump in the burning ship"
"Hunting too easy"

I could make a counter argument for all mentioned above as to why it makes sense or why it doesn't or why or not it's optional and how it could've been made more harder, challenging but then it will all come back to frustration for the user. For example lets say hunting bears had a strict 1 frame input for killing them in QTE, I know that 90% would never engage in a bear fight, rather avoid it or find another way. Well what other way, because they surely don't want you to avoid it? Then the game or at least this particular aspect should be expanded upon, when all they want is to give the user an option to just slash bears without too much hoo-haa. You can go more in-depth on this but it's just an example of finding a balance without too much intricate features that only true purists will master.
You could also argue well remove the QTE, but if the game would let the bear insta-kill you then what? Then you would rather have the QTE? It goes in circles.

Basically, the game should be accessible to everyone and not just the hardcore gamer (or a fan of the series per see)
I'm quite a dexterous player if I say so myself and maybe you are too, but not everyone is. But usually the ones with the least skill are the loudest, all storylines aside of course, strictly gameplay speaking.

Interesting points. Not attacking you either by the way, but just engaging in a friendly debate.

One of the things that made past games from this gen and last gen so memorable was that players mostly had to figure out how to complete their objectives knowing that all tools necessary to complete the mission were given to the player. People will always find something to complain about but Ubi is making the same mistake other devs are making. Trying to appeal to everybody making what I call a 'jack of all trades' type of game.

AC1and AC2 sold pretty good and Ubi's focus on AC2 was perfecting the flaws and downfalls of AC1. With ACB you can see the beginnings of Ubi appealing to more and more people who probably had no interest in playing AC1/AC2. Reaching out to different types of gamers is one thing but it feels like Ubi built AC3 more for casual gamers who need hand holding rather than solid fans who were expecting subtle tweaks. Why not just create a new IP that appeals to every gamer instead of drastically changing an existing series by fixing things that don't need to be fixed?

Take those informer missions in AC1 for example. I found them to be utterly annoying and being able to avoid them completely made my experience with AC1 all the more better for me. Yet I'm sure there are many gamers who found AC1's informer missions an enjoyable challenge. That's what I call 'optional' and a good compromise for players who liked/disliked informer missions. Imo, the fact that I had a choice to ignore informer missions altogether and still complete my investigations is better than having a QTE holding my hand, forcing me to kill a bear in the wilderness I may not even want to encounter period. These full sync requirements are not really optional if you want to achieve all bonuses or reveal open hidden memories. What's next? Get 75% of an ending because you only synced 85% of all memories?

Why should every game be accessible for everyone? What's wrong with perfecting flaws, making subtle tweaks while retaining the same elements that created your original fanbase? When you look at additions like den defense, the tetris like stages for Desmond in ACR, you can see that Ubi was experimenting too much adding things that didn't need to be included all for the sake of attracting gamers who otherwise had no interest in the series. I'll throw up a flame shield and even say multiplayer is a pretty useless addition to the series but I know it's a business decision to remain trendy.

Having the intention of completing these 'optional objectives in order to fully reveal hidden bonuses or sequences takes away from my enjoyment of completing these sequences. What's wrong with having an option to play how I see fit? So what if I want to push/shove people while chasing my target or go on a mindless hacking spree to assassinate my target?

At least in AC2 you had a choice to kill targets however you wanted with a bit of thinking involved. With these full sync 'optional' objectives, QTE's it's like Ubi was scared to give people a chance to think and develop skill. Instead Ubi went the safe route and said' we'll hold your hand and give you hints so you won't get too frustrated, yet you can still feel like you've accomplished something. But in reality, all you really did was follow instructions with no thinking or skill involved. Like playing a basketball game of horse.

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 06:16 AM
You get an inaccurate poorly animated ALTAIR costume you can wear in game - if that's any good to ya.
Or a Native connor outfit with No quiver since the patch - for collecting all feathers .

Thanks for the info. I can do without the Altair outfit, lol. At least they didn't attach any hidden sequences or extended endings to getting full sync like they did in ACB.

Assassin_M
11-26-2012, 06:19 AM
At least in AC2 you had a choice to kill targets however you wanted with a bit of thinking involved. With these full sync 'optional' objectives, QTE's it's like Ubi was scared to give people a chance to think and develop skill. Instead Ubi went the safe route and said' we'll hold your hand and give you hints so you won't get too frustrated, yet you can still feel like you've accomplished something. But in reality, all you really did was follow instructions with no thinking or skill involved. Like playing a basketball game of horse.
Give me an Example in AC II where you actually have a choice on HOW to kill someone..

You know...Give you a choice to Air assassinate or take him head on...on the same assassination.

pirate1802
11-26-2012, 07:04 AM
Lets just say that Connor was an Idiot..

*brings out his shotgun*

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 07:04 AM
Give me an Example in AC II where you actually have a choice on HOW to kill someone..

You know...Give you a choice to Air assassinate or take him head on...on the same assassination.

Lol, 1st tell me why you feel the need to challenge everyone who has a criticism in these forums....you know....like you have something to prove.....for no real reason at all....almost like you are employed with Ubisoft.

zhengyingli
11-26-2012, 07:07 AM
Lol, 1st tell me why you feel the need to challenge everyone who has a criticism in these forums....you know....like you have something to prove.....for no real reason at all....almost like you are employed with Ubisoft.
It's a forum. Anyone confronts anyone's opinion based out of genuine curiosity.

Assassin_M
11-26-2012, 07:11 AM
Lol, 1st tell me why you feel the need to challenge everyone who has a criticism in these forums....you know....like you have something to prove.....for no real reason at all....almost like you are employed with Ubisoft.
Answer the question ?? I`m an Insecure little brat..sorry..

Answer my question with a valid point or do not reply to me at all..

I did not even challenge your criticism..I actually challenged a praise that`s not there

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 07:11 AM
It's a forum. Anyone confronts anyone's opinion based out of genuine curiosity.

Genuine curiosity and sarcasm out are two different things.

Assassin_M
11-26-2012, 07:13 AM
Genuine curiosity and sarcasm out are two different things.
Ugh....Just answer my question..

What`s with everyone avoiding my questions ???

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 07:14 AM
Answer the question ?? I`m an Insecure little brat..sorry..

Answer my question with a valid point or do not reply to me at all

Lol, If you didn't want me to reply to you, you didn't have to quote me in the 1st place. Bad day today?

Assassin_M
11-26-2012, 07:16 AM
Lol, If you didn't want me to reply to you, you didn't have to quote me in the 1st place. Bad day today?
"Answer my question with a valid point or do not reply to me at all".. (Read much ?)

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 07:17 AM
Ugh....Just answer my question..

What`s with everyone avoiding my questions ???

Friendly debates are cool and I have no problem being proved wrong in a respectful fashion. But coming at someone in a sarcastic manner as if they are a troll or didn't play the game is unnecessary. You really expect people to answer sarcastic questions?

Assassin_M
11-26-2012, 07:18 AM
Friendly debates are cool and I have no problem being proved wrong in a respectful fashion. But coming at someone in a sarcastic manner as if they are a troll or didn't play the game is unnecessary. You really expect people to answer sarcastic questions?
Yes..

Although...looking back at my question again..It`s really not that Sarcastic..

zhengyingli
11-26-2012, 07:29 AM
Friendly debates are cool and I have no problem being proved wrong in a respectful fashion. But coming at someone in a sarcastic manner as if they are a troll or didn't play the game is unnecessary. You really expect people to answer sarcastic questions?
I answer questions regardless of how intimidating they sound, and that way, you'll gain respect from your enemies.:)

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 07:29 AM
Yes..

Although...looking back at my question again..It`s really not that Sarcastic..

Lol, very amusing! I remember air assassinating some target in Venice that was on a boat, you should know who I'm talking about. The boat is a restricted area and he was holding cargo full of food for the citizens, forgot his name. That same target during a replay, I ran straight up to him with a sword. Will you answer my question?

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 07:31 AM
I answer questions regardless of how intimidating they sound, and that way, you'll gain respect from your enemies.:)

I respect that but I refuse to have enemies on a game forum, lol. I have real life for that and even then there are so many better things to invest my time and concerns in.

Assassin_M
11-26-2012, 07:31 AM
Lol, very amusing! I remember air assassinating some target in Venice that was on a boat, you should know who I'm talking about. The boat is a restricted area and he was holding cargo full of food for the citizens, forgot his name. That same target during a replay, I ran straight up to him with a sword. Will you answer my question?
There was no Target holding food cargo in Venice...Only one on a Boat was Marco....and he had no food in that Boat

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 07:39 AM
There was no Target holding food cargo in Venice...Only one on a Boat was Marco....and he had no food in that Boat

You may be right, I'm thinking of AC1 where one of the targets messengers during an interrogation mission was talking about holding back food cargo from the citizens. When Altair kills him, he says he wanted to properly ration out food to citizens in time of need.

But anyway, I did kill Marco, if that's his name, in AC2 with both an air assassination from the top deck of the boat and running straight up to him with a sword. I see you will completely ignore my my question but rather dive deeper into any answer I give. Fear not my ill tempered friend! I'm sure there are plenty of other people for you to call out in these forums, lol!

Assassin_M
11-26-2012, 07:42 AM
I see you will completely ignore my my question but rather dive deeper into any answer I give. Fear not my ill tempered friend! I'm sure there are plenty of other people for you to call out in these forums, lol!
Cute...

What Question ? (I`ll delay delving deeper into your answer)

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 07:50 AM
Cute...

What Question ? (I`ll delay delving deeper into your answer)

Lol, my question was, why do you feel the need to call out anyone who has a criticism on AC3 as if they are trolls and didn't play the games? I tend see you in almost every thread I click on with a negative critique about AC3 as if you are employed for Ubisoft.

Assassin_M
11-26-2012, 07:54 AM
Lol, my question was, why do you feel the need to call out anyone who has a criticism on AC3 as if they are trolls and didn't play the games? I tend see you in almost every thread I click on with a negative critique about AC3 as if you are employed for Ubisoft.
Quote me from a Thread where I called out someone out on his Opinion and said that he did not play the game properly and that`s why he did not like it...

Until then...I DENY IT

I DENY IT ALL

NeverThat
11-26-2012, 07:58 AM
Quote me from a Thread where I called out someone out on his Opinion and said that he did not play the game properly and that`s why he did not like it...

Until then...I DENY IT

I DENY IT ALL

Lol, you're like the illusive man from Mass Effect! I'll dig up something later tonight whenever I log back in and quote something, give you a chance to edit your posts! Nice save on that one! :cool:

Assassin_M
11-26-2012, 08:01 AM
Lol, you're like the illusive man from Mass Effect! I'll dig up something later tonight whenever I log back in and quote something, give you a chance to edit your posts! Nice save on that one! :cool:
Yes...Because I`m a no life who`ll spend the next 50 hours ratting through about 50 posts looking for something to edit..(It actually shows the time and date I`v edited something, so yeah)

I know what I said...So...I`ll wish YOU luck on finding that post....and until you`re back..our little argument will be put on hold

EDIT: Like this Edit here...Shows the time and date

EDIT: See ??

EDIT: Updates with the latest Edit

EDIT: Boo

LightRey
11-26-2012, 11:24 AM
Lol, very amusing! I remember air assassinating some target in Venice that was on a boat, you should know who I'm talking about. The boat is a restricted area and he was holding cargo full of food for the citizens, forgot his name. That same target during a replay, I ran straight up to him with a sword. Will you answer my question?
The boat with the food was in Firenze and that was a "secondary" target in the Bonfire of the Vanities DLC.

psf22
11-26-2012, 01:24 PM
Interesting points. Not attacking you either by the way, but just engaging in a friendly debate.

One of the things that made past games from this gen and last gen so memorable was that players mostly had to figure out how to complete their objectives knowing that all tools necessary to complete the mission were given to the player. People will always find something to complain about but Ubi is making the same mistake other devs are making. Trying to appeal to everybody making what I call a 'jack of all trades' type of game.

AC1and AC2 sold pretty good and Ubi's focus on AC2 was perfecting the flaws and downfalls of AC1. With ACB you can see the beginnings of Ubi appealing to more and more people who probably had no interest in playing AC1/AC2. Reaching out to different types of gamers is one thing but it feels like Ubi built AC3 more for casual gamers who need hand holding rather than solid fans who were expecting subtle tweaks. Why not just create a new IP that appeals to every gamer instead of drastically changing an existing series by fixing things that don't need to be fixed?

I'm not really sure what that's based upon, but it seems like you're just guessing or assuming this? When it concerns my circle of friends, they didn't particularly care for Brotherhood and Revelations since they considered them to be more of the same, and not a brand new installment. Then again I also understand why a majority of newcomers is/would be largely impressed with for ex. Brotherhood.


Take those informer missions in AC1 for example. I found them to be utterly annoying and being able to avoid them completely made my experience with AC1 all the more better for me. Yet I'm sure there are many gamers who found AC1's informer missions an enjoyable challenge. That's what I call 'optional' and a good compromise for players who liked/disliked informer missions. Imo, the fact that I had a choice to ignore informer missions altogether and still complete my investigations is better than having a QTE holding my hand, forcing me to kill a bear in the wilderness I may not even want to encounter period. These full sync requirements are not really optional if you want to achieve all bonuses or reveal open hidden memories. What's next? Get 75% of an ending because you only synced 85% of all memories?

I agree partially, because when it concerns this game, the 100% sync literally means nothing. You don't get any repressed memories or weapons etc. You only get 1 special outfit. Now as far as optional goes. I understand why users don't like this or that it limits them or that it's just plain annoying, but again if Ubisoft didn't know this they wouldn't have made the 100% sync in this game be so little rewarding other than bragging rights and trophies. Speaking of the latter, this doesn't concern you (or maybe it does?) but it surely doesn't concern me and that is trophies or archievements. There's a large portion of new generation players, even old generation, that just care about completing a game 100% for whatever reason. If you 'clear' everything, as in side missions and main missions (without optional objectives) that would mean the game is 100% done. I'm sure a developer doesn't want this, no matter what their intentions are. Call it replay value or a challenge etc.


Why should every game be accessible for everyone? What's wrong with perfecting flaws, making subtle tweaks while retaining the same elements that created your original fanbase? When you look at additions like den defense, the tetris like stages for Desmond in ACR, you can see that Ubi was experimenting too much adding things that didn't need to be included all for the sake of attracting gamers who otherwise had no interest in the series. I'll throw up a flame shield and even say multiplayer is a pretty useless addition to the series but I know it's a business decision to remain trendy.

This is where it gets interesting. You and I aren't the only one enjoying these games, there's a lot more out there. Consistency is good, but adaptation is better. When you start falling into old habits and patterns, life but also games become very boring. Since we live in a capitalistic world, Ubisoft has to find a way to better themselves by for example attracting new customers. Why is that a bad thing? Because the games get dumbed down? But the games have never been hard for me, though I'm just one customer. My input whether it's an opinion or investment will be irrelevant when I'd decide to drop the series and they get 10 more newcomers. That's how it goes in every business. You either go with it, or not.


Having the intention of completing these 'optional objectives in order to fully reveal hidden bonuses or sequences takes away from my enjoyment of completing these sequences. What's wrong with having an option to play how I see fit? So what if I want to push/shove people while chasing my target or go on a mindless hacking spree to assassinate my target?

At least in AC2 you had a choice to kill targets however you wanted with a bit of thinking involved. With these full sync 'optional' objectives, QTE's it's like Ubi was scared to give people a chance to think and develop skill. Instead Ubi went the safe route and said' we'll hold your hand and give you hints so you won't get too frustrated, yet you can still feel like you've accomplished something. But in reality, all you really did was follow instructions with no thinking or skill involved. Like playing a basketball game of horse.

Definition of skill, what is it? I find that word to be used a bit too loosely to be honest, not just in this case but in general concerning games. Some dare to say: "That doesn't require skill, just remembering and understanding how the AI works" or something similar. First of all, If you want to talk about skill you shouldn't use this series as a norm but since you do, it does require skill, even if it is braindead to you, me or many others. Again it's all subjective. All of my friends that have played and finished ACII aren't nearly as good as I am, but what does it mean if they enjoyed it just as much if not more? Sometimes you need to look outside of the box and try viewing if from a different perspective. If you only care about your opinion well that's understandable, but again what might be easy for you might not be the case for someone else, and that's how games in general have evolved and gained more attraction.

I play SF2 ST, yet the majority of players play SF4. Why? Only because it is new? Or because it's accessible and overall a bit more lenient when it comes to pulling of moves and combos. Does that make it braindead for me because I play a game where the inputs and combos are a lot more strict? I would say yes, but that doesn't mean that I'm right, wrong or that it is fact. It doesn't even matter, because we're all enjoying our respective games.

Coming back to skill in the context in which it was used. If you write basically a whole essay of why you think optional objectives break your immersion or desire to play missions etc, then it says more about you then it says about this game. Because for me the objectives were quite easy, so I could argue that maybe you're lacking skill? Not so much skill to play the game or have trouble with syncing, but to simply adapt to the situation.
If I were to watch you play that particular mission (optional objective incl) and I would see you stumble all over the place and engage in a battle I would laugh at you. Now while I'm laughing, you could be very immersed and enjoying every second of it. Does it matter that I laugh because I can clearly see that you can't get it 'right' according to the objective? Or does it even matter that you can or can't do it? The game surely doesn't care If you can do it, but it's there for the sake of can you pull it off?
I engage in conversations about certain missions with fellow people and sometimes they say: "What a garbage objective I didn't even bother with it etc." Whereas I'm actually more intrigued by hearing something like: "Hey remember that mission where you had to this without being spotted and only kill 1 guard.. Here's what I did etc etc"
I could name more specific examples but this will suffice. If you can combine an optional objective with your own way or style to clear a specific mission that to me is worthy of skill within the realm of this game.

I'm sure you would differ with me on the latter, but that's how I see it. Skill (in games) isn't necessarily execution, dexterity but also innovation, creativity and adaptation. The general game design and optional objectives coincide with this in my opinion.

NeverThat
11-28-2012, 01:33 PM
I'm not really sure what that's based upon, but it seems like you're just guessing or assuming this? When it concerns my circle of friends, they didn't particularly care for Brotherhood and Revelations since they considered them to be more of the same, and not a brand new installment. Then again I also understand why a majority of newcomers is/would be largely impressed with for ex. Brotherhood.

Guessing or assuming? Brotherhood added full sync, multiplayer while Revelations experimented with den defense and tetris, AC3 has lock picking (what was wrong with simply holding down one button to open a treasure chest?), hunting (I'll let this slide since it fits with the frontier, but still meh), and mini board games (kind of cool I guess but another unnecessary addition).


I agree partially, because when it concerns this game, the 100% sync literally means nothing. You don't get any repressed memories or weapons etc. You only get 1 special outfit. Now as far as optional goes. I understand why users don't like this or that it limits them or that it's just plain annoying, but again if Ubisoft didn't know this they wouldn't have made the 100% sync in this game be so little rewarding other than bragging rights and trophies. Speaking of the latter, this doesn't concern you (or maybe it does?) but it surely doesn't concern me and that is trophies or achievements. There's a large portion of new generation players, even old generation, that just care about completing a game 100% for whatever reason. If you 'clear' everything, as in side missions and main missions (without optional objectives) that would mean the game is 100% done. I'm sure a developer doesn't want this, no matter what their intentions are. Call it replay value or a challenge etc.

I don't care about trophies either but they do unlock additional memories in Brotherhood from what I read. Glad to see they have no major impact in AC3 but it would still be nice to have an option to turn off those annoying full sync prompts when starting a mission.


This is where it gets interesting. You and I aren't the only one enjoying these games, there's a lot more out there. Consistency is good, but adaptation is better. When you start falling into old habits and patterns, life but also games become very boring. Since we live in a capitalistic world, Ubisoft has to find a way to better themselves by for example attracting new customers. Why is that a bad thing? Because the games get dumbed down? But the games have never been hard for me, though I'm just one customer. My input whether it's an opinion or investment will be irrelevant when I'd decide to drop the series and they get 10 more newcomers. That's how it goes in every business. You either go with it, or not.

I agree with the part about the gaming industry being a business and my opinion as a single customer means little if nothing at all in the grand scheme of things. That being said, imho, the transition from AC1 to AC2 is a great example of adaptation. Ubi not only listened to fan feedback / critiques, but went above and beyond making improvements and subtle tweaks. This is why many fans hail AC2 as best in series. AC2 to AC3's transition is an example of a game being dumbed down. If you look at some of the AC3 trailers, the devs talk about rebuilding things from the ground up. For what? To generate sales, sure but at what cost? Sure there were great additions like naval battles and more challenging combat, tree hoping, new setting which is great but does everything need to be reinvested? Many long time fans have expressed mixed views about AC3 but we can agree, opinions are only opinions right? Ubi spent 4 games perfecting gameplay only to destroy and rebuild? Why not just start from scratch with a new IP?

Off subject perhaps, you said life can become boring due to consistency and falling into old habits? Familiarity is a bad thing now? Sounds more like impatience to me. Granted we live in a day and age where 'change' is the bandwagon trend and consistency is 'dull and boring'. The 'new' iphone is out, the new this, yada yada yada. If you look at music, games, flicks, books, whatever, what made classics what they are is because they either set the bar or maintained a level of consistency. Technology, adaptation, competition tends to make people impatient with short attention spans. Sure Ubi may get 10 more customers keeping up with Joneses, but when a new game that's not even a month old is already at your local game store, used for half price, how good is that really?



Definition of skill, what is it? I find that word to be used a bit too loosely to be honest, not just in this case but in general concerning games. Some dare to say: "That doesn't require skill, just remembering and understanding how the AI works" or something similar. First of all, If you want to talk about skill you shouldn't use this series as a norm but since you do, it does require skill, even if it is braindead to you, me or many others. Again it's all subjective. All of my friends that have played and finished ACII aren't nearly as good as I am, but what does it mean if they enjoyed it just as much if not more? Sometimes you need to look outside of the box and try viewing if from a different perspective. If you only care about your opinion well that's understandable, but again what might be easy for you might not be the case for someone else, and that's how games in general have evolved and gained more attraction.

I play SF2 ST, yet the majority of players play SF4. Why? Only because it is new? Or because it's accessible and overall a bit more lenient when it comes to pulling of moves and combos. Does that make it braindead for me because I play a game where the inputs and combos are a lot more strict? I would say yes, but that doesn't mean that I'm right, wrong or that it is fact. It doesn't even matter, because we're all enjoying our respective games.

Coming back to skill in the context in which it was used. If you write basically a whole essay of why you think optional objectives break your immersion or desire to play missions etc, then it says more about you then it says about this game. Because for me the objectives were quite easy, so I could argue that maybe you're lacking skill? Not so much skill to play the game or have trouble with syncing, but to simply adapt to the situation.
If I were to watch you play that particular mission (optional objective incl) and I would see you stumble all over the place and engage in a battle I would laugh at you. Now while I'm laughing, you could be very immersed and enjoying every second of it. Does it matter that I laugh because I can clearly see that you can't get it 'right' according to the objective? Or does it even matter that you can or can't do it? The game surely doesn't care If you can do it, but it's there for the sake of can you pull it off?
I engage in conversations about certain missions with fellow people and sometimes they say: "What a garbage objective I didn't even bother with it etc." Whereas I'm actually more intrigued by hearing something like: "Hey remember that mission where you had to this without being spotted and only kill 1 guard.. Here's what I did etc etc"
I could name more specific examples but this will suffice. If you can combine an optional objective with your own way or style to clear a specific mission that to me is worthy of skill within the realm of this game.

I'm sure you would differ with me on the latter, but that's how I see it. Skill (in games) isn't necessarily execution, dexterity but also innovation, creativity and adaptation. The general game design and optional objectives coincide with this in my opinion.

You took a lot of what I said out of context and put words in my mouth so to speak. I never said, I was right while all opposing opinions are wrong. I agree maybe 'skills' was a poor word to use but my point is AC3 is very different from you'd expect from an AC game and not even you can deny that. As far as full sync prompts breaking my immersion, yes, they do. What's wrong with my request for having an option to turn off full sync? 9 times out of 10, anyone at Ubi reading this could probably care less about what I have to say, but am I not entitled to speak my mind as a paying customer?

What that says about me is maybe, I want to immerse myself in the game and not see a 'don't shove anyone in the water' prompt when I'm playing a chase sequence. Sure I can ignore them but what if I never knew these full syncs didn't unlock another ending or something story related? Or what if I simply, don't want to see prompts telling me I will be penalized for touching the water or anything that doesn't fit with my end goal. Doesn't mean I'm right, or a more skillful player, it just means I'd like an option to turn them off.

While on the subject of 'skill', yes I feel games in general have been toned down in difficulty and tend to hold your hand a little too much compared to games of previous gens. When you think about it, I already adapted to the situation when I decided to play the game in the 1st place. My problem, I know I fall in a minority with this opinion, is that many games now assume you have no ability to adapt period and must be spoon fed every single detail. From reading some complaints about games being too hard, this chase is impossible, can't do this, etc, I can somewhat see why games hold your hand a lot more but I don't see anything wrong with having an option to off full sync.

I feel these full sync options limit my creativity on how I might approach the mission because I'm already being instructed on how I should accomplish my tasks before I even set out to accomplish them. Sure the next person may adapt with no problem have mad fun trying to complete this optional objective. That doesn't make me right, just my opinion. I can see if I typed a self entitled ran about removing full sync altogether, but if you read my 1st post, you will read I am simply suggesting for an option to disable full sync other than ignoring them. Not much more I can say to explain my views, but we can definitely agree to disagree.

psf22
11-29-2012, 07:03 PM
Guessing or assuming? Brotherhood added full sync, multiplayer while Revelations experimented with den defense and tetris, AC3 has lock picking (what was wrong with simply holding down one button to open a treasure chest?), hunting (I'll let this slide since it fits with the frontier, but still meh), and mini board games (kind of cool I guess but another unnecessary addition).



I don't care about trophies either but they do unlock additional memories in Brotherhood from what I read. Glad to see they have no major impact in AC3 but it would still be nice to have an option to turn off those annoying full sync prompts when starting a mission.



I agree with the part about the gaming industry being a business and my opinion as a single customer means little if nothing at all in the grand scheme of things. That being said, imho, the transition from AC1 to AC2 is a great example of adaptation. Ubi not only listened to fan feedback / critiques, but went above and beyond making improvements and subtle tweaks. This is why many fans hail AC2 as best in series. AC2 to AC3's transition is an example of a game being dumbed down. If you look at some of the AC3 trailers, the devs talk about rebuilding things from the ground up. For what? To generate sales, sure but at what cost? Sure there were great additions like naval battles and more challenging combat, tree hoping, new setting which is great but does everything need to be reinvested? Many long time fans have expressed mixed views about AC3 but we can agree, opinions are only opinions right? Ubi spent 4 games perfecting gameplay only to destroy and rebuild? Why not just start from scratch with a new IP?

Off subject perhaps, you said life can become boring due to consistency and falling into old habits? Familiarity is a bad thing now? Sounds more like impatience to me. Granted we live in a day and age where 'change' is the bandwagon trend and consistency is 'dull and boring'. The 'new' iphone is out, the new this, yada yada yada. If you look at music, games, flicks, books, whatever, what made classics what they are is because they either set the bar or maintained a level of consistency. Technology, adaptation, competition tends to make people impatient with short attention spans. Sure Ubi may get 10 more customers keeping up with Joneses, but when a new game that's not even a month old is already at your local game store, used for half price, how good is that really?




You took a lot of what I said out of context and put words in my mouth so to speak. I never said, I was right while all opposing opinions are wrong. I agree maybe 'skills' was a poor word to use but my point is AC3 is very different from you'd expect from an AC game and not even you can deny that. As far as full sync prompts breaking my immersion, yes, they do. What's wrong with my request for having an option to turn off full sync? 9 times out of 10, anyone at Ubi reading this could probably care less about what I have to say, but am I not entitled to speak my mind as a paying customer?

What that says about me is maybe, I want to immerse myself in the game and not see a 'don't shove anyone in the water' prompt when I'm playing a chase sequence. Sure I can ignore them but what if I never knew these full syncs didn't unlock another ending or something story related? Or what if I simply, don't want to see prompts telling me I will be penalized for touching the water or anything that doesn't fit with my end goal. Doesn't mean I'm right, or a more skillful player, it just means I'd like an option to turn them off.

While on the subject of 'skill', yes I feel games in general have been toned down in difficulty and tend to hold your hand a little too much compared to games of previous gens. When you think about it, I already adapted to the situation when I decided to play the game in the 1st place. My problem, I know I fall in a minority with this opinion, is that many games now assume you have no ability to adapt period and must be spoon fed every single detail. From reading some complaints about games being too hard, this chase is impossible, can't do this, etc, I can somewhat see why games hold your hand a lot more but I don't see anything wrong with having an option to off full sync.

I feel these full sync options limit my creativity on how I might approach the mission because I'm already being instructed on how I should accomplish my tasks before I even set out to accomplish them. Sure the next person may adapt with no problem have mad fun trying to complete this optional objective. That doesn't make me right, just my opinion. I can see if I typed a self entitled ran about removing full sync altogether, but if you read my 1st post, you will read I am simply suggesting for an option to disable full sync other than ignoring them. Not much more I can say to explain my views, but we can definitely agree to disagree.

I didn't put words in your mouth as I said it was subjective (in general), i was merely stating the contrary by giving a few examples as to why I and/or others could see it differently and/or why it can work. As i meant it as a whole 'context' and not just to what you literally said.

And regarding the offtopic subject. You talk about familiarity, and impatience?
If you want to say that the game overall isn't familiar compared to past games we're basically done talking about this, as it is a huge miswording and simply not true. Impatience has nothing to do with adaptation in the way i meant it as nor implied. I merely meant adaptation to how it is now compared to what we're used to in the first place namely, the consistency and familiarity with the overall game mechanics and the way it/they can be used per any given situation, even if/or whether it's 'interpreted as' limitation or restriction.

You talk about removing where I say adapt. I don't see how that all has gone against what I said or at least in how I meant it.

When it concerns life, you take a few topics and blend them together as you see fit. Materialism, technology and impatience are all things you made up without me hinting at that and if I did, pardon me. What I meant was, we do things, engage in things and then after a while we do other things, think about other stuff, do things differently. Whether it's food, what time you go to bed, morning rituals, how you talk, the words you use, the type of jokes you make etc., varying from small to drastic things. Now yes, there are a bunch that live their life very 'consistently' and don't go out of their comfort-zone. But there's also others that do things differently, whether it's day to day, month to month, year to year etc. (Again in the broad sense of things and not so much limited to a 'short' or 'long' timespan per see)
It differs per person and situation but we all have to deal with it, the way in which we do it just varies. That's it basically.
I find solace in making 'it' work in this game for example. You find reasoning for why 'it' doesn't.

We can go back and forth on this but I think it will only go further off topic.

I'll leave it at that.

*The reason I used the life to game sort of comparison was because to me, the way you live life but also your understanding of it, kind of dictates how you play for example a game. Don't take this literal btw as it's meant in a grander context, yet again. Goes like this, are you flashy? Do you abuse bugs? Do you want to always win?
Just add some questions, sum it up and you'll get your answer. I'm assuming you already know this about yourself. ADUH. But so do I, and since I find my way (my interpretation on game-to-life-ratio) more suitable to get the most satisfaction out of 'life' while playing this game and everything that comes with it (incl the bugs the this and the that) I don't bother myself with negligible things like these.
I used to be a fanatic gamer. Nowadays games aren't as important to me, but when I play games, I can be as devoted to it when I was 7 years old, because I simply choose to be.