PDA

View Full Version : How would you feel about a linear AC game?



Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 02:48 PM
I've been thinking lately that a fully linear AC game would make a lot of sense and be beneficial to the franchise in the long run. I don't want all future games to be linear, just one of them (like a spin-off). Linear games have several benefits and it would feel like a fresh and different experience.

I believe there are several great reasons for a linear game. The cinematic and dramatic story telling the devs are interestested in would make a lot more sense and be better paced in a linear game. It would be a chance to really focus on lifting the gameplay mechanics. Linear doesn't mean corridor. There could still be open areas for ambitious stealth gameplay. The platforming could be more advanced and interactive in controlled levels with moving parts of the enviroment etc. Social stealth could be designed "by hand" for individual missions instead of being systemic. I think this would create a much more realistic/organic feeling system.

A different type of story with several locations could be told. In an open world game you are kind of stuck to one area. I love the globetrotting aspect of a game like Uncharted and I think that could fit AC real well. They did try this to some extent in Ac3, but I'm talking about way more diversity here. For example we could visit several cities in the Roman empire in a story taking place over several decades as well as modern time. There could be more spectacular setpieces polished to Uncharted level of quality.

I don't think the openworld aspect of AC adds that much to the experience atm. Side content is typically fairly generic and/or low quality. A linear game would be a chance to simply throw all of that out of the window and start fresh. Focus on the things the game does well and try top push them to new heights and get the chance to tell a really amazing and different story.


Thoughts (please think about it for at least a few seconds before hating on me :o)?

LoyalACFan
06-30-2013, 02:57 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSPMrfzfXCEVUyUSaIjEflbt5wJHeOz 4w6HfUe12fZhvVhYRv1


In all seriousness, though, no. No way in hell. The one special thing AC has going for it anymore is being able to freely explore historical settings. You take that away, and it becomes a less-than-mediocre action game clone. I don't want AC to become any more like Uncharted than it already has. AC3 was EXTREMELY linear, and even people who loved the game tended to bash the godawful mission structure. If AC3 had consisted of just the story missions without free-roam, it would have been one of the worst games I've ever played.

If they do multiple settings like you suggest, then just make the game about multiple (though probably no more than 3 or 4) ancestors and give them all a pretty good sized city to free-roam in. Or, hell, they could just have multiple maps for a single ancestor across the globe, with fast travel just like AC2 and AC3.

Social stealth could probably be more polished and believable in a linear experience, where you wouldn't be free to blend with a group of uniformed cardinals or something, but it would also completely defeat the purpose of it. Social stealth is supposed to be about finding an unsuspecting group of civilians, ensuring you aren't being watched by your enemies, and blending seamlessly with them. This hasn't really been on display in recent titles, but if the game just sticks a crowd of people in front of you to blend with in certain scenes, there might as well be no social stealth at all.

So, to make a long story short, if there's a totally linear AC game, then I'll finally admit that they've utterly destroyed the franchise and forget about AC.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 03:02 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSPMrfzfXCEVUyUSaIjEflbt5wJHeOz 4w6HfUe12fZhvVhYRv1


In all seriousness, though, no. No way in hell. The one special thing AC has going for it anymore is being able to freely explore historical settings. You take that away, and it becomes a less-than-mediocre action game clone. I don't want AC to become any more like Uncharted than it already has.

If they only took the open world away without adding anything, then I agree it would become a less than mediocre action game. But what I'm hoping is that if they took the open world aspect out it would free up tons and tons of resources that could instead be spent on making some of the other aspects of the game top notch. Primarily story, variety in settings and eras, and core gameplay mechanics.




If they do multiple settings like you suggest, then just make the game about multiple (though probably no more than 3 or 4) ancestors and give them all a pretty good sized city to free-roam in. Or, hell, they could just have multiple maps for a single ancestor across the globe, with fast travel just like AC2 and AC3.

Social stealth could probably be more polished and believable in a linear experience, where you wouldn't be free to blend with a group of uniformed cardinals or something, but it would also completely defeat the purpose of it. Social stealth is supposed to be about finding an unsuspecting group of civilians, ensuring you aren't being watched by your enemies, and blending seamlessly with them. This hasn't really been on display in recent titles, but if the game just sticks a crowd of people in front of you to blend with in certain scenes, there might as well be no social stealth at all.

So, to make a long story short, if there's a totally linear AC game, then I'll finally admit that they've utterly destroyed the franchise and forget about AC.


You make it sound like it's easy to build four different cities from vastly different civilizations and areas, but it's not. An open world game can never ever compete with linear games in terms of potential for setting variety and polish. It's simple math. A linear game could also have a lot more detailed indoor enviroments.

The missions that focus on social stealth are primarily the stalking missions. They are always 100% linear. That there is an open world around is not relveant. You could still have fairly open and big areas of a city like a market, or say a thermae that you could move freely around in, giving excellent opportunities for social stealth (the linear I'm talking about is more like in say thief where there is a linear sequence of open areas. Not a corridor kind of game). I can see no reason why this would destroy social stealth.

Why would removing feather collecting and mail delivery destroy the franchise :confused::p

pacmanate
06-30-2013, 03:16 PM
No. Would restrict the openness that makes AC great imo. Though Linear games have better chances to have better stories

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 03:25 PM
No. Would restrict the openness that makes AC great imo. Though Linear games have better chances to have better stories

I dunno I think there are other aspects that are equally important. Unique settings with great art direction, amazing animations, cool lore with a mixture of sci-fi, mysticism and history, high production values, character driven stories etc. These things would all remain and the extra focus would mean they could be lifted to new heights :)!

LoyalACFan
06-30-2013, 03:27 PM
If they only took the open world away without adding anything, then I agree it would become a less than mediocre action game. But what I'm hoping is that if they took the open world aspect out it would free up tons and tons of resources that could instead be spent on making some of the other aspects of the game top notch. Primarily story, variety in settings and eras, and core gameplay mechanics.

I added a lot to my first post while you were responding, it seemed a bit bare-bones.

I still completely disagree. But weirdly, I kind of agree with your overall theory; that they need to remove some stuff and focus on making more important aspects stronger. AC3's main problem IMO was that it tried to do way too much, and as a result, many features (i.e. hunting, clubs, assassination contracts, Franklin's inventions, crafting, Homestead missions, liberation contracts, the list goes on) were completely asinine and the game in general was a muddled, unfocused mess. If they had done away with ALL of those things and focused on delivering a cohesive ASSASSIN experience based on the pillars of the franchise, the game would have been much, much better.

But the absolute LAST thing they should remove is the open world. They (and other developers such as Rockstar and Sucker Punch) have already proven that an open-world game can deliver a solid story without pinning the player down into a scripted story path with no exploration or side content. AC1 and AC2 were both excellent open-world games with cohesive narratives and relevant side content (except maybe the beat-up events, but there are only like 4 of those in the whole game so it's hardly worth whining about; looking at you, M :rolleyes:). AC3 had way too much irrelevant, unnecessary crap on the side and didn't pay enough attention to the pacing and quality of the story. But it's not the fault of the open world.

dxsxhxcx
06-30-2013, 03:35 PM
I don't think the openworld aspect of AC adds that much to the experience atm. Side content is typically fairly generic and/or low quality. A linear game would be a chance to simply throw all of that out of the window and start fresh. Focus on the things the game does well and try top push them to new heights and get the chance to tell a really amazing and different story.


you should be asking yourself why the open world aspect of the game isn't adding much to the experience at the moment and make the devs fix that instead of allow them to go the easy route and just remove anything that "doesn't work" (and IMO everyone knows why these things aren't "working" as they should or aren't that great anymore)...

shobhit7777777
06-30-2013, 03:39 PM
I don't think ANY AC game apart from AC1 and maybe AC2....has been non-linear.

AC3 is basically what you describe....except that its utter ****.....which I think answers your question

Shahkulu101
06-30-2013, 03:41 PM
I like many others believe that the focus needs to be set on delivering the possible best gameplay using the core pillars (assassinating, parkour etc.) and a fully linear game would have a better chance of delivering that . However, no matter how bad the side missions are, AC3's in particular were horrible wheras I felt AC2 and BH struck a good balance, I enjoy freely exploring whole maps of historical cities to discover landmarks and what have you at my will.

If this were to be taken away, I would be furious.

silvermercy
06-30-2013, 03:47 PM
I'd be up for it just to see how different the experience would be.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 03:56 PM
I added a lot to my first post while you were responding, it seemed a bit bare-bones.

I still completely disagree. But weirdly, I kind of agree with your overall theory; that they need to remove some stuff and focus on making more important aspects stronger. AC3's main problem IMO was that it tried to do way too much, and as a result, many features (i.e. hunting, clubs, assassination contracts, Franklin's inventions, crafting, Homestead missions, liberation contracts, the list goes on) were completely asinine and the game in general was a muddled, unfocused mess. If they had done away with ALL of those things and focused on delivering a cohesive ASSASSIN experience based on the pillars of the franchise, the game would have been much, much better.

But the absolute LAST thing they should remove is the open world. They (and other developers such as Rockstar and Sucker Punch) have already proven that an open-world game can deliver a solid story without pinning the player down into a scripted story path with no exploration or side content. AC1 and AC2 were both excellent open-world games with cohesive narratives and relevant side content (except maybe the beat-up events, but there are only like 4 of those in the whole game so it's hardly worth whining about; looking at you, M :rolleyes:). AC3 had way too much irrelevant, unnecessary crap on the side and didn't pay enough attention to the pacing and quality of the story. But it's not the fault of the open world.

Yeah I saw that to late. I never edited the first part of my post.

So we agree about the disease but not the cure :). Like I said I don't want all future games to be linear. But given that they make one of them/year I think that making one of them so could be beneficial to the core pillars and at the same time offer something different.

I think Rockstar stories typcially suffer from the open world structure. Take RDR for example. The middle section (exploring Mexico) adds very little to the overall story arc and is more of a fillar. Marston is alos somewhat a typical open-world errand boy, running between characters and helping them with trivial tasks. That said I overall think RDR is a great game, but I don't see it (or any other OW R* game) as proof that the genre can deliver a tight and consistent narrative.

ACfan443
06-30-2013, 03:59 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSPMrfzfXCEVUyUSaIjEflbt5wJHeOz 4w6HfUe12fZhvVhYRv1.

This pretty much sums it up.

Something like this wouldn't bode well with me at all. As mentioned, freedom to explore historical settings is one of the fundamental draws of the series, take that away and you're left with a watered down Uncharted with an Assassin's Creed skin.

AC's already deplorable reputation would only plummet further should something like a fully linear game materialise.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 04:03 PM
you should be asking yourself why the open world aspect of the game isn't adding much to the experience at the moment and make the devs fix that instead of allow them to go the easy route and just remove anything that "doesn't work" (and IMO everyone knows why these things aren't "working" as they should or aren't that great anymore)...

If they made a linear game they would get an extra year to figure the OW stuff out. Then they could come back with a higher quality OW experience. By making a linear game that would allow them to really push the core mechanics I believe the OW would benefit tremendously. Weak core mechanics means all side content will be meh. On the contrary if combat/stealth/platforming are negaging activities on their own, constructing fun sidecontent becomes hell of a lot easier.


I don't think ANY AC game apart from AC1 and maybe AC2....has been non-linear.

AC3 is basically what you describe....except that its utter ****.....which I think answers your question

The story missions are super linear. I would like a linear game with less linear missions. Similar structure to say thief where there is a linear sequence of open levels. A ton of the budget/time for AC3 was spent on developing the OW. What if that was spent on the campaign instead? One great half instead of two meh would have been much better!


I like many others believe that the focus needs to be set on delivering the possible best gameplay using the core pillars (assassinating, parkour etc.) and a fully linear game would have a better chance of delivering that . However, no matter how bad the side missions are, AC3's in particular were horrible wheras I felt AC2 and BH struck a good balance, I enjoy freely exploring whole maps of historical cities to discover landmarks and what have you at my will.

If this were to be taken away, I would be furious.

Haha nothing like the rage of AC fans :)! It's would just be for one game though.


I'd be up for it just to see how different the experience would be.


A non-conservative gamer :eek:! What is this, twilight zone?

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 04:08 PM
This pretty much sums it up.

Something like this wouldn't bode well with me at all. As mentioned, freedom to explore historical settings is one of the fundamental draws of the series, take that away and you're left with a watered down Uncharted with an Assassin's Creed skin.

AC's already deplorable reputation would only plummet further should something like a fully linear game materialise.

Like I said before the idea is not to simply remove the open world, which I obv agree would be totaly pointless. I believe a linear game would be able to push many of the other parts of the game a lot and that future games would benefit from it. It doesn't have to be like Uncharted at all. Could still be fairly open areas for stealth and platforming (many of the missions in AC3 allready take place in dedicated mission levels). Doesn't have to be action focused, but could be a fairly low key game with a lot of sneaking.

salman147
06-30-2013, 04:08 PM
Ubisoft is horrible in making linear assassins creed games.They proved that in ac3 main missions.Those were linear and boring.If u take away the open free world,side missions and other free vast places like frontier,then imagine how bad the game will turn out with only the main missions.

Rugterwyper32
06-30-2013, 04:09 PM
I'd say keep linear AC games to handhelds if they're ever done so again (Discovery was one really fun mix of Sonic the Hedgehog platforming with Ezio's assassin skills, yo). One of the main reasons I got into the series was the open world, exploring all these historic locations at my will. Sure, I do want them to scale down on stuff (I bet by the time they were done with AC3, the disc was about to burst with data), but the open world is one of the key reasons I enjoy this series.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 04:10 PM
Ubisoft is horrible in making linear assassins creed games.They proved that in ac3 main missions.Those were linear and boring.If u take away the open free world,side missions and other free vast places like frontier,then imagine how bad the game will turn out with only the main missions.

For the third time I don't think they should simply remove the open world without adding anything to the SP campaign.


I'd say keep linear AC games to handhelds if they're ever done so again (Discovery was one really fun mix of Sonic the Hedgehog platforming with Ezio's assassin skills, yo). One of the main reasons I got into the series was the open world, exploring all these historic locations at my will. Sure, I do want them to scale down on stuff (I bet by the time they were done with AC3, the disc was about to burst with data), but the open world is one of the key reasons I enjoy this series.

I like exploring open worlds too :). But they are making one of these games/year. Soon the sixth game will get released. How about they tried something fairly different that would allow a shift in focus and fix some old issues? You would still get another five or so open world AC games next gen.

Rugterwyper32
06-30-2013, 04:20 PM
I like exploring open worlds too :). But they are making one of these games/year. Soon the sixth game will get released. How about they tried something fairly different that would allow a shift in focus and fix some old issues? You would still get another five or so open world AC games next gen.

Like I mentioned, I'd rather keep that portable. In fact, bring it back, considering we haven't had a portable linear AC game in a while. Altair's Chronicles and Discovery had good ideas, I'd sure like it if they expanded on them. And Lost Legacy was turned into Revelations, but if you look at Revelations, couldn't a bunch of missions worked as 2D platforming segments? I feel that might have been the original idea behind it. They should still give it a shot, I feel, but not making it a mainline console game. A game for both the 3DS and Vita could work, IMO.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 04:23 PM
Like I mentioned, I'd rather keep that portable. In fact, bring it back, considering we haven't had a portable linear AC game in a while. Altair's Chronicles and Discovery had good ideas, I'd sure like it if they expanded on them. And Lost Legacy was turned into Revelations, but if you look at Revelations, couldn't a bunch of missions worked as 2D platforming segments? I feel that might have been the original idea behind it. They should still give it a shot, I feel, but not making it a mainline console game. A game for both the 3DS and Vita could work, IMO.

But then there would be no benefits for the main game. I'm hoping some of the improvements from the linear game could be carried over to the mainline. That's half the point (the other half is to be able to tell a very different kind of story). Besides I don't play handhelds.

LoyalACFan
06-30-2013, 04:23 PM
I think Rockstar stories typcially suffer from the open world structure. Take RDR for example. The middle section (exploring Mexico) adds very little to the overall story arc and is more of a fillar. Marston is alos somewhat a typical open-world errand boy, running between characters and helping them with trivial tasks. That said I overall think RDR is a great game, but I don't see it (or any other OW R* game) as proof that the genre can deliver a tight and consistent narrative.

The main story of RDR hit a lull in the Mexico section, it's true, but it was all thematically relevant. The idea that you can fight all you want without ever being able to change anything or escape the past was very much present throughout the whole game, and the futile Mexican Revolution section actually accentuated that. It wasn't as directly linked to the plot as it could have been, but it further explored the themes of moral ambiguity that the game offered, and at any rate it beat the hell out of the latter half of AC3.

Anyway, you're right in saying that linear games have a greater opportunity to refine and focus the plot, but to me, long open-world games like RDR are a better way for a game to tell a story. Games like Uncharted and the Last of Us (both great) could easily be adapted into films, but games like RDR can deliver something that movies can't. It's the greatest medium there is for becoming truly immersed in the world of the character, and you can see far more events that subtly shape the character and plot as you go along. There doesn't need to be a turning point or "Aha!" moment, because you've been along for the ride long enough to know how the character has developed. Not to mention the sheer fun factor of virtually exploring a setting that you could never otherwise visit. That alone would be reason enough for AC to be my favorite game series. Without it, it would lose a huge part of its appeal.

ArabianFrost
06-30-2013, 04:25 PM
I don't get it. If we're just going to have many locations throughout the "linear" game for missions, why not make the locations always open for exploration, a.k.a Open world game?

ACfan443
06-30-2013, 04:28 PM
Like I said before the idea is not to simply remove the open world, which I obv agree would be totaly pointless. I believe a linear game would be able to push many of the other parts of the game a lot and that future games would benefit from it. It doesn't have to be like Uncharted at all. Could still be fairly open areas for stealth and platforming (many of the missions in AC3 allready take place in dedicated mission levels). Doesn't have to be action focused, but could be a fairly low key game with a lot of sneaking.

I understand what you're proposing, to take away the open world and concentrate resources and time to the main campaign - makes sense. But in reality it would be awful imo, I like having the freedom to take a break from the main campaign, explore the world, marvel at the landmarks and then return to the story at my will. A continuous AC campaign sounds like a turn off.

AssassinHMS
06-30-2013, 04:31 PM
No!
Assassin’s Creed is not Uncharted and should never try to be Uncharted because Assassin’s Creed doesn’t need to lower itself and use linearity to be appealing or interesting.
That is a very selfish idea. I understand that you may care mostly for the story but this is not a movie and there are many players (me included) that care deeply about exploring and free roaming an immersive world enjoying the view or doing side missions. Sometimes I spend hours just exploring the environment and searching for little details.
A game is not a movie and sacrificing freedom and gameplay for story is low and a bad thing in the gaming industry. Games should offer the freedom that movies lack while letting the player control the experience. An on-rail/linear game (like Uncharted) can never match a non-linear game (like Red Dead Redemption or Assassin’s Creed) because freedom of pace, freedom of choice and freedom of movement are what separates games from movies or actual games from interactive movies.
However I have to say that I’d rather if the next Assassin’s Creed had a smaller open world as it seems to be a prerequisite that each AC game must have a bigger world than the previous when there are many other aspects that are fundamental to the series and have been forgotten. Also, I think quality should come before quantity as it’s better to have a moderated sized world full of things to do and details than a huge empty bland world, or 4 simple weapons rather than a huge arsenal without sheaths or actual use.

ArabianFrost
06-30-2013, 04:35 PM
No!
Assassinís Creed is not Uncharted and should never try to be Uncharted because Assassinís Creed doesnít need to lower itself and use linearity to be appealing or interesting.
That is a very selfish idea. I understand that you may care mostly for the story but this is not a movie and there are many players (me included) that care deeply about exploring and free roaming an immersive world enjoying the view or doing side missions. Sometimes I spend hours just exploring the environment and searching for little details.
A game is not a movie and sacrificing freedom and gameplay for story is low and a bad thing in the gaming industry. Games should offer the freedom that movies lack while letting the player control the experience. An on-rail/linear game (like Uncharted) can never match a non-linear game (like Red Dead Redemption or Assassinís Creed) because freedom of pace, freedom of choice and freedom of movement are what separates games from movies or actual games from interactive movies.
However I have to say that Iíd rather if the next Assassinís Creed had a smaller open world as it seems to be a prerequisite that each AC game must have a bigger world than the previous when there are many other aspects that are fundamental to the series and have been forgotten. Also, I think quality should come before quantity as itís better to have a moderated sized world full of things to do and details than a huge empty bland world, or 4 simple weapons rather than a huge arsenal without sheaths or actual use.

Woah there! No need to throw accusations at Sushi. He said it was a preposition for ONE game. Not something he thinks MUST happen. I also think his points were mostly gameplay-related, so gameplay is his priority as well.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 04:38 PM
The main story of RDR hit a lull in the Mexico section, it's true, but it was all thematically relevant. The idea that you can fight all you want without ever being able to change anything or escape the past was very much present throughout the whole game, and the futile Mexican Revolution section actually accentuated that. It wasn't as directly linked to the plot as it could have been, but it further explored the themes of moral ambiguity that the game offered, and at any rate it beat the hell out of the latter half of AC3.

Anyway, you're right in saying that linear games have a greater opportunity to refine and focus the plot, but to me, long open-world games like RDR are a better way for a game to tell a story. Games like Uncharted and the Last of Us (both great) could easily be adapted into films, but games like RDR can deliver something that movies can't. It's the greatest medium there is for becoming truly immersed in the world of the character, and you can see far more events that subtly shape the character and plot as you go along. There doesn't need to be a turning point or "Aha!" moment, because you've been along for the ride long enough to know how the character has developed. Not to mention the sheer fun factor of virtually exploring a setting that you could never otherwise visit. That alone would be reason enough for AC to be my favorite game series. Without it, it would lose a huge part of its appeal.

You have a point that the Mexico part was thematically consistent with the overall plot. And obv it added another dimension to the Cowboy fantasy which is personally my favourite. It's a fantastic game no doubt about that. I also agree that open world games despite some problems deliver an experience that is more unique compared to other mediums. It's more about descovering the world and the characters rather than being told what they are. It's my favourite game structure and a very fascinating one! I used to love to just randomly run around in AC, climb stuff, observe and explore.

However my thinking atm is that the franchise has not really improved as much I would have liked in terms of gameplay. The core mechanics have been way too weak year after year. This hurts the open world a ton imo as way too many of the activities feel like tedious chores instead of being engaging and exciting. I belive a linear and focused AC game could be a way to work on some of these issues as well as providing a really different experience in the same universe.

AssassinHMS
06-30-2013, 04:45 PM
Woah there! No need to throw accusations at Sushi. He said it was a preposition for ONE game. Not something he thinks MUST happen.

I don't mean to accuse anyone, all I'm saying is that I disagree with the idea. However I don't understand why people value linear games so much (like Uncharted). They even want to make an Uncharted movie! What?! Uncharted is already (pretty much) an interactive movie, how much different can it be? I guess the size of the screen makes all the difference...



I also think his points were mostly gameplay-related, so gameplay is his priority as well.

I don't think so:

The cinematic and dramatic story telling the devs are interestested in would make a lot more sense and be better paced in a linear game. It would be a chance to really focus on lifting the gameplay mechanics. Linear doesn't mean corridor. There could still be open areas for ambitious stealth gameplay.

Like I said I like to explore an immersive world instead of being forced to go on and on, mission after mission...
Besides who plays linear games more than 7 or 8 times? You can invest and do a lot more in games like RDR.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 04:46 PM
No!
Assassin’s Creed is not Uncharted and should never try to be Uncharted because Assassin’s Creed doesn’t need to lower itself and use linearity to be appealing or interesting.
That is a very selfish idea. I understand that you may care mostly for the story but this is not a movie and there are many players (me included) that care deeply about exploring and free roaming an immersive world enjoying the view or doing side missions. Sometimes I spend hours just exploring the environment and searching for little details.
A game is not a movie and sacrificing freedom and gameplay for story is low and a bad thing in the gaming industry. Games should offer the freedom that movies lack while letting the player control the experience. An on-rail/linear game (like Uncharted) can never match a non-linear game (like Red Dead Redemption or Assassin’s Creed) because freedom of pace, freedom of choice and freedom of movement are what separates games from movies or actual games from interactive movies.
However I have to say that I’d rather if the next Assassin’s Creed had a smaller open world as it seems to be a prerequisite that each AC game must have a bigger world than the previous when there are many other aspects that are fundamental to the series and have been forgotten. Also, I think quality should come before quantity as it’s better to have a moderated sized world full of things to do and details than a huge empty bland world, or 4 simple weapons rather than a huge arsenal without sheaths or actual use.

So I'm selfish because I suggest something that you don't want hahaha!

I don't care mostly about the story at all. I care way more about the gameplay.

Linear is not the same as handholding. Openworld games are typically much less challenging than linear games (I have trouble to come up with a single difficult one). Ninja Gaiden (the old ones) are tough as nails despite being linear. It's because those games can focus 100% on gameplay. Higher quality gameplay means that you can raise the challenge without feeling cheap. Dishonored, Thief have much better stealth gameplay than AC does despite being linear in the sense I mean (aka none open world, but a linear sequence of open areas).

ACfan443
06-30-2013, 04:54 PM
I don't think so:

Wait, you quoted him where he said "it would be a chance to focus on lifting gameplay mechanics" to prove your point that he doesn't care about gameplay?
That makes no sense.

SixKeys
06-30-2013, 04:55 PM
Absolutely not.

Linearity works for certain games, but much of the fun and atmosphere of AC comes from the openness of the world. I love being able to freely traverse between locations. One of my favorite pastimes in AC1 is just wandering around the streets or rooftops with no real objective. It's all about experiencing the sounds and sights of all these different locations. I can't do that in a game like Uncharted or The Last of Us. The storytelling in those games is great, but the AC games, I would argue, are more about atmosphere than story. The story is important, but not to the extent that the environments, enemies and everything else is designed around the story. In AC, it's almost the other way around: the era and location comes first and the story is built around them.

Rugterwyper32
06-30-2013, 04:55 PM
You know what I'm thinking? I wouldn't mind if it took place in a "minor" time period with multiple villages and smaller locations that worked in ways similar to the DaVinci machine missions and we didn't touch any major cities. The idea WOULD bother me if we talked about a bigger city (since we'd miss a massive opportunity for free exploration) but if it's a not as noticeable time period I think it could work.
Linear games done well can offer replay value, so long as they aren't TOO linear. I'm not a fan of games that are much of "interactive movies" but then you have stealth and platforming games that are linear yet give you the chance to find multiple routes to handle stuff. The classic Sonic games, for instance, had massive replayability as using the speed-based momentum can help you find new routes. Or Hitman, where there are so many ways to get to the target. A Hitman-like AC game taking place in a minor location could work, IMO. Hey, maybe finally a game in Guatemala considering we haven't got much going on for us (I can still dream)

AssassinHMS
06-30-2013, 04:59 PM
So I'm selfish because I suggest something that you don't want hahaha!

I don't care mostly about the story at all. I care way more about the gameplay.

Linear is not the same as handholding. Openworld games are typically much less challenging than linear games (I have trouble to come up with a single difficult one). Ninja Gaiden (the old ones) are tough as nails despite being linear. It's because those games can focus 100% on gameplay. Higher quality gameplay means that you can raise the challenge without feeling cheap. Dishonored, Thief have much better stealth gameplay than AC does despite being linear in the sense I mean (aka none open world, but a linear sequence of open areas).


Ok I take back the selfish part.

However the level of difficulty doesn't have anything to do with linearity. AC could be very difficult for the right reasons if only it didn't try to please everyone or in other words if it wasn't so commercial.
But you must understand that there are a lot of people who love the open world aspect that only Assassin's Creed can offer. Taking it away to make the story more cohesive or to enhance the gameplay (even though I don't see how) would be a bad move.
Again I think Assassin's Creed is all about freedom and making a linear game would take away a lot of that freedom as well as some of the interest, lure and lasting appeal.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 05:05 PM
You know what I'm thinking? I wouldn't mind if it took place in a "minor" time period with multiple villages and smaller locations that worked in ways similar to the DaVinci machine missions and we didn't touch any major cities. The idea WOULD bother me if we talked about a bigger city (since we'd miss a massive opportunity for free exploration) but if it's a not as noticeable time period I think it could work.
Linear games done well can offer replay value, so long as they aren't TOO linear. I'm not a fan of games that are much of "interactive movies" but then you have stealth and platforming games that are linear yet give you the chance to find multiple routes to handle stuff. The classic Sonic games, for instance, had massive replayability as using the speed-based momentum can help you find new routes. Or Hitman, where there are so many ways to get to the target. A Hitman-like AC game taking place in a minor location could work, IMO. Hey, maybe finally a game in Guatemala considering we haven't got much going on for us (I can still dream)

Yes, you get the vision :)! I don't want it to be that cinematic (even though some setpieces are okay), more in the Hitman style (great example!), but with platforming sequences and hand to hand combat on top. These levels could be set in indoor locations like say during a gladiator fight at the Colloseum (much more polished than the Colloseum level in Brotherhood), a Roman bath, the senate, Cleopatra's palace, or a huge villa on the Hispanic countryside, just to take some examples from the roman era. I want a linear game with less linear missions!!!!

Guatemala would be fine by me :)!

LoyalACFan
06-30-2013, 05:05 PM
However my thinking atm is that the franchise has not really improved as much I would have liked in terms of gameplay. The core mechanics have been way too weak year after year. This hurts the open world a ton imo as way too many of the activities feel like tedious chores instead of being engaging and exciting. I belive a linear and focused AC game could be a way to work on some of these issues as well as providing a really different experience in the same universe.

The gameplay hasn't evolved as much as I'd like either, but a linear game would mean that they would have to essentially scrap AC's most iconic gameplay. City traversal has always been the heart and soul of AC (which is partly why I hated most of the Frontier) and linearity just wouldn't work well with that.

AssassinHMS
06-30-2013, 05:09 PM
Wait, you quoted him where he said "it would be a chance to focus on lifting gameplay mechanics" to prove your point that he doesn't care about gameplay?
That makes no sense.

That part was meant for my last statement where I explain the importance of an open world like the freedom to explore it or the replay value. I also didn't think it would be fair to omit it and ignore that he was also thinking about gameplay.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 05:14 PM
Ok I take back the selfish part.

However the level of difficulty doesn't have anything to do with linearity. AC could be very difficult for the right reasons if only it didn't try to please everyone or in other words if it wasn't so commercial.
But you must understand that there are a lot of people who love the open world aspect that only Assassin's Creed can offer. Taking it away to make the story more cohesive or to enhance the gameplay (even though I don't see how) would be a bad move.
Again I think Assassin's Creed is all about freedom and making a linear game would take away a lot of that freedom as well as some of the interest, lure and lasting appeal.

Fair enough :)

I like the open world aspect of AC a ton myself. Def the best part of AC3, even though it was somewhat underwhelming. That said since we get a game/year I wouldn't mind trying something radically different. The gameplay would not become better simply by removing the open world ofc. But if the resources (money+time) typically spent on the openworld were spent on core gameplay/level design improvements they would likely become much better.

There is no logical reason why open world games can not be difficult, it's just that they rarely are. I believe some of it has to do with the gameplay being spread too thin. With low quality gameplay you need to keep the challenge low to not expose the weaknesses too much.

Freedom is only good if there are fun things to do with it. Imo the mechanics in AC3 are too weak for engaging sandbox gameplay. Fixing the mechanics should be top priority, but given the super ambitious world Ubi builds it seems gameplay always gets the shaft.

Gi1t
06-30-2013, 05:20 PM
If they only took the open world away without adding anything, then I agree it would become a less than mediocre action game. But what I'm hoping is that if they took the open world aspect out it would free up tons and tons of resources that could instead be spent on making some of the other aspects of the game top notch. Primarily story, variety in settings and eras, and core gameplay mechanics.





You make it sound like it's easy to build four different cities from vastly different civilizations and areas, but it's not. An open world game can never ever compete with linear games in terms of potential for setting variety and polish. It's simple math. A linear game could also have a lot more detailed indoor enviroments.

The missions that focus on social stealth are primarily the stalking missions. They are always 100% linear. That there is an open world around is not relveant. You could still have fairly open and big areas of a city like a market, or say a thermae that you could move freely around in, giving excellent opportunities for social stealth (the linear I'm talking about is more like in say thief where there is a linear sequence of open areas. Not a corridor kind of game). I can see no reason why this would destroy social stealth.

Why would removing feather collecting and mail delivery destroy the franchise :confused::p

I don't think it would. You're right. :) I mean, once they throw in these distance-based desynch things, it basically becomes linear anyway and their taste for the theatrical often limites the player's ability to choose WHEN they want to move.

The one trouble, though, and the reason why they wouldn't be able to do it, is that people are used to it. Once people get accustomed to anything in a game, they WILL NOT HAVE IT TAKEN AWAY no matter how little it really has to offer. It's automatically seen as less than what was there before, and even if it gains a TON of extra benefits, then that's seen as 'OMGRD! CHANGING THE FRANCHISE!' which is, of course, synonymous with ruining it no matter what. XD Even in a spinoff, these days, with the way AC games are cranked out, people will expect identical gameplay to the last AC they played, anyway. (Remember Halo Wars? It was just a spinoff RTS, but everybody freaked the **** out like it was somehow replacing another FPS that should have been in the works even though it clearly wasn't.) Fans getting accustomed to things usually means that if you want to change it, you've got a rediculously uphill battle, and I doubt Ubisoft would even consider such a thing, given the inevitable consequences. XD

I think what LoyalACFan said makes sense. They need to focus their attention on what they really want to do. Remember Patrice's "Flower Box" description of the concept. I think it's been moving too much toward the sandbox model and not sticking to that 'flower box' ideal.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 05:21 PM
The gameplay hasn't evolved as much as I'd like either, but a linear game would mean that they would have to essentially scrap AC's most iconic gameplay. City traversal has always been the heart and soul of AC (which is partly why I hated most of the Frontier) and linearity just wouldn't work well with that.

Very true, the backlash would be epic. People whine about milking, franchises getting stale etc etc. But if developers as much as change the haircut of a character (Max Payne, or Infamous) the fans cry like crazy. Removing a core aspect like city exploration would likely lead to Xbox One level of hate lol.

Rugterwyper32
06-30-2013, 05:23 PM
Yes, you get the vision :)! I don't want it to be that cinematic (even though some setpieces are okay), more in the Hitman style (great example!), but with platforming sequences and hand to hand combat on top. These levels could be set in indoor locations like say during a gladiator fight at the Colloseum (much more polished than the Colloseum level in Brotherhood), a Roman bath, the senate, Cleopatra's palace, or a huge villa on the Hispanic countryside, just to take some examples from the roman era. I want a linear game with less linear missions!!!!

Guatemala would be fine by me :)!

My problem with the idea at first was missing out on the chance for full exploration for a "major setting", admittedly, but there are many ideas that could work and be explored otherwise. I personally had been thinking "how could Guatemala work in an AC game?" and I think that a game this style, even if it's a one-shot, could be good to give a smaller setting the a day in the limelight and to improve on a few elements by working on smaller stages. The smaller areas could still include exploration and they can work with multiple options to get the objective done. Remember how 3 out of the 4 of the DaVinci machine missions were all smaller towns and yet worked with multiple pathways? That reminded me of how it could potentially work


The gameplay hasn't evolved as much as I'd like either, but a linear game would mean that they would have to essentially scrap AC's most iconic gameplay. City traversal has always been the heart and soul of AC (which is partly why I hated most of the Frontier) and linearity just wouldn't work well with that.

As Sushi mentioned, it would be linear progression, non-linear missions. Did you ever play Hitman 2: Silent Assassin? If so, remember the St. Petersburg level? It was rather huge, with multiple ways to get it done, just that in Hitman's case you moved more along sewers. In an AC take of it, you could be moving along rooftops or walk on the streets trying not to catch attention. It's big enough to have some exploration, too, which you could work with for collectables and the such. Even the portable 2D AC games had some exploration (or at least Discovery, with wanted posters to increase your health and 10 challenge levels to be found)

ze_topazio
06-30-2013, 05:24 PM
On-rails shooter Assassin's Creed FTW.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 05:26 PM
I don't think it would. You're right. :) I mean, once they throw in these distance-based desynch things, it basically becomes linear anyway and their taste for the theatrical often limites the player's ability to choose WHEN they want to move.

The one trouble, though, and the reason why they wouldn't be able to do it, is that people are used to it. Once people get accustomed to anything in a game, they WILL NOT HAVE IT TAKEN AWAY no matter how little it really has to offer. It's automatically seen as less than what was there before, and even if it gains a TON of extra benefits, then that's seen as 'OMGRD! CHANGING THE FRANCHISE!' which is, of course, synonymous with ruining it no matter what. XD Even in a spinoff, these days, with the way AC games are cranked out, people will expect identical gameplay to the last AC they played, anyway. (Remember Halo Wars? It was just a spinoff RTS, but everybody freaked the **** out like it was somehow replacing another FPS that should have been in the works even though it clearly wasn't.) Fans getting accustomed to things usually means that if you want to change it, you've got a rediculously uphill battle, and I doubt Ubisoft would even consider such a thing, given the inevitable consequences. XD

I think what LoyalACFan said makes sense. They need to focus their attention on what they really want to do. Remember Patrice's "Flower Box" description of the concept. I think it's been moving too much toward the sandbox model and not sticking to that 'flower box' ideal.

Yeah I think you are correct it would be impossible to market. AC is one of the most hand-holdy and casual franchises of all time, but if Ubi decided to make a linear one, fans would still somehow find a way of calling it dumbed down (it's theoretically impossible to dumb down AC3).

I guess I just have to hope for a new PoP game instead :).


On-rails shooter Assassin's Creed FTW.

I said I wanted more open missions with less handholding. Is Thief more on rails than AC3?

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 05:35 PM
My problem with the idea at first was missing out on the chance for full exploration for a "major setting", admittedly, but there are many ideas that could work and be explored otherwise. I personally had been thinking "how could Guatemala work in an AC game?" and I think that a game this style, even if it's a one-shot, could be good to give a smaller setting the a day in the limelight and to improve on a few elements by working on smaller stages. The smaller areas could still include exploration and they can work with multiple options to get the objective done. Remember how 3 out of the 4 of the DaVinci machine missions were all smaller towns and yet worked with multiple pathways? That reminded me of how it could potentially work


Yeah those machine missions are great concepts for how it could work. It's also a great point you have that it could be a chance to visit smaller countries without cities iconic enough to carry a full open world game. In a linear game you could do Panama, Guatemala and Nicaragua (just to take some random places) and just pick the best buildings/plazas/events from each one.

dxsxhxcx
06-30-2013, 05:36 PM
Freedom is only good if there are fun things to do with it. Imo the mechanics in AC3 are too weak for engaging sandbox gameplay. Fixing the mechanics should be top priority, but given the super ambitious world Ubi builds it seems gameplay always gets the shaft.

and here you have the problem, Ubisoft's ambition trying to bite more than it can chew... maybe they should come back to AC1/2 format with several small/medium cities (where tons of content wouldn't be necessary) and focus more on making the fewer features it would have more relevant and enjoyable instead of add, add, add new half assed features just for the sake of adding them...

x___Luffy___x
06-30-2013, 05:46 PM
no. dont want it.

AssassinHMS
06-30-2013, 05:46 PM
I like the open world aspect of AC a ton myself. Def the best part of AC3, even though it was somewhat underwhelming. That said since we get a game/year I wouldn't mind trying something radically different. The gameplay would not become better simply by removing the open world ofc. But if the resources (money+time) typically spent on the openworld were spent on core gameplay/level design improvements they would likely become much better.

I agree but I think there are other things that could be removed first allowing the devs to spare the open world. I'd say the general problem with AC is that quantity comes before quality and that affects the game's difficulty as well.

I am absolutely sure that, with the resources Ubisoft has, they could make that Assassin's Creed game without sacrificing he open world aspect.
The first step would be to make an independent game. Just because the last AC had naval battles doesen't mean this one has to have them. No need to make an overwhelming world only because the last game was 3 times the size of Rome in Brotherhood.
The game needs to be challenging while allowing players new to the series to successfully complete it. This means the combat should be very hard so that only very skillful players can use it as a viable option. Newcomers need to rely more on stealth and escape if sighted. I think this, plus good music and a dark atmosphere, would add tension and the sense of vulnerability as well as challenge and a way to really improve stealth.


There is no logical reason why open world games can not be difficult, it's just that they rarely are. I believe some of it has to do with the gameplay being spread too thin. With low quality gameplay you need to keep the challenge low to not expose the weaknesses too much.

Indeed but in AC's case I don't blame the open world but rather the lack of direction and the choice to make the franchise commercial and plain. If the devs focused on making a simple assassin's creed game that stayed true to its roots instead of shoving every idea into an empty world where the "assassin" is a one-man army who doesn't even bother to investigate (eavesdrop, interrogate and pickpocket) or to plan missions and naming it AC, this problem wouldn't even exist.

ze_topazio
06-30-2013, 05:47 PM
Take the fully explorable historical cities and all you have is a mediocre action game with poor gameplay.



And the Uncharted games are incredibly fun action games, linear like pretty much every single action game made since the first action game, the way some of you speak of it as a bad example highly disturbs me, AC wish it had half the quality and polishment the Uncharted games have.

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 05:51 PM
Absolutely not.

Linearity works for certain games, but much of the fun and atmosphere of AC comes from the openness of the world. I love being able to freely traverse between locations. One of my favorite pastimes in AC1 is just wandering around the streets or rooftops with no real objective. It's all about experiencing the sounds and sights of all these different locations. I can't do that in a game like Uncharted or The Last of Us. The storytelling in those games is great, but the AC games, I would argue, are more about atmosphere than story. The story is important, but not to the extent that the environments, enemies and everything else is designed around the story. In AC, it's almost the other way around: the era and location comes first and the story is built around them.

That is fair and I feel the same pretty much. I just think the arguments I have given (different types (indoor) abd variety of locations, a more focued story and gameplay polish) are enough to make one of these dozens of AC games linear.




I agree but I think there are other things that could be removed first allowing the devs to spare the open world. I'd say the general problem with AC is that quantity comes before quality and that affects the game's difficulty as well.

I am absolutely sure that, with the resources Ubisoft has, they could make that Assassin's Creed game without sacrificing he open world aspect.
The first step would be to make an independent game. Just because the last AC had naval battles doesen't mean this one has to have them. No need to make an overwhelming world only because the last game was 3 times the size of Rome in Brotherhood.
The game needs to be challenging while allowing players new to the series to successfully complete it. This means the combat should be very hard so that only very skillful players can use it as a viable option. Newcomers need to rely more on stealth and escape if sighted. I think this, plus good music and a dark atmosphere, would add tension and the sense of vulnerability as well as challenge and a way to really improve stealth.



Indeed but in AC's case I don't blame the open world but rather the lack of direction and the choice to make the franchise commercial and plain. If the devs focused on making a simple assassin's creed game that stayed true to its roots instead of shoving every idea into an empty world where the "assassin" is a one-man army who doesn't even bother to investigate (eavesdrop, interrogate and pickpocket) or to plan missions and naming it AC, this problem wouldn't even exist.


Yeah decreasing the amount/variety of content would be another way of achieving the goals I want. A linear game would be the most straightforward way to start from scratch and throw out a lot of the junk that has plagued the franchise for ages. But maybe you are right it would be too drastic (from a business/marketing perspective it would likely be a disaster lol).

I 100% agree with you that the core problem is the quantity > quality approach that Ubi has taken way too far. I thought a linear game could be one way to address it.

silvermercy
06-30-2013, 05:56 PM
Take the fully explorable historical cities and all you have is a mediocre action game with poor gameplay.
And the Uncharted games are incredibly fun action games, linear like pretty much every single action game made since the first action game, the way some of you speak of it as a bad example highly disturbs me, AC wish it had half the quality and polishment the Uncharted games have.
LOL Exactly! I cringe when I hear this comparison on these forums. It's as if comparing AC to an ATARI game (not a multi-awarded, multi-platinum game). lol
I wish AC was like Uncharted (but with open-world exploration).

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 06:05 PM
LOL Exactly! I cringe when I hear this comparison on these forums. It's as if comparing AC to an ATARI game (not a multi-awarded, multi-platinum game). lol
I wish AC was like Uncharted (but with open-world exploration).

I like Uncharted a lot, all three of them :). But I think making a stealth game that linear would be a bit problematic. You need to have fully open levels and then perhaps linear sequneces to bind them together. But yeah I agree Uncharted is not the enemy lol.

ze_topazio
06-30-2013, 07:15 PM
Metal Gear Solid games are fairly linear, the objective is, usually, going from point A to point B, however each area offers a bunch of different routes you can take and methods to distract and fool the guards, the upcoming MGS5 will be open world, but that just feels like a natural progression, AC going linear, however, would feel like a regression.

But like you said, i wouldn't mind a spin-off, focused on missions, perhaps with many different characters, locations and time periods, we could have for example the mission to kill Cleopatra, or the mission in which Hitler was killed, and other missions about killing many other historical characters, the missions could take place in small locations and the focus would be on infiltration and stealth.

Assassin_M
06-30-2013, 07:41 PM
You didn't like AC III??

Sushiglutton
06-30-2013, 08:54 PM
You didn't like AC III??

I take it you have missed 1914 of my posts ;).


For the mods I have the formulation for the weekly report, just copy/paste: "Sushi suggested a linear AC game which was met by great excitment and standing ovations by the community. He is now the their new leader succeeding M who seems to have fallen into obscurity."

Assassin_M
06-30-2013, 09:14 PM
He is now the their new leader succeeding M who seems to have fallen into obscurity."
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma36as0sqy1rz8rkho1_500.gif
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2782968/go-fall-mufasa-o.gif

Ureh
06-30-2013, 09:19 PM
Uncharted is extremely polished for sure (almost devoid of any bugs/glitches is a bug plus). A lot of the times it even has the illusion of being an open world even though it's not. And some combat sequences can feel kinda tactical. So it could work as long as they don't make them as linear as the present day Desmond missions.

But with next-gen maybe the devs don't have to make compromises anymore (or rather, don't have the excuses to skimp on quality).

Gi1t
06-30-2013, 09:22 PM
I 100% agree with you that the core problem is the quantity > quality approach that Ubi has taken way too far. I thought a linear game could be one way to address it.

It's a problem with a lot of games these days really, and ze_topzio pointed out why. Having a ton of content distracts people. With so much stuff to do, people tend to not only overlook gameplay weaknesses, but they actually base their general opinion of games on how much content they have. It's treated as if none of it is cut-and-paste at all. XD But really, if you're paying attention to the quality, all that 'stuff' just amounts to a lot of somewhat disapponting experiences.

lothario-da-be
06-30-2013, 09:27 PM
I think 1 linear ac game would be nice, but combat and stealth need to be impoved then. My biggest fear would be that it would get so much love that they would keep making linear ac games :nonchalance:

ladyleonhart
06-30-2013, 11:22 PM
I like having the freedom to take a break from the main campaign, explore the world, marvel at the landmarks and then return to the story at my will.

I agree. This is a big part of AC. Escaping into another era and exploring. Also, if you just completed the main missions - the linear part - the game really wouldn't last very long.


However I don't understand why people value linear games so much (like Uncharted)...

... Like I said I like to explore an immersive world instead of being forced to go on and on, mission after mission... Besides who plays linear games more than 7 or 8 times?

I really like Uncharted! :) For a third-person action shooter it's great! xD Aside from watching the cut-scenes, there's always something going on :) However, the problem with games like this is they don't last very long. I played Uncharted 3 and I completed in 11 hours. Whereas AC III, I spent at least 60 hours on it! xD Heehee... not because I was bad at it, but because I enjoyed exploring and just wandering around and finding things to do! xD



Linearity works for certain games, but much of the fun and atmosphere of AC comes from the openness of the world. I love being able to freely traverse between locations. One of my favorite pastimes in AC1 is just wandering around the streets or rooftops with no real objective. It's all about experiencing the sounds and sights of all these different locations.

Also, I agree that linearity works for some games. The fact is though, AC does already have a place for linearity such as the main missions which progress the story. An entirely open world with no focus would also become boring and make it harder to tell a story. Then, I think you need an open world with linear missions to progress the story, and side missions to enable exploration and the freedom AC is loved and well-known for. Just like Ubisoft have been doing already! I think the problem comes from the fact that, if you don't explore, and just play the main missions, you miss out on a lot of stuff. For example for those who didn't appreciate the Frontier, this is where a lot of the side missions took you.



...AC3's main problem IMO was that it tried to do way too much, and as a result, many features (i.e. hunting, clubs, assassination contracts, Franklin's inventions, crafting, Homestead missions, liberation contracts, the list goes on) were completely asinine and the game in general was a muddled, unfocused mess. If they had done away with ALL of those things and focused on delivering a cohesive ASSASSIN experience based on the pillars of the franchise, the game would have been much, much better...

I agree that the side missions needed refining, but I don't think they were ridiculous:

Homestead Missions: These helped convey the type of person Connor is.

Liberation Contracts: In line with the historical setting, it showcased the problems that existed, as well as enabling Connor to help and recruit assassins.

Hunting Club: This was most likely because hunting was a new element in AC III. The club provided more focused hunting missions, rather than killing every animal in sight.

Assassination Contracts: Without these, there wouldn't be a lot of opportunities for assassinations. It is called 'Assassin's Creed', right...?

Crafting; It allowed pouch upgrades, source of income by trading.

Franklin's Inventions: I guess these were only added for the historical content aspect.

Thief's Club: This was ridiculous. ^^' Connor just didn't seem like a thief.

Boston Brawlers: Who doesn't appreciate a good brawl? ^_~

I think the real issue was that they didn't link together as well as they should have with the rest of the game. If you didn't explore or didn't look at the DNA tracker you could miss these. Also, I think if you got rewarded for completing the side missions, they would be enjoyed more. For example in AC II, you find 6 seals, you get Altair's armour! ^_^ That was incentive, right...?

Oh... I just want to add. This is just my opinion... so please don't be offended. If I did offend anyone. I'm so sorry...

ProletariatPleb
06-30-2013, 11:25 PM
Uhh...more linear than it is now?

SixKeys
06-30-2013, 11:47 PM
Also, I agree that linearity works for some games. The fact is though, AC does already have a place for linearity such as the main missions which progress the story. An entirely open world with no focus would also become boring and make it harder to tell a story. Then, I think you need an open world with linear missions to progress the story, and side missions to enable exploration and the freedom AC is loved and well-known for. Just like Ubisoft have been doing already! I think the problem comes from the fact that, if you don't explore, and just play the main missions, you miss out on a lot of stuff. For example for those who didn't appreciate the Frontier, this is where a lot of the side missions took you.


When I think of linearity in AC, I think of missions like Forum of the Ox in ACR, the beginning with Ezio in Masyaf in the same game, the horse carriage ride in AC2 and the entire sequence 8 in AC3 (Connor in prison and the execution). These missions will always play out almost exactly the same in each playthrough due to their linearity. I can't describe how infuriating it was to be placed on a horse and ride on-rails through New York with no possibility of exploring for an entire sequence in a game like AC which is all about exploration.

AC1 had a modicum of linearity in the main missions, but the player was given freedom to choose how or in which order they wanted to tackle those missions. In sequence 2 or 3, I believe, you are allowed to choose whether your next mission will be in Acre or Jerusalem. The story advances either way no matter which city you choose first. As for the missions themselves, you have a lot more freedom to approach and kill your target however you choose, with no fancy, cinematic, pre-chewed cut scenes getting in the way, telling you "no! THIS is what we have decided happens next!". You don't have to kill William of Montferrat in a flashy, cinematic way or with a certain weapon just because the script tells you so. (And the reason the script tells you to do something a certain way is because they have an expensive cut scene on the way and won't allow the player to miss it.)

So the "linearity for the sake of story" argument is moot, at least in the case of AC which was designed to be an open world experience. The only reason the games have been getting increasingly linear is because Ubisoft are trying to turn the series into an Uncharted clone. In one official survey a couple of years ago they explicitly asked gamers "Do you like Uncharted?". The fact that they chose those games, out of all possible choices, as a comparison point with AC is telling.

ladyleonhart
07-01-2013, 12:47 AM
So the "linearity for the sake of story" argument is moot, at least in the case of AC which was designed to be an open world experience. The only reason the games have been getting increasingly linear is because Ubisoft are trying to turn the series into an Uncharted clone. In one official survey a couple of years ago they explicitly asked gamers "Do you like Uncharted?". The fact that they chose those games, out of all possible choices, as a comparison point with AC is telling.

I don't want AC to be an Uncharted clone!!

Also, as for what I said... it's an opinion ^_~ I understand what you are saying, but I think it's a matter of your definition of "linearity". I meant that they have a set story that they want to tell, which is linear in the sense that you cannot change the outcome of the story, and I was referring mainly to AC III. That is, completing the main missions does progress the story. The side missions and open world ensure that AC isn't linear. And it is what they were trying to do anyway:

Hurley, Leon (2012) 'Assassin’s Creed 3 combat “ripped apart and rebuilt from the ground up"', Official PlayStation Magazine

Source: http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/03/06/assassins-creed-3-combat-ripped-apart-and-rebuilt-from-the-ground-up/

'He also talks about opening up the game more. “I wanted to get away from the very linear nature of going from mission to mission that was in the previous game. Obviously the story is this huge backbone in the game but having other opportunities in the world, other things to do in terms of variety and side tasks; why those side tasks are important I think is something we’re really working on”.

I’d say the game is already a fairly open world but Hutchinson maintains, “the notions of player opportunities, letting people structure their own experience was something that I really wanted to work on”. So instead of a ‘linear narrative’ Assassin’s Creed 3 will focus on a “player driven narrative”. This is “the story that players tell themselves as they play”'



The story advances either way no matter which city you choose first. As for the missions themselves, you have a lot more freedom to approach and kill your target however you choose, with no fancy, cinematic, pre-chewed cut scenes getting in the way, telling you "no! ...

As I said, I was referring mainly to ACIII and not ACI. As for AC III, I guess you are referring to the full synchronization requirements when it comes to killing certain opponents, right...? If that's the case, this was to improve gameplay and raise difficulty of course. Then you have to know what you are doing, instead of button-mashing. Also, I don't think they stop you from being stealthy. In most cases, you can kill your enemies and approach how you want. I just think they've made it more difficult to be stealthy, so you have to think about what you are doing.

As for progression of the story, it won't progress unless you complete a main mission. Yes, at times you are required to complete certain objectives before they let you have free reign, but the opportunities are there. Also, if you don't want to do the side missions you don't have to.


When I think of linearity in AC, I think of missions like... the entire sequence 8 in AC3 (Connor in prison and the execution). These missions will always play out almost exactly the same in each playthrough due to their linearity.

This is an example of linearity for progression of the story. Connor is in prison, you have to encounter Charles Lee; you have to attempt to escape; Connor is taken to be executed... etc. This is what they decided was a part of AC III's story. You can't just not get arrested.

shobhit7777777
07-01-2013, 01:00 AM
The story missions are super linear. I would like a linear game with less linear missions. Similar structure to say thief where there is a linear sequence of open levels. A ton of the budget/time for AC3 was spent on developing the OW. What if that was spent on the campaign instead? One great half instead of two meh would have been much better!


Crysis 2 is what you're asking.....which I am fine with.

You're asking for a linear progression from one Sandbox to another. You start one mission in say - Damascus......in an elaborate sandbox....with a lot of approaches and a number of playstyle options which allow for systemic gameplay. But because it is a smaller, more focused map...it is carefully designed to keep the gameplay pillars central - NPC and crowd placement, mission design, AI etc. can be tailor made to suit this particular scenario....and therefore of a higher quality.

Basically each mission would lead to a 'Fort' - an area with a lot of possibilities...eschewing the traditional open world format for a more focused and better designed game.

I think that this could be achieved without giving up on the open world aspects. It would mean the dumping of non-essential filler bullsh1t....but it is certainly achievable

The thing with open world is that it is a part of the AC DNA


AC1 envisioned itself as an Assassin Sim. You had a richly detailed and immersive gameworld and gameplay systems which encouraged and thrived on large, complex maps to offer a lot of mobility and freedom. Following targets, pickpocketing, eavesdropping....all were meant to offer the role-playing fantasy of being a wolf in the pen, blending in with the crowd

Social stealth and free-running hinge upon the open world concept.

Now you may say that large complex, sandboxes will offer the same gameplay..but better....and I agree to a certain extent - social stealth might feel better...but it would feel scripted and limited. Things like the activities above - gathering info, planning an attack, infiltrating an area......were seamless in AC1...and delivered on the Assassin fantasy.

An open world - for exploration, experimentation and mucking about is a part of the Assassin experience IMO and it would be better if the game did not ditch it



Obviously I agree with you on the diminishing quality of the gameplay...rather, on the law of diminishing returns rearing its head in regards to the game....because nothing has changed much really. But I feel that with a focus on the pillars and proper mission design...we can have the best of both worlds

Besides, the open world really gives you a lot of oppurtunities in terms of improvisational gameplay and immersion.

ArabianFrost
07-01-2013, 01:05 AM
Oh... I just want to add. This is just my opinion... so please don't be offended. If I did offend anyone. I'm so sorry...

You're the nicest person here. Thank you for being awesome :)

AC2_alex
07-01-2013, 01:05 AM
I wouldn't mind a linear game as long as its done well.... kind of an obvious "No, DUH!" statement, but its the truth. I'd like to have a TLoU-esque game world, in the sense that it has the illusion of open world, but is really just linear with a bunch of off shoots packed with detail.

But none of this matters in the big picture, because if a game has great characters and a great story, its a game I'll play.

ProletariatPleb
07-01-2013, 01:15 AM
I wouldn't mind a linear game as long as its done well.... kind of an obvious "No, DUH!" statement, but its the truth. I'd like to have a TLoU-esque game world, in the sense that it has the illusion of open world, but is really just linear with a bunch of off shoots packed with detail.

But none of this matters in the big picture, because if a game has great characters and a great story, its a game I'll play.
What about gameplay?

AC2_alex
07-01-2013, 02:46 AM
What about gameplay?

Obviously very important as well.

My point is, what good is an open world game if the story sucks? What good is a linear action-adventure game if the story sucks? Other people talked earlier in this thread about the prospects of a linear AC game in which the template for all level design was the Leonardo missions from ACB. That sounds great to me. I'll take that.

AssassinHMS
07-01-2013, 11:04 AM
Obviously very important as well.

My point is, what good is an open world game if the story sucks? What good is a linear action-adventure game if the story sucks? Other people talked earlier in this thread about the prospects of a linear AC game in which the template for all level design was the Leonardo missions from ACB. That sounds great to me. I'll take that.

I think you are asking the wrong question. You mean: What good is a movie if the story sucks? And the answer would be: could still be pretty good.
If you think a game is all about the story...
Sure a good story is good for the game and helps the player connect with it, but a game is all about gameplay because gameplay is the aspect that sets it appart from everything else (such as movies) and is the sole reason why games exist.
This is why games like Uncharted or The Last Of Us are "great" for those who care mostly for the story but, in the end of the day, they are nothing compared to games like Red Dead Redemption or Assassin's Creed because a real game is much better than an interactive movie.

Farlander1991
07-01-2013, 12:32 PM
Not going to touch about the topic of linearity right now, since it's kinda a big question.

However, there are two things that I would like to touch upon from your posts, Sushi.

1. You seem to be limiting social stealth to stalking missions only, which... I think that's kind of a bit flawed line of thought, because social stealth is part of what is (supposedly, at least) the whole main core of the series: target assassination. I know that you really enjoy parkour, so you're most likely approaching your targets from above if possible, rather than from below, but, hey, a lot of people, including me, like to assassinate from within the crowd (well, in missions where it's possible at the least). And social stealth is not restricted to just stalking, it can be a part of almost any land mission type and a viable approach to situation.

2. You propose social stealth to be designed 'by hand' for each mission to be less systemic. Could you explain what you mean, please? Because, as a game designer, what I see is when I imagine what you're saying is, 'design a unique system for each mission requiring social stealth approaches'. Because that's what games are: a set of rules and systems. Regardless of how open-world, free, or linear the game is, it's still a set of rules. And what you say is still designing systems, just a bunch of them. And to me, designing one set of social stealth rules for the whole game is much better (BOTH for developers and players, since they can actually learn to use those rules properly rather than having to constantly re-learn) than a different set of rules for each mission.

PS. Also, it seems that you want Just Cause 2-crazy type of rule manipulation in AC, and... personally, I want Just Cause 2 out of my AC :D Yes, the amount of manipulation with the ruleset is less as a result, but the engagement of the atmosphere is going to be much higher, and I value atmosphere in AC incredibly high.

LoyalACFan
07-02-2013, 02:24 PM
I agree that the side missions needed refining, but I don't think they were ridiculous:

Homestead Missions: These helped convey the type of person Connor is.

Liberation Contracts: In line with the historical setting, it showcased the problems that existed, as well as enabling Connor to help and recruit assassins.

Hunting Club: This was most likely because hunting was a new element in AC III. The club provided more focused hunting missions, rather than killing every animal in sight.

Assassination Contracts: Without these, there wouldn't be a lot of opportunities for assassinations. It is called 'Assassin's Creed', right...?

Crafting; It allowed pouch upgrades, source of income by trading.

Franklin's Inventions: I guess these were only added for the historical content aspect.

Thief's Club: This was ridiculous. ^^' Connor just didn't seem like a thief.

Boston Brawlers: Who doesn't appreciate a good brawl? ^_~

I think the real issue was that they didn't link together as well as they should have with the rest of the game. If you didn't explore or didn't look at the DNA tracker you could miss these. Also, I think if you got rewarded for completing the side missions, they would be enjoyed more. For example in AC II, you find 6 seals, you get Altair's armour! ^_^ That was incentive, right...?

Oh... I just want to add. This is just my opinion... so please don't be offended. If I did offend anyone. I'm so sorry...

No, I'm not offended at all ;) I'm just trying to say that the game lacked focus, and many of these features were poorly done IMO and dragged the overall quality of the game down. The Homestead missions did show what kind of person Connor was, but this should have been incorporated into the main story without making me herd pigs and go on fetch quests.The clubs didn't add any new gameplay at all, and didn't even reward you for completing the challenges. Franklin's inventions and liberation contracts were there for the historical aspect I guess, but the contracts were kind of two-dimensional and the inventions/almanacs didn't even make sense because Connor never even spoke with Franklin. The assassination contracts were just random guys walking around, not real missions; it is called Assassin's Creed, but that means assassination gameplay should be the heart of the game, not an afterthought or interactive cutscenes. And I guess we just disagree about the crafting; I personally didn't think it added anything. To me, it was no more fun than just going to a store to buy stuff, not to mention that it meant you had to wait until the game was 3/4 of the way over to get your second holster.

But to each, their own. I personally thought AC3 was an abandonment of what made AC great, but a lot of other people loved it, and that's cool. I just hope they find a happy medium with AC4 that brings back... y'know... assassinations :p

ladyleonhart
07-02-2013, 04:12 PM
No, I'm not offended at all ;) I'm just trying to say that the game lacked focus, and many of these features were poorly done IMO and dragged the overall quality of the game down. The Homestead missions did show what kind of person Connor was, but this should have been incorporated into the main story without making me herd pigs and go on fetch quests. The clubs didn't add any new gameplay at all, and didn't even reward you for completing the challenges. Franklin's inventions and liberation contracts were there for the historical aspect I guess, but the contracts were kind of two-dimensional and the inventions/almanacs didn't even make sense because Connor never even spoke with Franklin. The assassination contracts were just random guys walking around, not real missions; it is called Assassin's Creed, but that means assassination gameplay should be the heart of the game, not an afterthought or interactive cutscenes. And I guess we just disagree about the crafting; I personally didn't think it added anything. To me, it was no more fun than just going to a store to buy stuff, not to mention that it meant you had to wait until the game was 3/4 of the way over to get your second holster.

But to each, their own. I personally thought AC3 was an abandonment of what made AC great, but a lot of other people loved it, and that's cool. I just hope they find a happy medium with AC4 that brings back... y'know... assassinations :p

So glad you weren't offended. ^_^ I just wanted to say that I did agree with you :) about the side missions:


I think the real issue was that they didn't link together as well as they should have with the rest of the game. If you didn't explore or didn't look at the DNA tracker you could miss these. Also, I think if you got rewarded for completing the side missions, they would be enjoyed more. For example in AC II, you find 6 seals, you get Altair's armour! ^_^ That was incentive, right...?

As for the crafting, yes it was good for pouch upgrades and income, but I would have liked the pouch upgrades earlier too, such as the one for poison dart. Also, I did find the interface annoying. The best part about crafting, excluding the pouch upgrades, was probably when you get the chance to defend your convoys! ^_~

What you said about the assassination contracts...? I agree with you on that too. They were random guys and it said: 'Kill the Templar' ^^' I think we are a more sophisticated audience and deserve better. :) I just meant, without these random so-called "Templar" assassinations, we would have even less. Then, yes, we needed more focused assassinations included in the story as a whole. I think they really only gave us: William Johnson, Thomas Hickey, John Pitcairn, Nicholas Biddle, Benjamin Church, Haytham and Charles Lee. Then there were 7. ^^' Did I miss anyone...? Anyway, I love ACIII, but I can admit it isn't perfect. I enjoyed the main assassinations above and I understand exactly what you mean. We needed more of these, not random Templar guys.

I also do agree about the Almanac pages. I thought that too i.e. Haytham spoke to Franklin, not Connor. o_0;

Overall, I really liked Connor and his story. There were also some very good missions. My favourites including: Fort Wolcott; Ghost Ship; Oak Island; The Rescue; Boston Massacre; Boston Tea Party... and more, of course, but I won't list them all. Anyway, I guess they needed to create more depth in the stuff we talked about; linking things together more and better assassination contracts. Then, I really hope some day we do get a Connor sequel, which corrects these issues and people will appreciate his character much more.

Also, like you said, hopefully ACIV will make everyone happy :) I'm looking forward to the continuation of the "Kenway" saga! xD

LoyalACFan
07-02-2013, 08:58 PM
So glad you weren't offended. ^_^ I just wanted to say that I did agree with you :) about the side missions:



As for the crafting, yes it was good for pouch upgrades and income, but I would have liked the pouch upgrades earlier too, such as the one for poison dart. Also, I did find the interface annoying. The best part about crafting, excluding the pouch upgrades, was probably when you get the chance to defend your convoys! ^_~

What you said about the assassination contracts...? I agree with you on that too. They were random guys and it said: 'Kill the Templar' ^^' I think we are a more sophisticated audience and deserve better. :) I just meant, without these random so-called "Templar" assassinations, we would have even less. Then, yes, we needed more focused assassinations included in the story as a whole. I think they really only gave us: William Johnson, Thomas Hickey, John Pitcairn, Nicholas Biddle, Benjamin Church, Haytham and Charles Lee. Then there were 7. ^^' Did I miss anyone...? Anyway, I love ACIII, but I can admit it isn't perfect. I enjoyed the main assassinations above and I understand exactly what you mean. We needed more of these, not random Templar guys.

I also do agree about the Almanac pages. I thought that too i.e. Haytham spoke to Franklin, not Connor. o_0;

Overall, I really liked Connor and his story. There were also some very good missions. My favourites including: Fort Wolcott; Ghost Ship; Oak Island; The Rescue; Boston Massacre; Boston Tea Party... and more, of course, but I won't list them all. Anyway, I guess they needed to create more depth in the stuff we talked about; linking things together more and better assassination contracts. Then, I really hope some day we do get a Connor sequel, which corrects these issues and people will appreciate his character much more.

Also, like you said, hopefully ACIV will make everyone happy :) I'm looking forward to the continuation of the "Kenway" saga! xD

So good to see that we've found some common ground ;) But my Number 1 problem with AC3 was the lack of good assassination missions; out of the 7 main targets you listed, only two of them were real AC-style assassinations like in AC1 and AC2. Biddle and Hickey were mandatory fight sequences, Haytham and Church were interactive cutscenes, and Lee was a linear chase sequence (though I did like all of their death speeches). If they bring back AC1-style assassinations in AC4, any other complaints I have will be secondary.

Farlander1991
07-02-2013, 09:27 PM
So good to see that we've found some common ground ;) But my Number 1 problem with AC3 was the lack of good assassination missions; out of the 7 main targets you listed, only two of them were real AC-style assassinations like in AC1 and AC2. Biddle and Hickey were mandatory fight sequences, Haytham and Church were interactive cutscenes, and Lee was a linear chase sequence (though I did like all of their death speeches). If they bring back AC1-style assassinations in AC4, any other complaints I have will be secondary.

In defence of Lee and Haytham, though, I don't think they should've been done any other way (concept-wise, that is, the chase could be made more exciting and the boss fight more challenging), because narrative and gameplay blend really well in those situations. Haytham and Connor SHOULD have a direct confrontation (and the fact that we do the final kill in a cutscene shouldn't matter as long as the fight itself is good), a traditional assassination mission doesn't cut there. And Connor and Lee SHOULD have a chase sequence, because the chase really represents well Connor's anger and the fact that he's got nothing else left but to get to that final stretch, that final Templar - the only thing (and goal) in his life that still exists and still matters.

I love AC1 style assassinations, but I think that all assassinations being AC1-style wouldn't be good either (and even AC1 didn't have all assassinations in its traditional style - Talal, Robert-Decoy, Robert-Real, Al-Mualim).

LoyalACFan
07-02-2013, 09:54 PM
In defence of Lee and Haytham, though, I don't think they should've been done any other way (concept-wise, that is, the chase could be made more exciting and the boss fight more challenging), because narrative and gameplay blend really well in those situations. Haytham and Connor SHOULD have a direct confrontation (and the fact that we do the final kill in a cutscene shouldn't matter as long as the fight itself is good), a traditional assassination mission doesn't cut there. And Connor and Lee SHOULD have a chase sequence, because the chase really represents well Connor's anger and the fact that he's got nothing else left but to get to that final stretch, that final Templar - the only thing (and goal) in his life that still exists and still matters.

I love AC1 style assassinations, but I think that all assassinations being AC1-style wouldn't be good either (and even AC1 didn't have all assassinations in its traditional style - Talal, Robert-Decoy, Robert-Real, Al-Mualim).

But the thing is, it isn't good. It's the same lame press-circle-near-objects tactic that's used on every other "challenging" (:rolleyes:) boss. Plus, if you want to hear their back-and-forth dialogue (which is by far the best part of the sequence), you literally have to just stand there and let him attack you for five minutes before hurting him, because every hit makes him skip a line. And I've always hated chasing people in AC, because they apparently feel the need to make every ****** enemy just as much of a parkouring god as the Master Assassin :nonchalance:

But you're right, not every single assassination needs to be open-ended. I quite liked Uberto's death in AC2, because although it was scripted, it was well-done; it was Ezio's first assassination, it needed to be a big, cinematic affair. However, in a game with nine targets (Silas, Braddock, Johnson, Pitcairn, Biddle, Hickey, Church, Haytham, Lee) more than frickin' TWO of them need to be actual assassinations. And the two that we got weren't even that good. Pitcairn's boss fight was clunky and dull if you chose to engage him directly, and you had to approach from the roof to kill Johnson unless you wanted to let all your people die.

Jexx21
07-03-2013, 07:35 PM
I added a lot to my first post while you were responding, it seemed a bit bare-bones.

I still completely disagree. But weirdly, I kind of agree with your overall theory; that they need to remove some stuff and focus on making more important aspects stronger. AC3's main problem IMO was that it tried to do way too much, and as a result, many features (i.e. hunting, clubs, assassination contracts, Franklin's inventions, crafting, Homestead missions, liberation contracts, the list goes on) were completely asinine and the game in general was a muddled, unfocused mess. If they had done away with ALL of those things and focused on delivering a cohesive ASSASSIN experience based on the pillars of the franchise, the game would have been much, much better.

But the absolute LAST thing they should remove is the open world. They (and other developers such as Rockstar and Sucker Punch) have already proven that an open-world game can deliver a solid story without pinning the player down into a scripted story path with no exploration or side content. AC1 and AC2 were both excellent open-world games with cohesive narratives and relevant side content (except maybe the beat-up events, but there are only like 4 of those in the whole game so it's hardly worth whining about; looking at you, M :rolleyes:). AC3 had way too much irrelevant, unnecessary crap on the side and didn't pay enough attention to the pacing and quality of the story. But it's not the fault of the open world.

Well, the Homestead and the Liberation missions weren't necessary, but I think they were a great contribution to the story. The clubs were nice, but I'm thinking of their missions. Challenges were fairly pointless.

Things that were pointless in AC3 are pretty much the things that had nothing story-wise. The challenges, the assassination contracts, the item missions, delivering the letters, and the almanac + Ben Franklin inventions. They all added nothing to the game, and weren't needed. The hunting missions, the frontiersmen missions, and the brawling missions were actually good those, I would of kept those aspects of the clubs.

As for the thieves club.. I doubt Connor would of even joined a club for thieves.

Jexx21
07-03-2013, 07:41 PM
The story missions are super linear. I would like a linear game with less linear missions. Similar structure to say thief where there is a linear sequence of open levels. A ton of the budget/time for AC3 was spent on developing the OW. What if that was spent on the campaign instead? One great half instead of two meh would have been much better!

I just wanna say, I feel like some of the assassinations in AC3 were actually fairly non-linear and followed the AC1 and AC2 format in a way. The Johnson and Pitcairn assassinations are what I'm talking about. They were the best assassinations in the game gameplay wise (maybe because they're the only ones where you can actually "assassinate" them).

(Also, I loved the campaign of AC3, even though a lot of it was linear. I do truly hope that if they do go back to the open-ended Assassinations of AC1 and AC2 in AC4 that it continues in future games.)

LoyalACFan
07-03-2013, 08:09 PM
Well, the Homestead and the Liberation missions weren't necessary, but I think they were a great contribution to the story. The clubs were nice, but I'm thinking of their missions. Challenges were fairly pointless.

Things that were pointless in AC3 are pretty much the things that had nothing story-wise. The challenges, the assassination contracts, the item missions, delivering the letters, and the almanac + Ben Franklin inventions. They all added nothing to the game, and weren't needed. The hunting missions, the frontiersmen missions, and the brawling missions were actually good those, I would of kept those aspects of the clubs.

As for the thieves club.. I doubt Connor would of even joined a club for thieves.

The liberation and homestead missions were great story-wise, which just means that they should have been in the story... There was no need to relegate vital parts of Connor's character development (i.e. becoming an Assassin leader, building a community, and dealing with Achilles' death) to side missions. If they had integrated this stuff into the main story arc, added two to four more sequences (and maybe a few new Templar targets as necessary), and removed all the half-baked side missions you had to do to get this story content, it would have been a vast improvement. We didn't get nearly enough story time with Adult Connor anyway; seven sequences? That's even shorter than Revelations, and without the benefit of already having two games with the character to boot.

Jexx21
07-03-2013, 08:24 PM
So, you're saying that the homestead missions and the liberation contracts should have been part of the story? Hmm..

Personally, I think what should have been done, is that instead of having them be part of the story, they should have been emphasized as being more than just side missions. Like how the seals in AC2 were emphasized the same way main missions were. Sure, they were still side missions, but they were heavily emphasized as being as important as the main missions on your mini-map in the fact that there was always the symbol pointing to where to go for the seal.

I also feel like the clubs should have been done better, and I'm sure you agree. I hate the fact that I was never really invited to any besides the Thieves Club, and I think that if they had actual bases that I could go inside of I would of liked them a lot more.

Everything could of been better, but I still love most of the content... just not the side-missions that had no story content at all.

LoyalACFan
07-03-2013, 10:06 PM
So, you're saying that the homestead missions and the liberation contracts should have been part of the story? Hmm..

Personally, I think what should have been done, is that instead of having them be part of the story, they should have been emphasized as being more than just side missions. Like how the seals in AC2 were emphasized the same way main missions were. Sure, they were still side missions, but they were heavily emphasized as being as important as the main missions on your mini-map in the fact that there was always the symbol pointing to where to go for the seal.

I also feel like the clubs should have been done better, and I'm sure you agree. I hate the fact that I was never really invited to any besides the Thieves Club, and I think that if they had actual bases that I could go inside of I would of liked them a lot more.

Everything could of been better, but I still love most of the content... just not the side-missions that had no story content at all.

Yeah, I agree with most of that. But my main gripe with the Homestead and Liberation missions is that they were really bad missions that had good story content attached to them. I liked all the recruits, but their missions were painfully bland. The liberation contracts were basically just "walk up and stab this guy", and the final targets themselves had ZERO story value. I think it would have been awesome if your recruits had been the Assassin MP avatars and the targets were the Templar MP avatars, but regardless, they needed much better mission strands than what they got.

Homestead missions were similarly uninspired, but they annoyed me even more than the Liberation ones because they nearly made me miss out on one of the most important scenes in Connor's life. I never felt the need to use the crafting or artisans (used the hidden blade and Assassin tomahawk exclusively for the whole game) and I was getting really damn tired of going on fetch quests for tools/silk/whatever, so I just stopped doing them around Sequence 9. Little did I know that the finale was the death of a central character :nonchalance: Up until then it was just "Hey Connor, could you find the time to travel 100 miles out of your way to pick up my stuff and/or give me 1000 bucks to build my new house?"

I dunno, maybe they didn't need to be in the main story. They just needed to be better.

AC2_alex
07-03-2013, 11:20 PM
I think you are asking the wrong question. You mean: What good is a movie if the story sucks? And the answer would be: could still be pretty good.
If you think a game is all about the story...
Sure a good story is good for the game and helps the player connect with it, but a game is all about gameplay because gameplay is the aspect that sets it appart from everything else (such as movies) and is the sole reason why games exist.
This is why games like Uncharted or The Last Of Us are "great" for those who care mostly for the story but, in the end of the day, they are nothing compared to games like Red Dead Redemption or Assassin's Creed because a real game is much better than an interactive movie.

First of all, a movie without story is s h i t. Period.

Secondly, video games aren't all about gameplay. I mean, thats just absurd. If AC didn't have a story that intrigued me, I'd stop playing them after ACB or ACR. A game in this day and age without a good story is empty. That is, of course, with the exception of games like Super Mario Galaxy or Super Smash Bros.

Gi1t
07-04-2013, 12:26 AM
First of all, a movie without story is s h i t. Period.

Secondly, video games aren't all about gameplay. I mean, thats just absurd. If AC didn't have a story that intrigued me, I'd stop playing them after ACB or ACR. A game in this day and age without a good story is empty. That is, of course, with the exception of games like Super Mario Galaxy or Super Smash Bros.

In other words, if it has a story that's important to the action, it had better be good. :)

Jexx21
07-04-2013, 12:32 AM
Yeah, I agree with most of that. But my main gripe with the Homestead and Liberation missions is that they were really bad missions that had good story content attached to them. I liked all the recruits, but their missions were painfully bland. The liberation contracts were basically just "walk up and stab this guy", and the final targets themselves had ZERO story value. I think it would have been awesome if your recruits had been the Assassin MP avatars and the targets were the Templar MP avatars, but regardless, they needed much better mission strands than what they got.

Homestead missions were similarly uninspired, but they annoyed me even more than the Liberation ones because they nearly made me miss out on one of the most important scenes in Connor's life. I never felt the need to use the crafting or artisans (used the hidden blade and Assassin tomahawk exclusively for the whole game) and I was getting really damn tired of going on fetch quests for tools/silk/whatever, so I just stopped doing them around Sequence 9. Little did I know that the finale was the death of a central character :nonchalance: Up until then it was just "Hey Connor, could you find the time to travel 100 miles out of your way to pick up my stuff and/or give me 1000 bucks to build my new house?"

I dunno, maybe they didn't need to be in the main story. They just needed to be better.

I had fun with the homestead missions honestly, they showed a lot of Connor's character and I didn't mind them being fetch quests. I did it mostly to see the stories of the settlers though, rather than to level up my artisans. Aiding in the birth of a child, bringing a couple together, receiving a flag for the homestead... the funeral. It was all amazing. I just wish that Faulkner was part of the Homestead missions, that would of been awesome. He would of been like Achilles, the old man (Faulkner was only 5 years younger than Achilles) that hangs out at the same place all the time and never visits the other people around the Homestead. At the very least, Faulkner should have been at Achilles funeral. Unless he was out with one of the Assassin recruits liberating a colony.