PDA

View Full Version : Do you like full synch objectives?



Rockpixel
10-21-2013, 10:42 AM
Personally, I find them annoying ,especially in AC3 when they constantly tell me I failed one when I'm trying to ignore them and then they add up my total synch score when I just want to move on to the other missions, but I would love to hear your opinions!

adventurewomen
10-21-2013, 10:52 AM
Yeah, I like full synch objectives, I like the added extra challenge. It's rewarding experience when you see that you have completed a Sequence with 100% synch.

Aphex_Tim
10-21-2013, 10:56 AM
I like them if they make sense and don't cramp your playing style. Optional objectives are nice but shouldn't be things like "kill three guards from corner cover" if you want to go through an area without being spotted or killing anyone at all. Or like "kill two guards while chasing Hickey", when Hickey is priority number one since he's about to kill Washington, and there are no guards in your way. You'd have to go out of your way to purposely find and kill two guards before getting Hickey. The big red X of ur-doin-it-wrong you get when failing an objective doesn't help either.

In my opinion, these objectives should be more "open"; less strict, if you know what I mean. Something like "rescue the prisoners" while infiltrating a camp. You could do that anyway you like, without the game forcing a certain playing style upon you that you don't want to use.

SneakierNote
10-21-2013, 11:36 AM
Having not played AC 1, or 2 I cannot give my thoughts on those. I will tell you when I bought AC 3 I was not expecting to like it, I bought it because the cover on the Xbox case looked cool. Anyway now to anwser your question I hate having to get %100 synch on every mission to get a achievement BUT... I want to get ALL 1000 gamer points this time around so I will try for the full synch on everything. I found on AC 3 it was very hard so I said f it. If I can get 1000 gamer points for SC BL I can defiently do it for AC 4 BF. So yeah I will not settle for anything half on my part anymore its all or nothing 4 me. We got 8 days till AC 4 BF, Huzzah! I like most of you have been waiting for this game for a while now it will be cool.

Sn1p3r-28
10-21-2013, 11:40 AM
I...... Shut your Templar mouth!

DisbandedBox359
10-21-2013, 11:50 AM
I must be one of the only ones who like them, even though they can be a pain to complete.

DisbandedBox359
10-21-2013, 11:51 AM
Yeah, I like full synch objectives, I like the added extra challenge. It's rewarding experience when you see that you have completed a Sequence with 100% synch.

Definitely rewarding to not see that red cross haha.

pacmanate
10-21-2013, 11:57 AM
I like them if they arent stupid. AC:B has some good 100% sync objectives.

Farlander1991
10-21-2013, 11:58 AM
I think that outside of objectives that follow the tenets of the Creed (i.e. stay out of sight, don't compromise brotherhood and don't kill innocents) that influence the style of gameplay, no other objectvies should do that. They should be secondary objectives. I.e. 'what' rather than 'how'. Though some challenges are alright too, like timed ones or perfect run ones. I've already mentioned this once already, but, on examples from AC3:

Air Assassinate a Grenadier - BAD! NO TWINKIE!
Prevent Patriot commanders from being executed when you retreat - Good!
Ledge assassinate three people - BAD! NO TWINKIE!
Disable the cannons in the fort - Good!
Don't get off your horse during the mission - BAD! NO TWINKIE!
(and as an example of a challenge thing rather than 'secondary objective' thing) Don't get hit by enemy's fireline shots (like in Bunker Hill, for example) - Good! (mind you, this is not celebrating the fact that you can't get to Pitcairn through the army, just that given the mechanics of the level and the playable area that optional objective is not bad)

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 01:00 PM
I like them if they arent stupid...I agree, although I'm not sure 'stupid' is exactly the word I would use to explain it. Then, I think it is quite fun to figure out how to complete the particular objectives, so I do like them. However, I think some mechanics need to be improved, as well as them making more sense for them to become more popular.Below are two examples from my own experience of playing ACIII:

Public Execution - Main objective to stop Hickey from assassinating Washington.

- Kill enemy militia - 2

Although I managed to fulfil this objective, I found it rather frustrating because it is in slow motion, perhaps because Connor is supposed to be disoriented. However, it felt like that this can only be completed if you time it exactly. o_0; Also, I don't think Connor would care about killing two other people when he is supposed to be preventing an assassination.

Alternate Methods - Gather information about the plans of the British with Haytham.

-Tackle the target from above.

Again, I did complete this, eventually but it was also very frustrating. This objective also seems to depend on exact timing or just luck. The reason being that there was no 'tackle' option when I tried to fulfil this objective, which meant that I had to resort to making Connor jump and hope that he landed on the target. Perhaps, I was doing it wrong, but I am on my third play-through of ACIII. The first two times, I managed to complete this objective without a problem, which makes me think it was luck, as in my latest one I tried it so many times that it became very annoying. -__- So, yes, I like the full-synch objectives but I feel that in some cases they need improving.

pacmanate
10-21-2013, 01:15 PM
I also want to point out that 100% sync missions with "Complete mission in 2 minutes" are complete bollocks. The game basically forces you to rush a mission, I don't like those :|

Farlander1991
10-21-2013, 01:19 PM
I also want to point out that 100% sync missions with "Complete mission in 2 minutes" are complete bollocks. The game basically forces you to rush a mission, I don't like those :|

Partially agree. It's situational, they're good in missions like tomb missions for example, where they make you feel like you're entering a certain flow when parkouring throughout the whole environment, precisely because of the timer. But they don't really fit missions that don't rely on free-running.

Sn1p3r-28
10-21-2013, 01:21 PM
I also want to point out that 100% sync missions with "Complete mission in 2 minutes" are complete bollocks. The game basically forces you to rush a mission, I don't like those :|

I agree, time limits and silly ones like 'Don't touch the ground' I hate.

pacmanate
10-21-2013, 01:23 PM
Partially agree. It's situational, they're good in missions like tomb missions for example, where they make you feel like you're entering a certain flow when parkouring throughout the whole environment, precisely because of the timer. But they don't really fit missions that don't rely on free-running.

Ones in tombs are why I don't like them. I never want to be forced to enter a flow, I like looking at the environments.

Sn1p3r-28
10-21-2013, 01:26 PM
Ones in tombs are why I don't like them. I never want to be forced to enter a flow, I like looking at the environments.

This, and you usually can't get all the secrets (chests, collectibles) in the time limit for full sync, so you have to replay them anyway.

FrankieSatt
10-21-2013, 01:35 PM
No, I do not like them. Most of them make things 1000 times more difficult than need be to finish the mission and most of them have nothing whatsoever to do with finishing the mission, it's just extra crap that isn't needed.

pacmanate
10-21-2013, 01:38 PM
No, I do not like them. Most of them make things 1000 times more difficult than need be to finish the mission and most of them have nothing whatsoever to do with finishing the mission, it's just extra crap that isn't needed.

Well AC3's ones were stupid I agree. AC:B's were fine, so were AC:R's. I think its when they thought they needed 3 optional things where it got stupid and they just dug for things they could annoy us with.

DisbandedBox359
10-21-2013, 01:40 PM
Well AC3's ones were stupid I agree. AC:B's were fine, so were AC:R's. I think its when they thought they needed 3 optional things where it got stupid and they just dug for things they could annoy us with.

Although at least AC3 made it easier with the replay from last checkpoint rather than having to start the memory again.

ACHILLES4713
10-21-2013, 01:41 PM
I hate them with a passion! They serve no purpose in making the games shine either narrative or game-play wise. There just "there" as ridiculous, arbitrary hoops to provide meaningless challenge. The people that like them say they like the challenge. All this shows is that Ubisoft isn't really trying. Challenge should arise from better AI; creative and interesting combat scenarios, making the Assassin not an Uber death-machine and focusing more on stealth, things like that. Plus, the narrative excuse of "synching with your ancestor" is a pretty paper thin one with no real reward other than a meaningless achievement. If they want to use that narrative explanation, than there needs to be some kind of in game reward like with what AC: Brotherhood did with the Christina memories. But they need to be implemented in a way that you would need to do 85-90% of the synch objectives in order to get the rewards. And they need to make sense for the character, and in the context within the situation the character is in.

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 01:48 PM
Regarding objectives with time limits, personally, I feel that some of these do make sense and it all depends on the scenario. For example, if an area is crashing down around or a ship you are on is about to sink, it makes perfect sense that you would need to escape within a time limit, as failing to do so would mean death. Also, I can't actually remember if ACII had full-synch objectives, but in the tombs for example, activating a mechanism meant that you did have to rush to reach a particular point, which did make sense as well. That is, the mechanisms provided the means to gain access to the area, which could not be reached otherwise. Thus, this made it more realistic, as well as the fact that these mechanisms would have been designed to make it difficult for people to access these areas in order to prevent them from stealing what was contained within them.

Farlander1991
10-21-2013, 01:49 PM
Well AC3's ones were stupid I agree. AC:B's were fine, so were AC:R's. I think its when they thought they needed 3 optional things where it got stupid and they just dug for things they could annoy us with.

Huh? AC:B's and AC:R's were fine? They were for the most part exactly the same thing everybody's annoyed with AC3 optional objectives (the difference being is that usually AC3 had more than one).
Kill the target using hidden blade/gun/crossbow/whatever - ACB is chockfull of synchs like that (detested by people in AC3, but in ACB it's normal?)
Use smoke bomb on the overseer before killing him. Use the kick attack on the overseer before killing him (WHY?!)
Do not touch the ground while tailing. Do not swim.
Air assassinate a target, assassinate from a bench, use recruits to assassinate, do not get off horses while assassinating 6 targets.
And many more.

If anything, AC3 continues the trend set by ACB :p

pacmanate
10-21-2013, 01:50 PM
Regarding objectives with time limits, personally, I feel that some of these do make sense and it all depends on the scenario. For example, if an area is crashing down around or a ship you are on is about to sink, it makes perfect sense that you would need to escape within a time limit, as failing to do so would mean death. Also, I can't actually remember if ACII had full-synch objectives, but in the tombs for example, activating a mechanism meant that you did have to rush to reach a particular point, which did make sense as well. That is, the mechanisms provided the means to gain access to the area, which could not be reached otherwise. Thus, this made it more realistic, as well as the fact that these mechanisms would have been designed to make it difficult for people to access these areas in order to prevent them from stealing what was contained within them.

Wells sure, sinking ships, any danager, and missions running to save someone sure. But running through a tomb?

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 01:51 PM
Although at least AC3 made it easier with the replay from last checkpoint rather than having to start the memory again.

Most definitely and I hope that the replay feature always remains. :)

...

Btw... 'Arrow' is on today!! :D

Sushiglutton
10-21-2013, 02:02 PM
Dislike them. If thre was an option to simply turn them off from the start I would. Have several issues: They hamper creativity, they spoil what will happen in the mission, they add an extra level of handholding (Game to the player: "wouldn't it be cool if you did A, B and C?"), they clutter the screen even more with info, many of them make no sense.


Partially agree. It's situational, they're good in missions like tomb missions for example, where they make you feel like you're entering a certain flow when parkouring throughout the whole environment, precisely because of the timer. But they don't really fit missions that don't rely on free-running.

The tombs are some of the most visually striking levels in the games. Herassing the player with a timer to push him through them as fast as possible is pretty dumb imo. Running quickly in AC is not interesting as your options are so limited. Would be better to focus the tombs on a sense of wonder and exploration. Not everything needs a challenge component.

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 02:05 PM
Wells sure, sinking ships, any danager, and missions running to save someone sure. But running through a tomb?

I'm glad you agree. :)

Well, if the tomb is unstable and is collapsing around you or starts flooding, then yes. ;)

Otherwise, maybe not... however, as you said, if it places you in danger it would certainly make sense.

ACHILLES4713
10-21-2013, 02:06 PM
Regarding objectives with time limits, personally, I feel that some of these do make sense and it all depends on the scenario. For example, if an area is crashing down around or a ship you are on is about to sink, it makes perfect sense that you would need to escape within a time limit, as failing to do so would mean death. Also, I can't actually remember if ACII had full-synch objectives, but in the tombs for example, activating a mechanism meant that you did have to rush to reach a particular point, which did make sense as well. That is, the mechanisms provided the means to gain access to the area, which could not be reached otherwise. Thus, this made it more realistic, as well as the fact that these mechanisms would have been designed to make it difficult for people to access these areas in order to prevent them from stealing what was contained within them.

Sure having a countdown is fine to have when you need to hurry a player through a situation, but why do I have to escape in X amount of seconds? What, am I taking a test? :P The whole concept of sych objectives is ludicrous without some kind of narrative reward or perhaps maybe slightly branching scenarios that put the player in a better or worse position when going through the rest of a mission.

What I mean is putting the player in a more favorable position for having done a full synch objective, or be forced to deal with additional obstacles for not having done a given synch objective.

Farlander1991
10-21-2013, 02:12 PM
The tombs are some of the most visually striking levels in the games. Herassing the player with a timer to push him through them as fast as possible is pretty dumb imo. Running quickly in AC is not interesting as your options are so limited. Would be better to focus the tombs on a sense of wonder and exploration. Not everything needs a challenge component.

Again, partially agree. Some tombs are also linear as hell. For example, the first or second tomb from AC:R, where we get Altair's key (in the cave with waterfall and such). It looks amazing, but there's hardly any reason to stay there or explore anything. And the camera uses for the most part pretty wide shots, so you can enjoy the scenery as well as effectively going through the place in a fast way. (The hook-blade with its climb leap and lamp post possibilities provides more gameplay variation than the tombs from previous games, granted). That level has got a timer. And I have nothing against it. But then there are tombs like from Da Vinci's Disappearance, which is totally different in its manner of design and goals, adding a timer to that would be stupid (I actually don't remember if it's got one, but if it does - that's stupid).

Sushiglutton
10-21-2013, 02:26 PM
Again, partially agree. Some tombs are also linear as hell. For example, the first tomb from AC:R, where we get Altair's first key (in the cave with waterfall and such). It looks amazing, but there's hardly any reason to stay there or explore anything. And the camera uses for the most part pretty wide shots, so you can enjoy the scenery as well as effectively going through the place in a fast way. (The hook-blade with its climb leap and lamp post possibilities provides more gameplay variation than the tombs from previous games, granted). That level has got a timer. And I have nothing against it.

Ok I give you that one :). There are several with timers that I thought would be better without them (like the Halls Of Nero for example). This has to do with how I would like the tombs to feel more distinct from the rest of the game. In particular I'm against how frequently there are guards in the various tombs. They take away from the feel that you are discovering some ancient mystery. I would much rather have the tombs as a contrast to the more stressful regular missions. Calm little pockets focused on exploration and spectacular climbs.

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 02:31 PM
Sure having a countdown is fine to have when you need to hurry a player through a situation, but why do I have to escape in X amount of seconds? What, am I taking a test? :P The whole concept of sych objectives is ludicrous without some kind of narrative reward or perhaps maybe slightly branching scenarios that put the player in a better or worse position when going through the rest of a mission.

What I mean is putting the player in a more favorable position for having done a full synch objective, or be forced to deal with additional obstacles for not having done a given synch objective.

It is just my personal preference and I don't believe anyone is wrong if they don't agree with me.

As for escaping in a certain amount of seconds, it really depends on the scenario and some time limits do make sense. A very simple example is when you infiltrate the forts and set the gunpowder alight. If you stand too close you get desynchronized. Then, as I've already mentioned, if it is a life-threatening situation and depending on its extremity, then time limits are plausible. However, I do understand where you are coming from and it depends entirely on the individual, that is, their play-style and what type of games they play.

Anyway, that is a very interesting idea and it could be a middle-ground. Although, won't those who don't like the full-synch objectives at all dislike the prospect of having to deal with extra obstacles just to complete a particular mission...?

DisbandedBox359
10-21-2013, 02:43 PM
Most definitely and I hope that the replay feature always remains. :)

...

Btw... 'Arrow' is on today!! :D

Is it season 2 premiere the night?

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 02:46 PM
Is it season 2 premiere the night?

Yes!! It's the season 2 premiere tonight at 8pm!! :D

DisbandedBox359
10-21-2013, 02:53 PM
Yes!! It's the season 2 premiere tonight at 8pm!! :D

:) Awesome thanks, if I knew it was coming to us this soon I wouldn't have started watching the new ones online haha.

Sky 1 right?

pacmanate
10-21-2013, 02:55 PM
So... this is a TV programme thread now?

DisbandedBox359
10-21-2013, 03:00 PM
So... this is a TV programme thread now?

Apologies for derailing the thread haha.

Bastiaen
10-21-2013, 03:05 PM
I love them. I do think they need a facelift. A mix of AC Full Sync and GTAV Optional objectives would work really well. You don't see the objectives on your first playthrough, but during missions, you're able to restart at a checkpoint if you fail one, plus you know if you fail an objective before the end of the mission, unlike gtav.

ACHILLES4713
10-21-2013, 03:22 PM
It is just my personal preference and I don't believe anyone is wrong if they don't agree with me.

As for escaping in a certain amount of seconds, it really depends on the scenario and some time limits do make sense. A very simple example is when you infiltrate the forts and set the gunpowder alight. If you stand too close you get desynchronized. Then, as I've already mentioned, if it is a life-threatening situation and depending on its extremity, then time limits are plausible. However, I do understand where you are coming from and it depends entirely on the individual, that is, their play-style and what type of games they play.

Anyway, that is a very interesting idea and it could be a middle-ground. Although, won't those who don't like the full-synch objectives at all dislike the prospect of having to deal with extra obstacles just to complete a particular mission...?

Yeah, I don't really know how Ubisoft could please both camps. I just feel that, in its present form, full synch objectives don't really add anything to the franchise. But I could get on board with the concept if there was some kind of "risk vs reward" aspect of the game that affects the experience. Or at least some kind of reward beyond an achievement.
I really liked learning more about Ezio's strained relationship with Christina (made me a little misty-eyed at the last memory!); but at the same time, you could unlock all those memories without really even trying. So that's the thing: it's nice that there was a narrative incentive to do full synch objectives, but if its not much of a barrier to unlocking those memories why have the full synch system? On the other end of the spectrum there was the Truth Video that you could unlock in AC2, but you had to really work at it by solving the glyph puzzles. And for me, I felt my effort was worth it when I saw the video. I'm still waiting for the game where we can dial back the Animus to Adam and Eve's time! :) I feel like if Ubisoft wants to keep full synch, it needs to be justified within the game beyond just and achievement.

phoenix-force411
10-21-2013, 03:30 PM
They're a great implimentation. but ACIII's was just off the hook and it was mostly based on luck of carefulness. But most people rather speed-run if they could. Seriously, I mean, in that Kidd mission with the boat in like the cold where you had to escape from it when it sinks, my foot touched the tip of the water and I failed a full sync objective. WOW! Ubi! You just had to make me fail an easily failed sync objective. Sometimes I wonder if they really did test out their Full-Sync objectives within ACIII. It's great that we can rate our missions in ACIV.

SpiritMuse
10-21-2013, 03:49 PM
I think that outside of objectives that follow the tenets of the Creed (i.e. stay out of sight, don't compromise brotherhood and don't kill innocents) that influence the style of gameplay, no other objectvies should do that. They should be secondary objectives. I.e. 'what' rather than 'how'. Though some challenges are alright too, like timed ones or perfect run ones. I've already mentioned this once already, but, on examples from AC3:

Air Assassinate a Grenadier - BAD! NO TWINKIE!
Prevent Patriot commanders from being executed when you retreat - Good!
Ledge assassinate three people - BAD! NO TWINKIE!
Disable the cannons in the fort - Good!
Don't get off your horse during the mission - BAD! NO TWINKIE!
(and as an example of a challenge thing rather than 'secondary objective' thing) Don't get hit by enemy's fireline shots (like in Bunker Hill, for example) - Good! (mind you, this is not celebrating the fact that you can't get to Pitcairn through the army, just that given the mechanics of the level and the playable area that optional objective is not bad)
This.

Tell me what to do, not how to do it.

LatinaC09
10-21-2013, 03:57 PM
I personally can't stand full sync objectives. Some of them are ok but I haven't fully completed an AC game since AC2 because of full sync. It just bothers me that much.

Toa TAK
10-21-2013, 04:28 PM
Not a big fan, but if done right, it can make a mission more challenging or fun depending on how it's asking you to play a level.

Silent Running5
10-21-2013, 05:18 PM
As I'm playing through the game, I'm not worried about getting full sync, But If I'm still enjoying the game after I'm finished, I'll go back and try for 100 %

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 05:40 PM
:) Awesome thanks, if I knew it was coming to us this soon I wouldn't have started watching the new ones online haha.

Sky 1 right?

You're welcome. :)

Yes, Sky 1. :D


So... this is a TV programme thread now?

I was just trying to be helpful. ;)


Yeah, I don't really know how Ubisoft could please both camps. I just feel that, in its present form, full synch objectives don't really add anything to the franchise. But I could get on board with the concept if there was some kind of "risk vs reward" aspect of the game that affects the experience. Or at least some kind of reward beyond an achievement.
I really liked learning more about Ezio's strained relationship with Christina (made me a little misty-eyed at the last memory!); but at the same time, you could unlock all those memories without really even trying. So that's the thing: it's nice that there was a narrative incentive to do full synch objectives, but if its not much of a barrier to unlocking those memories why have the full synch system? On the other end of the spectrum there was the Truth Video that you could unlock in AC2, but you had to really work at it by solving the glyph puzzles. And for me, I felt my effort was worth it when I saw the video. I'm still waiting for the game where we can dial back the Animus to Adam and Eve's time! :) I feel like if Ubisoft wants to keep full synch, it needs to be justified within the game beyond just and achievement.

An incentive like being to able to unlock extra content would be really nice, but unfortunately I can't help feel that there will still be those who will say that why should the content only be available to those who complete the extra objectives. -__- So, yes, it is very difficult to please everyone.

Lol, some of those glyph puzzles were pretty hard. :P I do agree with you though, and it was great to have a reward for solving them. :) Well, hopefully, we'll find out more about Adam and Eve's role in ACIV.

As for the full-synch objectives, I guess there really needs to be some sort of middle-ground. Perhaps a possible solution could take the form of allowing us to choose to enable or disable them at the beginning of the game. Of course, they still need some improvements.

Will_Lucky
10-21-2013, 08:04 PM
Don't mind them at all, I never go for 100% and its an added challenge for some players. Personally I prefer to go in all guns blazing so tend to avoid them.

STDlyMcStudpants
10-21-2013, 08:11 PM
I'm a trophy hunter..so what do you think? lol
No I don't...
I hate when a game so obviously forces it's stay. The game is already 30-40 hours....
Don't force me to replay the story again for the next week just to get a trophy....
If i didnt care about trophies then i Obv wouldnt mind the 100% sync...but i do and i do lol

STDlyMcStudpants
10-21-2013, 08:19 PM
Regarding objectives with time limits, personally, I feel that some of these do make sense and it all depends on the scenario. For example, if an area is crashing down around or a ship you are on is about to sink, it makes perfect sense that you would need to escape within a time limit, as failing to do so would mean death. Also, I can't actually remember if ACII had full-synch objectives, but in the tombs for example, activating a mechanism meant that you did have to rush to reach a particular point, which did make sense as well. That is, the mechanisms provided the means to gain access to the area, which could not be reached otherwise. Thus, this made it more realistic, as well as the fact that these mechanisms would have been designed to make it difficult for people to access these areas in order to prevent them from stealing what was contained within them.
AC 2 didn't have full sync..it wasnt introduced until AC B...ACB's were for the most part very easy and not intrusive...the only timed missions i recall in any ac game is a TOMB mission and to go to your "scenario" comment..if you were ezio in a freaking tomb that you have never been to before after a treasure (HELLO BOOBY TRAPS!!!!!!) would you frekin rush your way through or take your time looking around and figuring out your way through?
Easy you would take your time..
Timed missions are bs lol

SixKeys
10-21-2013, 08:26 PM
I like full synch when it offers a reasonable challenge and isn't stupid hard. ACB had the best ones so far. AC3 had too many and some of them were simply annoying and didn't make sense from a story perspective. The red "failed" or "you only achieved 50%" text is annoying too, I hope they've gotten rid of that in AC4. If the challenge is something like "kill 3 officers without being detected", that's fine, it adds an extra challenge. But something like "complete the mission with 2 minutes and 21 seconds" or "don't shove anyone during a chase" is simply irritating.

STDlyMcStudpants
10-21-2013, 08:51 PM
I like full synch when it offers a reasonable challenge and isn't stupid hard. ACB had the best ones so far. AC3 had too many and some of them were simply annoying and didn't make sense from a story perspective. The red "failed" or "you only achieved 50%" text is annoying too, I hope they've gotten rid of that in AC4. If the challenge is something like "kill 3 officers without being detected", that's fine, it adds an extra challenge. But something like "complete the mission with 2 minutes and 21 seconds" or "don't shove anyone during a chase" is simply irritating.
how about while on horseback kill 5 messengers with out touching the ground :D

FrankieSatt
10-21-2013, 08:55 PM
how about while on horseback kill 5 messengers with out touching the ground :D

Of all the 100% synchs that one is the WORST. Whoever came up with that one should be demoted and removed from the dev team.

I don't even bother with them nor bother with the achievements because of the 100% synchs

superkootje
10-21-2013, 08:57 PM
I like it when the objectives are fairly easy.
However it bugs the hell out of me when you have 1 or 2 objectives that I just can't complete.
Therefor, No, I don't like the objectives.

Assassin_M
10-21-2013, 08:59 PM
I don't exactly "like" them, but I don't mind if they stay forever honestly...if the game is going to be bat**** easy, then I can at least try myself at a 100% sync...

Also, just because i'm in the mood today, those saying that 100% objectives are hard...go back to your Kiddie games..

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 09:35 PM
AC 2 didn't have full sync..it wasnt introduced until AC B...ACB's were for the most part very easy and not intrusive...the only timed missions i recall in any ac game is a TOMB mission and to go to your "scenario" comment..if you were ezio in a freaking tomb that you have never been to before after a treasure (HELLO BOOBY TRAPS!!!!!!) would you frekin rush your way through or take your time looking around and figuring out your way through?
Easy you would take your time..
Timed missions are bs lol

Lol, thanks for clearing that up even though that wasn't really the point of my post. :P

Also, it was my opinion and a response to someone else's post, and it's completely fine if you don't agree and that's your opinion.

As for your question, I disagree. Then, if the tomb or structure is unstable and is collapsing around you or starts flooding, then you would have no choice but to rush through. Besides, as an Assassin, you are not there for sight-seeing. :P I'm sure they have better things to do and it makes more sense that they would get what they came for and be on their way.

SixKeys
10-21-2013, 10:17 PM
Lol, thanks for clearing that up even though that wasn't really the point of my post. :P

Also, it was my opinion and a response to someone else's post, and it's completely fine if you don't agree and that's your opinion.

As for your question, I disagree. Then, if the tomb or structure is unstable and is collapsing around you or starts flooding, then you would have no choice but to rush through. Besides, as an Assassin, you are not there for sight-seeing. :P I'm sure they have better things to do and it makes more sense that they would get what they came for and be on their way.

The only "tomb" that was collapsing was the one in AC3 where Connor had to retrieve Achilles' old outfit from a cave. I highly doubt a well-maintained cathedral in Renaissance Italy was in danger of suddenly collapsing on Ezio. I find timed missions annoying in such exotic locations because of the historical tourism part. Why would the devs go through the trouble of building an absolutely breathtaking replica of a 15th century landmark and then make the player run through it as fast as humanly possible? I'll never get a better chance to explore the Basilica of San Marco without tons of tourists blocking my view, why would I want to rush through it in a game?

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 10:23 PM
The only "tomb" that was collapsing was the one in AC3 where Connor had to retrieve Achilles' old outfit from a cave. I highly doubt a well-maintained cathedral in Renaissance Italy was in danger of suddenly collapsing on Ezio. I find timed missions annoying in such exotic locations because of the historical tourism part. Why would the devs go through the trouble of building an absolutely breathtaking replica of a 15th century landmark and then make the player run through it as fast as humanly possible? I'll never get a better chance to explore the Basilica of San Marco without tons of tourists blocking my view, why would I want to rush through it in a game?

It was an example. *Sighs* -__-

Also, I was actually referring to the underground "Assassin tombs", not the cathedral (above ground) or any such structure, which are anything but exotic.

ACfan443
10-21-2013, 10:35 PM
Yes, I like them. They not only add challenge to the game but give it longevity. I agree with the comments about specific and intrusive constraints though, not a fan of those.
Also, what's interesting if I remember correctly, is that there were similar poles prior to AC3's release and the results were actually in favour of optional objectives, by quite a large amount as well.

SixKeys
10-21-2013, 10:42 PM
It was an example. *Sighs* -__-

Also, I was actually referring to the underground "Assassin tombs", not the cathedral (above ground) or any such structure, which are anything but exotic.

There aren't a lot of such places in AC, though. Even the catacombs in ACB took you to a grand hall underground, the ACR tombs were in places like Galata Tower and Forum of the Ox which had beautiful interiors, or Vlad the Impaler's tomb which may be on the verge of collapse but still pretty impressive. I'm saying that most timed missions don't make sense because only one or two have ever been in non-exotic locations.

ladyleonhart
10-21-2013, 10:48 PM
There aren't a lot of such places in AC, though. Even the catacombs in ACB took you to a grand hall underground, the ACR tombs were in places like Galata Tower and Forum of the Ox which had beautiful interiors, or Vlad the Impaler's tomb which may be on the verge of collapse but still pretty impressive. I'm saying that most timed missions don't make sense because only one or two have ever been in non-exotic locations.

I do agree with you about places with beautiful and maintained interiors, but I only said that there is a place for timed missions where they make sense. The best example and most plausible being when you are in danger since it does create a sense of urgency.

HiddenKiller612
10-21-2013, 11:31 PM
Some of them were ok... I hated most of them though.

Flutterwhat
10-22-2013, 12:49 AM
I would have loved to turn them off. They seriously broke immersion for me. I do not really care about %100 sync. I don't care about the "extra challenge." i care about immersion and i hated the opjectives...at least the way they were presented anyway. It was annoying and it felt like i was being punished when I missed one.

TheDanteEX
10-22-2013, 12:51 AM
I'd be more content if they were made into optional additional objectives. Such as preventing the executions in AC3. If it doesn't tell you how to do your mission but rather gives you additional objectives to complete, then I'd support that. Rewarding players for playing in such a specific way is a big no-no in an open world game. Even if missions have usually been disconnected from the open world.

LoyalACFan
10-22-2013, 12:54 AM
I like them in concept, but the execution has never been good. Ideally, they're there to offer us a little extra challenge on the side, and as Farlander said, AC3 had a few good ones like saving the Patriots. But in general, they've just made the missions blander and more prescriptive. And as much as we've been told otherwise, the trend looks like it will continue in AC4. We've only seen a handful of them, but they've all been "do the mission precisely this way!" Air Assassinate Julien du Casse, Do Not Be Detected, Air Assassinate an Ocelot, Shoot two Iguanas... eh... I like that they're no longer punishing us with a red X, but truth be told, I'd prefer it if they just ditched the system entirely because it's not really adding anything and it interferes with the "player freedom" they've been touting so much for AC4. I've vowed to ignore them entirely this time.

Oh, and the ever-present Do Not Be Detected one pisses me off. It's the laziest possible way of integrating "optional stealth" I can think of.

Assassin_M
10-22-2013, 12:54 AM
"extra challenge."
loved how you put that between quotations...

Shahkulu101
10-22-2013, 12:59 AM
Optional objectives make me hungry.

Hungry for the blood of those who created them.

Kagurra
10-22-2013, 04:02 AM
I don't like them, even though I did them all because I'm a perfectionist. They really just limit the game. I'm so glad they're A LOT better in AC4, for example something like: "Use stalking zones" instead of "Get 4 kills while enemies are in smoke" or "Kill So and So a certain specific way". I wish they just weren't in the game at all and have the feeling of pure freedom that was in AC1 instead.

But I did read that there aren't anymore "Kill this with that or like this" objectives anymore, so as long as it stays pretty docile, I'll be perfectly happy. Although... in a recent gameplay video I did see those kind of objectives while hunting animals. "Kill Ocelots (or whatever...) with air assassinations." and "Kill iguanas with pistols.". I just hope those don't apply to missions with actual people assassinations.

LoyalACFan
10-22-2013, 04:38 AM
But I did read that there aren't anymore "Kill this with that or like this" objectives anymore.

Except the Julien du Casse assassination we saw told us to air assassinate him :(

LieutenantRex
10-22-2013, 04:57 AM
They're there for re-playability, which I can understand from the devs POV, but I really wish there could be some other way.

pirate1802
10-22-2013, 05:03 AM
I like them IF they make a certain amount of sense, like don't get detected, or restrict killing to a certain number. For a stealthy assassin, these make sense. But most of the time the optional objectives make you the exact opposite of stealthy. Air assassinate a grenadier? Poison a guard and make him dance in the middle of the road? Wtf.

Kagurra
10-22-2013, 05:06 AM
Except the Julien du Casse assassination we saw told us to air assassinate him :(

Ah, that kinda sucks. I didn't actually see that video, I haven't been 100% up to date. Could you link it if you get the chance?

LoyalACFan
10-22-2013, 05:11 AM
Ah, that kinda sucks. I didn't actually see that video, I haven't been 100% up to date. Could you link it if you get the chance?

I kinda think it was an unauthorized video TBH, so I dunno if it's still around. I'll look though.

TheDanteEX
10-22-2013, 05:24 AM
Air assassinate a grenadier?

The worst part of that one was another objective states to stay undetected. So it almost forces you to take out all the other guards on the ship silently and then climb up something to air assassinate the one grenadier that exists. What were they thinking when creating some of these objectives? Total opposite of player freedom.

pacmanate
10-22-2013, 10:34 AM
I hated the Assassinate a Grenadier thing because I didn't know what one was. I don't think the game tells you the name of the archetypes.

plentybeef
10-22-2013, 12:34 PM
Tbh I get most on the first run, I think once did I play AcB and got all extra objectives. Ac3 had only one that was difficult for me. But I feel like it adds more depth for the game. It's like stepping in their mind set, because it supposedly exactly what was done. So it makes me think more critical, or it stirs creative thinking. On a side note I want the brotherhood back, I just started AcB for the umpteenth time and wanted it back. I loved interacting with them like changing the color of their clothes.