PDA

View Full Version : The Fight: Still Too Easy



BATISTABUS
11-18-2013, 05:44 PM
With AC4 came a promise to make the fight more difficult, but I did not find this the case. It wasn't as brainless as something like ACB, but I did find it easier than AC3/AC1. I did not upgrade my weapons or gear a single time, and I never felt the need to either. Did anyone else have this same experience? Did some of you actually find it somewhat difficult?

What suggestions would you have to increase the difficulty of combat in the next game? Here are some ideas I had.

-If you counter in the middle of a kill animation, the kill is canceled. That way, you need to fight people more strategically, as opposed to running in and just countering whenever you need to. Otherwise, you'd just end up in a frenzy of counters.
-More strict counter window.
-Remove the hold counter/parry function.
-Enemies are more likely to attack you simultaneously.
-More enemy archetypes; allowing Brutes to block attacks is nice, but as soon as that happens, you can just spam guard-break until they're on the ground, where you can insta-kill them. Otherwise, you can pretty much kill anyone with basic counters/spamming attack. Guard-break is pretty over-powered in general.
-Rifles kill you in 1 shot, pistols kill you in 2. Make the meat-shield option have a more strict input window. If you grab an enemy too soon, make the marksmen hold fire. You would still be able to kill the person you grabbed, but then you would be left open as punishment. Perhaps you could walk with the meat shield to a point that the marksman cannot hit you? Perhaps there would be some soldiers that would shoot your meat-shield anyway, allowing you a brief moment of surprise to defend against riflemen?

Perhaps implementing all of these would be overkill, but these are just some options I considered.

Landruner
11-18-2013, 06:09 PM
1/ Reducing the counter block/parry attack to a less lethal move in its odd & setting point impacts on the foes only (Ex: foes can be hurt to a harm and still fighting)
Example counter block attack offers you 40% chance of killing your foes this way / 60% of wounding your foes.

2/ Improving AI of the foes (They actually learn you fighting pattern and can block some of you attack .
EDIT: If foes attack at the same time, make sure that player can reflex and parry the attack, and make them potentially lethal later in the game when player has progressed.

3/ Adding some more archetype of foes or better introducing a level mixed of the foes (Player does not know in advance which type of foes he is going to fight)

and Removing ability to get the best weapon in the first quarter of the game and make it progressive.

Just doing these above should resolve the problem of the game(s) being too easier & without making it much harder for casuals, it just will more challenging, but not impossible to beat.

Kulgrim
11-18-2013, 06:20 PM
Not sure I completely agree. I can count on one hand the amount of times I have died in combat in all previous AC games combined, however in 4 I have died A LOT in combat, at least on board ships, still have not died while on land where the combat system seems to be much more responsive. I have noticed on ships your AI partners can and do attack you if you are in their way, they also block your counters, or kill chains if they are in your way, so it might be more bugs causing my deaths rather then an increase in difficulty. I however found AC3 to be the easiest combat in any of them. I know at one point I killed over 300 enemies in one spot and never once found myself in danger, in fact I finally grew bored and simply vanished and ditched the patrols following me.

AdamPearce
11-18-2013, 06:20 PM
AC1 level of challenge.

hamNdoritos
11-18-2013, 06:25 PM
You can't please everyone. Some will find it difficult and some will find it easy (us seasoned AC players). We know how to approach a specific enemy and we know how to manipulate them so we have it easier than most people who is just playing AC3-4 for the first time. In my opinion, they did make the combat harder than it was in AC3.

First you have the gunners/snipers that have amazing vision and accuracy. So if you're in a middle of a combat and a gunner spots you, he shoots you without fail (if you don't have a human shield). Sometimes (i don't know if its a bug or not) the sniper's meter disappears so I don't know when I'm getting shot, which in my opinion added the thrill to it. You get that quick 1 second window to grab a human shield or get shot.

Second, guards now attack you a lot faster than I remembered in AC3. When you're in a middle of combat with another guard and you begin attacking where you're about to initiate a kill animation, a random guard will quickly stab a sword into you, breaking your kill animation. There are times where you can see that coming and you have that quick window again to counter that attacking guard, which means leaving the guard you were attacking to still live. But there are times when I'm on a ship about to kill a guard and some other guard just stabs me. This makes Edward not as invincible as Connor who seemed to have eyes in the back of his head.

But other than that, I feel the combat style is more or less the same as AC3 with less fluidity which makes it a bit harder. There's still the same guards style as AC3: the agiles, the captains, the brutes. And since we played AC3, we know how to approach these guys.

TheArcaneEagle
11-18-2013, 06:37 PM
Look, killing enemies since the new combat system of AC3 and the killstreaks of Brotherhood made it easier to create massacres out of nowhere. My suggestion : Bring back life meters instead of these repetitive hack and slash moves that lead to insta kills and kill streaks. It seems that after 1 hit the enemy completely forgets how to fight and defend them self and therefore just stands like there like a headless chicken.

I believe that going into combat should not reward you with these killstreaks (even though they look visually amazing) that lead to massacres they should provide Edward with a challenge.

- Add a health meter to enemies and they should die when low on life.
- Counters should rarely kill anybody in one hit, only after an enemy has lost the majority of their life. The standard archetype soldier could only be killed after 2 counters each of them being a critical hit.
- At certain points in the life meter, make it so enemies fight more aggressively and unpredictably harder for Edward to counter these enemies.
- Add more enemy archetypes. The agile guards and seekers were removed in AC3. The more archetypes the better the variety.
- There should not be combos to weaken harder enemies. For instance, countering a Jager in AC3 and then disarming them lead to hack and slash gameplay and was easy to master after about 10 minutes. Make them like the Jannasaries in Revelations who were actually good fighters and resisted most of Ezio's attacks and required strategy to kill them.

Those are some suggestions off the top of my head.

OHIC
11-18-2013, 06:47 PM
You could make it more timing-dependent, but ultimately it's pointless.

With the design, you have to make it absolutely clear how and when the player is going to get their posterior handed to them. At the moment, the design says, "You're the pinnacle of everything. You're supernatural. Nothing can harm you." So what's going to happen if they simply make it harder? Lots of customers will have a hissy fit.

Look at the Batman games. Nobody gets upset about the toughness of the predator encounters, because they know they're a physical puzzle, and there's a solution. But lots of people have complained about the Deathstroke boss fight. Many of those declared it impossible, and stopped playing entirely. All they did was make the combat less forgiving of pressing the wrong button at the wrong time, but the fans thought they knew how boss fights worked in these games and they expected to win simply by hitting buttons hard and fast. I think that's a good illustration of the problems in Assassin's Creed. Batman players get confused when they don't feel superhuman in a boss fight, because it's just one man/woman/creature, and they expect him to beat his individual enemies because of the comics, but they're okay with the idea that their hero can lose against a well-armed group. AC fans don't think there's any limit to their heroes' ballet of violence, so there's no point in making it incrementally harder or they'll just hit their limit like those quitters who faced Deathstroke. It needs to be a firm rule that your guy is mortal, and he/she needs to approach a mass conflict like chess.

Landruner
11-18-2013, 06:49 PM
Look, killing enemies since the new combat system of AC3 and the killstreaks of Brotherhood made it easier to create massacres out of nowhere. My suggestion : Bring back life meters instead of these repetitive hack and slash moves that lead to insta kills and kill streaks. It seems that after 1 hit the enemy completely forgets how to fight and defend them self and therefore just stands like there like a headless chicken.

I believe that going into combat should not reward you with these killstreaks (even though they look visually amazing) that lead to massacres they should provide Edward with a challenge.

- Add a health meter to enemies and they should die when low on life.
- Counters should rarely kill anybody in one hit, only after an enemy has lost the majority of their life. The standard archetype soldier could only be killed after 2 counters each of them being a critical hit.
- At certain points in the life meter, make it so enemies fight more aggressively and unpredictably harder for Edward to counter these enemies.
- Add more enemy archetypes. The agile guards and seekers were removed in AC3. The more archetypes the better the variety.
- There should not be combos to weaken harder enemies. For instance, countering a Jager in AC3 and then disarming them lead to hack and slash gameplay and was easy to master after about 10 minutes. Make them like the Jannasaries in Revelations who were actually good fighters and resisted most of Ezio's attacks and required strategy to kill them.

Those are some suggestions off the top of my head.

What you wrote is pretty much what I said above. so we agree! I am not really a partisan on the health bat above the foes, but the same result can be implanted without that bar.
I believe they are 2 types of players since AC3, the ones that want to go on easy rampage and the ones that prefer a combat system more challenging.
Now I do not know which one the Ubisoft is going for? - But that for sure for of us (players) that started playing the series 7 years ago, it will have been some changes in the combat system and its philosophy and some of us may wonder in looking at the 2 last AC entries, if finally, the series is still addressed to us or not (?).

DetroitPlaya
11-18-2013, 07:00 PM
I'm torn. I like tough combat, if it's done in the right way.

When they re-did a lot in Assassin's Creed III, I liked they finally improved the controls - also for combat. However, then there's the Parry system which was completely horrible in III (worst system I have ever experienced), along with the weapon-select which wasn't fine-tuned in my opinion. Assassin's Creed III was difficult because it was poorly implemented, not because the enemies were tougher.

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag - while it's not difficult (especially when you get the gun), I enjoy the combat is FAR more than in III.

So, I would like them to use the system for IV, but try to improve the AI. Some slighty faster, agile, etc. As you have a long reaction time to counter in my opinion. I don't feel the gun is game-breaking even if it makes combat easier, as it does have a significant reload-time, I just hope in the next AC that they stick to that - and don't just make it faster.

So, yeah.. If they actually make the combat tougher in a nice way; improve AI, rely on faster reactiontime, etc.. Sure. If they just break the combat like in III; no.

SenseHomunculus
11-18-2013, 07:03 PM
I actually do like it that you can get in the way of your allies (esp in the boarding ship fights) and vice versa. Better that than swing right through them like they aren't there at all.

I think if you tighten up the timing of the counters/etc it may start to creep into the annoyingly hard category. Dunno, I'd have to playtest to see.

I do agree that rifle hits from the ranged sharpshooters should do more damage than currently, like maybe take 2/3 health with full armor? However, they do not hit you every time, as long as you do a dodge move when their firing meter maxes out. As long as you're paying attention while fighting hand-to-hand enemies, you can make the gunners miss.

Kulgrim
11-18-2013, 07:30 PM
I actually do like it that you can get in the way of your allies (esp in the boarding ship fights) and vice versa. Better that than swing right through them like they aren't there at all.

I think if you tighten up the timing of the counters/etc it may start to creep into the annoyingly hard category. Dunno, I'd have to playtest to see.

I do agree that rifle hits from the ranged sharpshooters should do more damage than currently, like maybe take 2/3 health with full armor? However, they do not hit you every time, as long as you do a dodge move when their firing meter maxes out. As long as you're paying attention while fighting hand-to-hand enemies, you can make the gunners miss.

Those long rifles do remove almost 3/4 or more of your health before you start upgrading, same with the brutes power attack will take Edward to almost no health with one swing, however this is not as noticeable once you start upgrading Edwards armor since it adds 25% more health with each upgrade, meaning when you are done you have effectively doubled his health.

Sturnz0r
11-18-2013, 07:34 PM
when you begin the kill animation, you have to aim the left stick to an open area for attack, like in fifa or nhl how you aim for the net. maybe the regulars and scouts have 3-4 out of 5 spots on their body "open", while brutes and cptns have 1-2 spots out of 5 open

after you counter a captain, he instinctively raises his sword across his body as fast as he can, so you aim the left stick when you press x, otherwise, he parries you, and everyone starts over

but please no slow motion.

This feature would actually give some merit to someone creating a montage of taking a buttload of guards down in 20 seconds

Hans684
11-18-2013, 07:50 PM
1. Make the guards do more damage(except. Brutes)

2. Smaller counter window

3. A guard that you have to counter their counter of your attack(B: Arkham Orgins)

3. More semless, fluid material art(combat). Example: You know how the combat feels broken when you counter and is about to kill one guard when suddenly another attacks and you have to brake the animation and combat just to save your skin? Let's go with more Batman combat with a twist. You counter one guard, then another(or two) comes when you are in the middle of the counter. Instead of switching who to attack the counter becomes a duble/triple counter(not a cutscenes in any way, and 3 counter is max) and if you are forsed to run when a 4 guard attack, just hit the free-running bottun and the chareter will take the fist open window out of the fight without breaking it, if not a 4 guard attacks just enjoy the fight. Also give the a health metter and a attack mark over their heads tha disappear when you hit the counter bottun as a sign but also connects to duble/triple counter if it happens.

4. No more one counter kill guards.

5. A guard that can(only in you have low health) counter kill you and with an awsome animation just for those.

phoenix-force411
11-18-2013, 08:35 PM
The A.I.s in ACIV are unfair given the crappy combat system compared to ACIII's. Ubisoft really needs to implement a fighting system that'll work in small groups and in large crowds since in large crowds that's where you get hit a lot, because of unresponsive controls.

DetroitPlaya
11-18-2013, 09:16 PM
The A.I.s in ACIV are unfair given the crappy combat system compared to ACIII's. Ubisoft really needs to implement a fighting system that'll work in small groups and in large crowds since in large crowds that's where you get hit a lot, because of unresponsive controls.

How can you claim IV's system is crap compared to III? III's was broken as Hell.

phoenix-force411
11-18-2013, 09:19 PM
How can you claim IV's system is crap compared to III? III's was broken as Hell.

Although broken, they weren't as boring as IV's. I actually had more fun in terms of combat with the broken A.I.s

DetroitPlaya
11-18-2013, 09:23 PM
Although broken, they weren't as boring as IV's. I actually had more fun in terms of combat with the broken A.I.s

It was not just the AI, it was also Connor's combat actions. It was a broken mess. I realise it's a subjective thing, but IVs system at least wasn't broken as Hell - it just became very easy to take on a bunch after short time (meaning progress should possibly have limited - as you can get HP upgrades and one of the two best swords before leaving Havana.)

Wolfmeister1010
11-18-2013, 10:33 PM
With AC4 came a promise to make the fight more difficult, but I did not find this the case. It wasn't as brainless as something like ACB, but I did find it easier than AC3/AC1. I did not upgrade my weapons or gear a single time, and I never felt the need to either. Did anyone else have this same experience? Did some of you actually find it somewhat difficult?

What suggestions would you have to increase the difficulty of combat in the next game? Here are some ideas I had.

-If you counter in the middle of a kill animation, the kill is canceled. That way, you need to fight people more strategically, as opposed to running in and just countering whenever you need to. Otherwise, you'd just end up in a frenzy of counters.
-More strict counter window.
-Remove the hold counter/parry function.
-Enemies are more likely to attack you simultaneously.
-More enemy archetypes; allowing Brutes to block attacks is nice, but as soon as that happens, you can just spam guard-break until they're on the ground, where you can insta-kill them. Otherwise, you can pretty much kill anyone with basic counters/spamming attack. Guard-break is pretty over-powered in general.
-Rifles kill you in 1 shot, pistols kill you in 2. Make the meat-shield option have a more strict input window. If you grab an enemy too soon, make the marksmen hold fire. You would still be able to kill the person you grabbed, but then you would be left open as punishment. Perhaps you could walk with the meat shield to a point that the marksman cannot hit you? Perhaps there would be some soldiers that would shoot your meat-shield anyway, allowing you a brief moment of surprise to defend against riflemen?

Perhaps implementing all of these would be overkill, but these are just some options I considered.

Considering that the ONLY changes they made to combat was decreases counter windows and less time to counter, i think you just "think" its easier because you have more experience.

Wolfmeister1010
11-18-2013, 10:35 PM
The A.I.s in ACIV are unfair given the crappy combat system compared to ACIII's. Ubisoft really needs to implement a fighting system that'll work in small groups and in large crowds since in large crowds that's where you get hit a lot, because of unresponsive controls.

WTF? It is the EXACT SAME COMBAT SYSTEM and they only changes they made were 1. Guards attack more rapidly, and 2. Double counters happen less frequently, and 3. Smaller counter windows. JESUS you guys are talking out of your ***. How can it be CRAPPIER when it is literally almost the EXACT same thing?

And unresponsive controls? Hate to break it to ya. But I think you are just bad at combat. Never EVER ran into any problems myself.


What they need to do is make it so that counter kills dont always immediately kill, guards attack more than one swing at a time, make the counter window even shorter, and make it so that most enemies can block attacks. Maybe you need to tap the attack button at a certain rythm in order to break through the opponent's block. IDK

BATISTABUS
11-18-2013, 10:44 PM
WTF? It is the EXACT SAME COMBAT SYSTEM and they only changes they made were 1. Guards attack more rapidly, and 2. Double counters happen less frequently, and 3. Smaller counter windows.
1. Because of the way the counter system works, this just makes you able to clear out enemies faster.
3. I don't think this is true. Unless you're referring to the time during a counter where you choose to disarm, counter, etc., which doesn't really affect anything.

AC3 had a lot more Jagers and other more highly ranking NPCs. The vast majority of enemies in AC4 are grunts (attack, attack, attack or counter) and Brutes (guard break, guard break, attack). So basically, enemies are easier and die faster.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-18-2013, 10:48 PM
I'm going to make this short and sweet.
You aren't trying to master a character - the character is already an ESTABLISHED MASTER ASSASSIN - That's why it only makes sense for the game to feel easier as you progress and not get difficult or STAY difficult.
(ACR was very difficulty until towards the end)
and thats the way it should be.
The moment you view a game as a game and not an experience is the day you stop enjoying video games.

Wolfmeister1010
11-18-2013, 11:08 PM
1. Because of the way the counter system works, this just makes you able to clear out enemies faster.
3. I don't think this is true. Unless you're referring to the time during a counter where you choose to disarm, counter, etc., which doesn't really affect anything.

AC3 had a lot more Jagers and other more highly ranking NPCs. The vast majority of enemies in AC4 are grunts (attack, attack, attack or counter) and Brutes (guard break, guard break, attack). So basically, enemies are easier and die faster.

Well in ACIV the brutes block all regular attacks (unlike AC3) ALL of their attacks are heavy swings that deal massive damage (unlike AC3) (and they throw bombs basically every ten to 15 seconds, unlike AC3 where you would be lucky if they did it once in combat. So right there the brutes are way more difficult than in AC3.

There are the GUNNERS who have a long range of sight, and are on almost every rooftop. They can kill you in just a few shots, unlike AC3, where every bullet you took would take out little more than a small fraction of your health.

Just because you can get through them "faster" because of the shorter counter time does not mean it is easier. What are you trying to do? Drag out the combat for as long as possible?

The Jagers were nothing special. Nothing more than a nuisance at most. Dont try to look me in the eye and tell me that they are difficult to beat.

Dont try to ******** me. There are the same amount of grunts, brutes, and agiles as there were in AC3, the exact same ratio. I have even found GROUPS of agiles, and GROUPS of brutes hanging out in the same spot in ACIV. In fact, there are even more "elite" guards (captains) because they are always there, while the Jagers ONLY appear ONLY if you are at noteriety level 3. So basically you had to go out of your way to make yourself notorious in order to even think about fighting them.

Double counters happened ALL the time, making combat very "press b to murder two enemies at once", and has been put to a fortunate minimum in ACIV. Much of the time in AC3 there would be multiple ones per battle, and many would start at the very beginning of combat! Now you need to go out of your way to trigger one in ACIV. Just because combat is FASTER in ACIV does not mean it is EASIER. It is just as "easy" if not harder as AC3.



But hey, we are all entitled to our opinions,

dxsxhxcx
11-18-2013, 11:42 PM
I'm going to make this short and sweet.
You aren't trying to master a character - the character is already an ESTABLISHED MASTER ASSASSIN - That's why it only makes sense for the game to feel easier as you progress and not get difficult or STAY difficult.
(ACR was very difficulty until towards the end)
and thats the way it should be.
The moment you view a game as a game and not an experience is the day you stop enjoying video games.


(just using one of the ancestors as an example) Altair already is an established master Assassin, the person in the Animus (the player) isn't, so IMO it makes sense for the player to need to learn how to properly CONTROL the Assassin's avatar and use its skills (even already knowing what to do) before slaugher an entire army in a matter of seconds, if I install a software on your computer, show you the tools you have at your disposal and tell you that to do "A" you'll need to use a set of different tools and follow some steps, will you master this process from the beginning or it'll take you a little practice before you do that with your eyes closed? You have everything you need, the tools and the knowledge, this doesn't mean that at first you might be able to create an Assassin's Creed game with the same ease someone that works in the industry for 40 years does...



The moment you view a game as a game and not an experience is the day you stop enjoying video games.

I always saw games as what they are, just games, and this never affected the experience I had with them (making them better or worse)... IMO an entertaining experience is provided mostly by what I judge to be a good story and fun gameplay, I don't have to accept that a game (or its combat system, since this is the subject of the discussion) easy as **** is something super awesome just because that's what it had to offer, that's the same as saying we should've accepted Hitler and his methods/views just because that's what he had to offer...

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2013, 12:51 AM
I always saw games as what they are, just games, and this never affected the experience I had with them (making them better or worse)... IMO an entertaining experience is provided mostly by what I judge to be a good story and fun gameplay, I don't have to accept that a game (or its combat system, since this is the subject of the discussion) easy as **** is something super awesome just because that's what it had to offer, that's the same as saying we should've accepted Hitler and his methods/views just because that's what he had to offer...
How do you know if it doesn't change your experience if you have only known one feeling?
Thats like eating poop flavored ice cream and saying it is the best flavor because it is the only flavor you have tried...

phoenix-force411
11-19-2013, 01:14 AM
WTF? It is the EXACT SAME COMBAT SYSTEM and they only changes they made were 1. Guards attack more rapidly, and 2. Double counters happen less frequently, and 3. Smaller counter windows. JESUS you guys are talking out of your ***. How can it be CRAPPIER when it is literally almost the EXACT same thing?

And unresponsive controls? Hate to break it to ya. But I think you are just bad at combat. Never EVER ran into any problems myself.


What they need to do is make it so that counter kills dont always immediately kill, guards attack more than one swing at a time, make the counter window even shorter, and make it so that most enemies can block attacks. Maybe you need to tap the attack button at a certain rythm in order to break through the opponent's block. IDK

There's just not enough Variety within the combat system, and since ACIV loves to default hidden blade kill everything for me, it's much crappier in my opinion. Disarming is pretty bad since sometimes Edward would just knock the weapon away. The counter prompts appear, but sometimes you just can't do anything about the prompts not allowing you to perform certain actions. In ACIII, it was either the prompts appeared or not, and if they didn't you couldn't counter, but you could parry if you were blocking already.

omniqix
11-19-2013, 01:20 AM
One on one is sometimes easy, but if you get enemies ganged up on you then its very challenging

Wolfmeister1010
11-19-2013, 01:23 AM
There's just not enough Variety within the combat system, and since ACIV loves to default hidden blade kill everything for me, it's much crappier in my opinion. Disarming is pretty bad since sometimes Edward would just knock the weapon away. The counter prompts appear, but sometimes you just can't do anything about the prompts not allowing you to perform certain actions. In ACIII, it was either the prompts appeared or not, and if they didn't you couldn't counter, but you could parry if you were blocking already.

If you want to disarm and use an enemy weapon, its called using your FISTS.

The other part of your argument, well, its called a bug.

I have not had any troubles with what you mentioned.

Landruner
11-19-2013, 01:41 AM
Anyway, I have tried just for the fun of it to fight tons of guards with just bear handed with not weapon at all, and I can still beat 20 to 50 guards in a row in Havana without getting my butt kicked just with Edward bear hands (and I am not better than anyone of you, on that forum) - That should not happen! that any one could almost beat the game without using any weapon and as far as I could recall only AC3 and 4 allows you to do that....

MnemonicSyntax
11-19-2013, 01:44 AM
The moment you view a game as a game and not an experience is the day you stop enjoying video games.

*Round of applause*

So true.

dxsxhxcx
11-19-2013, 02:00 AM
*Round of applause*

So true.

mind to explain what's the difference between the two? What's this game(?) that makes a game something less enjoyable and what's this experience that makes a experience(?) be a better game(?!)?

MnemonicSyntax
11-19-2013, 02:09 AM
mind to explain what's the difference between the two? What's this game that make a game(?) something less enjoyable and what's this experience that makes a experience(?) be a better game(?!)?

It's how you immerse yourself into it. Currently I'm replaying AC4 and I'm not doing anything except main missions, and it's not fun. I'm not immersing myself into it, therefore my experience is different.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2013, 03:15 AM
mind to explain what's the difference between the two? What's this game(?) that makes a game something less enjoyable and what's this experience that makes a experience(?) be a better game(?!)?

I'm a trophy hunter so this game vs experience thing REALLY hits home for me.
I go after the platinum in EVERY game I play.
Some games I play strictly for the game of it (To beat it and get it's trophies) - These games leave a bitter taste in my mouth (Movie games, Darksiders Series, etc.)
Then there are games I play for their experience (To live in that world and see everything there is to see in it) - These games last in my mind and make me sad when I finish them (Assassin's Creed, Skyrim, Flower, Journey, God of War, Uncharted etc.)

So it comes down to are you playing the game to beat it or to live it?

(Of course any game in either list i made can be switched, some play darksiders for the experience and some play god of war just to beat it - was just giving a few quick games and how i view them as I am going into them)

Wolfmeister1010
11-19-2013, 03:19 AM
I'm a trophy hunter so this game vs experience thing REALLY hits home for me.
I go after the platinum in EVERY game I play.
Some games I play strictly for the game of it (To beat it and get it's trophies) - These games leave a bitter taste in my mouth (Movie games, Darksiders Series, etc.)
Then there are games I play for their experience (To live in that world and see everything there is to see in it) - These games last in my mind and make me sad when I finish them (Assassin's Creed, Skyrim, Flower, Journey, God of War, Uncharted etc.)

So it comes down to are you playing the game to beat it or to live it?

It is good to see such compassion. I am like you. Games like AC, halo, Skyrim, and Mass Effect I play over and over again and love every moment of it. I love the feeling they give me of transporting me into a different world!

Then there are games like Beyond Two Souls, Battlefield, Cod, and saints row where no matter how hard I try, I just cannot feel really immerse myself into the game.

xx-pyro
11-19-2013, 03:22 AM
1/ Reducing the counter block/parry attack to a less lethal move in its odd & setting point impacts on the foes only (Ex: foes can be hurt to a harm and still fighting)
Example counter block attack offers you 40% chance of killing your foes this way / 60% of wounding your foes.

2/ Improving AI of the foes (They actually learn you fighting pattern and can block some of you attack .
EDIT: If foes attack at the same time, make sure that player can reflex and parry the attack, and make them potentially lethal later in the game when player has progressed.

3/ Adding some more archetype of foes or better introducing a level mixed of the foes (Player does not know in advance which type of foes he is going to fight)

and Removing ability to get the best weapon in the first quarter of the game and make it progressive.

Just doing these above should resolve the problem of the game(s) being too easier & without making it much harder for casuals, it just will more challenging, but not impossible to beat.

I agree with most of this, simply ways of increasing combat difficulty. Bring back health bars as well, and make it so every successive "chain kill" you attempt has an increased chance of being countered (for a lot of your health) even by regular guards.



AC1 level of challenge.

But AC1 wasn't challenging so that's not an improvement?

BATISTABUS
11-19-2013, 03:24 AM
You aren't trying to master a character - the character is already an ESTABLISHED MASTER ASSASSIN - That's why it only makes sense for the game to feel easier as you progress and not get difficult or STAY difficult.
The moment you view a game as a game and not an experience is the day you stop enjoying video games.
What the hell? How is feeling a sense of accomplishment not an experience? Yes, the character does get stronger and becomes more masterful, but the idea of a story of progress is that challenges become harder, so there is always something new to overcome that requires a larger degree of skill. The moment you stop viewing a game as a game and purely as an experience is the moment when you might as well go watch a movie.


But hey, we are all entitled to our opinions,
Yep, and I still feel AC4 is easier. Regardless, AC3 is too easy as well.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-19-2013, 03:32 AM
What the hell? How is feeling a sense of accomplishment not an experience? Yes, the character does get stronger and becomes more masterful, but the idea of a story of progress is that challenges become harder, so there is always something new to overcome that requires a larger degree of skill. The moment you stop viewing a game as a game and purely as an experience is the moment when you might as well go watch a movie.


id much rather play a movie....
Thats how i like my games....10 (uncharted) -120 (skyrim) hour long movies.
I don't like getting frustrated with a game..idk why so many people enjoy that...
I mean sure, a child - they need some obstacles in their life to overcome
But I'm a 22 year old man, I work 6 days a week..I have to overcome obstacles in my business...I want to RELAX when I play a game -_-

Landruner
11-19-2013, 04:05 AM
I agree with most of this, simply ways of increasing combat difficulty. Bring back health bars as well, and make it so every successive "chain kill" you attempt has an increased chance of being countered (for a lot of your health) even by regular guards.




But AC1 wasn't challenging so that's not an improvement?

I am not too much a partisan of the health bar above the foes, but I am for the system, yes, and I see what you mean by the health bar (With new system made for (next gen) I am sure devs can make in practice something equivalent to the health bar in order to let the player know the state of the foes during the fight)

Also something I wanted to suggest in my list, but I did not because it could have been too RPGish for some people but I believe it could be a bit more realistic and immersive.
For a chain killing or for the counter block/parry makes - When players do those actions the more they do the more the character is affected in its efforts, and it affects on the fatigue/energy of the character in order to prevent the player from accumulating those actions in a row and a short time...In this way players think twice how to manage their attacks, chain kills or counter kills - It could change things and odds as well.
(I am not talking something like a TES, but something like making a counter kill pulls a bit on your energy, and if you attack with a chain kill, well, your energy goes away and the longer you do it the more energy you loose, the character is tired, but still able to fight, but just a bit slower in its moves, and you are still able to fight the time the energy fills up...If a foe attacks and you are able to mange a counter kill, you do less damage because you lost energy doing a chain kill, however; you are able to just wounded the foe, but you energy come back a bit faster - When your character is full of its energy you may manage a perfect and lethal counter kill, or even a double counter kill, but if another one pops right away as you lost a bit of energy you just wound the attacking foe - In Finding the right balance it could be also interesting

SpiritMuse
11-19-2013, 04:07 AM
id much rather play a movie....
Thats how i like my games....10 (uncharted) -120 (skyrim) hour long movies.
I don't like getting frustrated with a game..idk why so many people enjoy that...
I mean sure, a child - they need some obstacles in their life to overcome
But I'm a 22 year old man, I work 6 days a week..I have to overcome obstacles in my business...I want to RELAX when I play a game -_-

This. I don't want my games to be difficult. That just makes them frustrating. I much prefer to play the game and get through it than having to do the same bit over and over again because it's made at hardcore fanboy difficulty. I don't understand how anyone could possibly enjoy that kind of repetitive trial-and-error gameplay.

I found the combat in AC4 plenty difficult. I've never died so much in an AC game. I absolutely HATE the brutes because they're so ridiculously hard to kill, harder even than the captains, because those at least you can counter and stun. What's most annoying is how Edward simply rolls away from them, unlike Connor who would dodge to the side and end up behind them so you could finally get a hit in. Several times I've nearly thrown my controller across the room, and wished for an easy mode.

And no, there is no sense of accomplishment after finally getting through a difficult part. Well, unless you count "GOD, FINALLY! WHY COULDN'T IT JUST HAVE GONE LIKE THAT THE FIRST TIME!" as accomplishment. :)

Gi1t
11-19-2013, 04:13 AM
id much rather play a movie....
Thats how i like my games....10 (uncharted) -120 (skyrim) hour long movies.
I don't like getting frustrated with a game..idk why so many people enjoy that...
I mean sure, a child - they need some obstacles in their life to overcome
But I'm a 22 year old man, I work 6 days a week..I have to overcome obstacles in my business...I want to RELAX when I play a game -_-

That's sort of the dynamic games have to deal with when considering difficulty. -__- As varied and colorful as peoples' reasons are for playing games, they tend to be on opposite sides of the stress spectrum. People either want something intense to engage themselves in or something to relax with. But when it comes to story, people may find themselves on the opposite side of the spectrum. Some want a lot of emotional and intellectual investment and others want to just f******* play. The fact that the two don't always intersect make things even more difficult.

But still, people have been asking for more difficulty since the series began. I'm surprised they haven't taken the task of adding a challenging element to the game more seriously. People have been talking about features that could make it harder for years, and the ability to provide difficulty settings should make it a moot point for people who don't want it. There are plenty of people looking to play a harder AC and a lot of such players are made by experimenting with a higher difficulty in a game and finding they enjoy it a lot more than they thought once they start getting better. In fact, I'd think it would be pretty unusual for someone to just start out loving challenging games. They need to find a game they really like enough to motivate them to kick a** on a harder setting.

Point is, I really don't see a reason why they can't do this, which is why I feel the criticism they get for it is valid. -__-

Landruner
11-19-2013, 04:29 AM
That's sort of the dynamic games have to deal with when considering difficulty. -__- As varied and colorful as peoples' reasons are for playing games, they tend to be on opposite sides of the stress spectrum. People either want something intense to engage themselves in or something to relax with. But when it comes to story, people may find themselves on the opposite side of the spectrum. Some want a lot of emotional and intellectual investment and others want to just f******* play. The fact that the two don't always intersect make things even more difficult.

But still, people have been asking for more difficulty since the series began. I'm surprised they haven't taken the task of adding a challenging element to the game more seriously. People have been talking about features that could make it harder for years, and the ability to provide difficulty settings should make it a moot point for people who don't want it. There are plenty of people looking to play a harder AC and a lot of such players are made by experimenting with a higher difficulty in a game and finding they enjoy it a lot more than they thought once they start getting better. In fact, I'd think it would be pretty unusual for someone to just start out loving challenging games. They need to find a game they really like enough to motivate them to kick a** on a harder setting.

Point is, I really don't see a reason why they can't do this, which is why I feel the criticism they get for it is valid. -__-

I see what you are saying and it is true that a lot of people asked the AC system combat to be a bit harder - I believe that they should make it a bit harder - Not voluntary difficult like a Demon Soul, but something a bit more challenging...Yes!

BATISTABUS
11-19-2013, 06:28 AM
I know Alex Hutchinson says these ruins games, but that's why AC NEEDS an Easy mode and a Normal mode. Some people clearly don't actually want to play a game or be challenged, but want to experience the world and the characters in a more hands-on way than just watching a play-through. Others want to actually accomplish something and develop their in-game skill. Both players can have what they want. Just design the game around a challenging difficulty, and then for the Easy mode, just lower enemy HP, give the protagonist more health, and make enemies less aggressive/alert.

Casual players deserve to enjoy the game as well, but they are holding hardcore gamers (and thus, the overall quality of the game) back.

dxsxhxcx
11-19-2013, 11:38 AM
I wonder what these people who are so afraid of a little challenge think of the level of Batman Arkham's combat system difficulty on its default state? IMO that is a game/franchise that isn't hard but at the same time provides the necessary challenge to not make your playthrough a ride in the park, and it even offers different difficulty levels for those who prefer a greater challenge...

the way I read what many "casuals" (hate this word but I'll use it fill the lack of a better one) write regarding the current state of AC's combat system makes me think that even get hit by an enemy could be of a major annoyance to the them...

STDlyMcStudpants
11-20-2013, 01:19 AM
That's sort of the dynamic games have to deal with when considering difficulty. -__- As varied and colorful as peoples' reasons are for playing games, they tend to be on opposite sides of the stress spectrum. People either want something intense to engage themselves in or something to relax with. But when it comes to story, people may find themselves on the opposite side of the spectrum. Some want a lot of emotional and intellectual investment and others want to just f******* play. The fact that the two don't always intersect make things even more difficult.

But still, people have been asking for more difficulty since the series began. I'm surprised they haven't taken the task of adding a challenging element to the game more seriously. People have been talking about features that could make it harder for years, and the ability to provide difficulty settings should make it a moot point for people who don't want it. There are plenty of people looking to play a harder AC and a lot of such players are made by experimenting with a higher difficulty in a game and finding they enjoy it a lot more than they thought once they start getting better. In fact, I'd think it would be pretty unusual for someone to just start out loving challenging games. They need to find a game they really like enough to motivate them to kick a** on a harder setting.

Point is, I really don't see a reason why they can't do this, which is why I feel the criticism they get for it is valid. -__-

But why does combat have to be the thing we single out as needing to be more difficult?
I LOVE to run around the AC world AFTER I beat the game. It is one of the few games I actually do that, and why?! Because I don't have to worry about dying!
Like in real life - I enjoy walking in parks but wouldn't enjoy walking around compton california. Because im much less likely to get shot at a park! lol
AC has added difficulty in their MISSIONS. There are plenty of missions that take more than one try to get right (IE Leonardo Blue Prints in ACB or 20% of AC3's campaign)
That is the only place difficulty should be looked at NOT ITS COMBAT
This is an OPEN WORLDish GAME. It's supposed to be realistic and realistically a guard shouldnt be any match for a skilled assassin!

STDlyMcStudpants
11-20-2013, 01:25 AM
I mean look at Flower, Journey, The Walking Dead
These games are probably 3 of the easiest games in existence and at the same time are 3 of the highest praised games in existence
Difficulty IS NOT what makes a game.
No one would like any ac game better if it were harder and youre fooling yourself if you think you would.

Gi1t
11-20-2013, 02:26 AM
But why does combat have to be the thing we single out as needing to be more difficult?
I LOVE to run around the AC world AFTER I beat the game. It is one of the few games I actually do that, and why?! Because I don't have to worry about dying!
Like in real life - I enjoy walking in parks but wouldn't enjoy walking around compton california. Because im much less likely to get shot at a park! lol
AC has added difficulty in their MISSIONS. There are plenty of missions that take more than one try to get right (IE Leonardo Blue Prints in ACB or 20% of AC3's campaign)
That is the only place difficulty should be looked at NOT ITS COMBAT
This is an OPEN WORLDish GAME. It's supposed to be realistic and realistically a guard shouldnt be any match for a skilled assassin!

Once again, I think we're just walking on opposite sides of the spectrum where gaming is concerned. :D I like running around open worlds toward the end too partly for the same reason. There's nothing at all unique about AC being like that. Any adventure style game is like that toward the end.
But unlike you, I actually kind of like being able to get kicked around, even die in games precisely because I don't have to die myself. XD I like being able to make mistakes. Learning from them is fun.

But as to why people focus on combat...well the thing is people seem to get even more frustrated with things like puzzles being hard. XD I'd actually love to see harder puzzles too, but so many companies seem to have almost given up on them. So many puzzles these days involve just pressing a button or using a key to unlock a door. XD They're hardly even puzzles. But yeah, no reason why only combat has to be harder.

Now, about combat challenge specifically, I think I can try to explain that and I think what you said about the difficulty AC HAS added will help with that. You see, some of those difficulty factors are exactly the sorts of things some gamers really hate, because the game's saying "you failed" even though they haven't been beaten yet, in a sense. It's saying they didn't do it fast enough or didn't do it the way the game expected them to and that's not how they judge success. I mean if you were to beat someone in a duel to the death in real life, they couldn't say "yeah, I'm dead, but I win anyway because you didn't do it fast enough" XD so a lot of people see that as a disconnect between how they would judge success and how the game judges success and that's as irritating to them as dying over and over is to a player like yourself.

As to why it's fun, the thing is, really good combat is not just fun to win at, but also fun to lose at. Maybe "impressive" is a better word though. When I'm fighting a really great opponent, I find myself being impressed by their skills and their AI etc. I feel like the enemy or enemies I'm dealing with are really fighting me and not just there to make my character look less cool as he's kicking a**. (And to be clear, it's not all about how easily they can kill me, but about how much of a fight they put up. Many really good enemies in games tend to have to hit you a few times at least before they can kill you, because it's never any fun to just instantly lose every time you make a mistake.) But if you feel like you're just choosing how your character kills the enemies, that can start to feel like you're not really engaged in the game anymore. At least, that's how players who like difficulty view a game with combat that's not challenging; it's not stimulating that feeling of being in the fight for them. Peoples' brains work differently. What stimulates a sense of being in a fight for someone won't be enough for some people. It's REALLY fun to feel like you're doing stuff in combat that the game wasn't explicitly designed to do, whether physically or tactically. :D


I mean look at Flower, Journey, The Walking Dead
These games are probably 3 of the easiest games in existence and at the same time are 3 of the highest praised games in existence
Difficulty IS NOT what makes a game.
No one would like any ac game better if it were harder and youre fooling yourself if you think you would.

It's not a PREREQUISITE for a great game, no. Doesn't mean it can't be a lot of fun though. Like I said ,some people's brains read the game interaction differently, so they need to feel like they're doing more to get that sensation. I'm not unfamiliar with games that don't rely on difficulty to be awesome; one of my all time favorites is Prince of Persia. But I would still love to see a sequel to that with more difficulty because I enjoy that too.

No one? Who do you think you're arguing with? Of course we're real. :) Some people would, some people wouldn't care, but my point earlier was simply that it's not hard to simply treat it like an optional feature, like throwing in an option to replay data segments on a 'hard mode' just for the hell of it or something. AC is full of optional content. I for one don't care about multiplayer. Doesn't mean they can't put it in. (I'm not an achievement hunter if you can't tell from that comment. XD) I can see difficulty being a problem if you have to interact with it, but if we're talking a different mode here, I don't see why it matters at all to anyone who doesn't want it.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-20-2013, 04:24 AM
No one? Who do you think you're arguing with? Of course we're real. :) Some people would, some people wouldn't care, but my point earlier was simply that it's not hard to simply treat it like an optional feature, like throwing in an option to replay data segments on a 'hard mode' just for the hell of it or something. AC is full of optional content. I for one don't care about multiplayer. Doesn't mean they can't put it in. (I'm not an achievement hunter if you can't tell from that comment. XD) I can see difficulty being a problem if you have to interact with it, but if we're talking a different mode here, I don't see why it matters at all to anyone who doesn't want it.
You're fooling yourself.
Heres a test.
Play Assassins Creed Revelations again, but heres the thing YOU ARENT ALLOWED REVERSING OR BLOCKING. You cant doge attacks. This will make the game harder.
Then please come back in 2 weeks and tell me how you like the game better than you do now. :)

STDlyMcStudpants
11-20-2013, 04:27 AM
OHH and btw we also have the option to use weaker weapons that take more effort to kill with so use them too....
BASICALLY Im saying you have the option to play a harder version of AC just by what you equip yourself with and tools you allow yourself to use.
I Beat ACR with never upgrading my armor. talk about frustration (it was my first game - i didnt know i could) LOL

Gi1t
11-20-2013, 05:25 AM
You're fooling yourself.
Heres a test.
Play Assassins Creed Revelations again, but heres the thing YOU ARENT ALLOWED REVERSING OR BLOCKING. You cant doge attacks. This will make the game harder.
Then please come back in 2 weeks and tell me how you like the game better than you do now. :)


The reason I enjoy challenge in games is merely a matter of perception. Don't presume to tell me what I'm experiencing. -__- (I'm not calling you deluded or anything for not liking challenging combat. I don't think you're lame or anything for thinking otherwise. I've run into plenty of situations where issues with a game's difficulty parameters hurt the story experience myself.)

As for your suggestion, I've said in the past that I don't believe they can just tack on a few simple rules like that and suddenly make it an amazing challenging experience. That issue has come up several times before. But what you're describing isn't too far off what I really enjoyed doing way back when which is playing AC1 and fighting Templars and other enemies with only my starting stats. The most fun fights I had were duels with Templars with only four bars, etc. I played AC2 and ACB with basic stuff and avoided using tools and stuff to make things stupidly easy. But AC isn't a great game when it comes to combat. The games that provide a really fun challenge come equipped for it. I don't play games on harder difficulties if they don't offer any changes that interest me (if they're just stat boosts for example).

But the point I'm trying to make is that AC does have room to expand its systems in ways that facilitate difficulty, and I think a lot of people here have made some great suggestions for how to do that. I'm not saying that all AC needs is a lame damage boost for the enemies to make it more fun.

EDIT: Also, I notice the part of my comment you responded to was the part that was basically asking "why do you care anyway if I'm having fun with it as long as you don't have to play the game in the same mode?" That's really what I was trying to say there more than anything else.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-20-2013, 08:15 PM
EDIT: Also, I notice the part of my comment you responded to was the part that was basically asking "why do you care anyway if I'm having fun with it as long as you don't have to play the game in the same mode?" That's really what I was trying to say there more than anything else.

The thing is I'm concerned about MY experience and game quality being sacrificed to add a difficulty setting that goes beyond "Targets have more hp". I don't want developers wasting their time adding a difficulty mode, they are scrapped for time as it is having a yearly release schedule...development time should go towards mission design, story, and a clean world..not making hardcore gamers that have to play video games to fill a missing void of accomplishment happy .

Gi1t
11-20-2013, 08:30 PM
The thing is I'm concerned about MY experience and game quality being sacrificed to add a difficulty setting that goes beyond "Targets have more hp". I don't want developers wasting their time adding a difficulty mode, they are scrapped for time as it is having a yearly release schedule...development time should go towards mission design, story, and a clean world..not making hardcore gamers that have to play video games to fill a missing void of accomplishment happy .

That's what I thought it might be. Still they sure add a lot of other things to the games that not everyone wants and some of those take time to make as well. I know difficulty settings, done properly can be a real whopper, but so can things like multiplayer mode or an entire system of naval combat that's really more of a side feature (like in AC3, obviously in AC4 it's a main component).

I guess if the percentage of fans (and fans to be gained) asking for a harder game is really that small, then it's just part of the game's direction, but the devs seem to want to give it a shot, they're just having a lot of problems due to not having them on separate settings. You can't really make a setting everyone agrees on.

(Or they could try a game without an annual deadline... XD)

thekyle0
11-20-2013, 08:31 PM
Your patience is wasted on this one, Gi1t.

STDlyMcStudpants
11-20-2013, 09:09 PM
That's what I thought it might be. Still they sure add a lot of other things to the games that not everyone wants and some of those take time to make as well. I know difficulty settings, done properly can be a real whopper, but so can things like multiplayer mode or an entire system of naval combat that's really more of a side feature (like in AC3, obviously in AC4 it's a main component).

I guess if the percentage of fans (and fans to be gained) asking for a harder game is really that small, then it's just part of the game's direction, but the devs seem to want to give it a shot, they're just having a lot of problems due to not having them on separate settings. You can't really make a setting everyone agrees on.

(Or they could try a game without an annual deadline... XD)

I pray they scrap naval. But I am inlove with AC multiplayer it is hands down my fav that exists lol
I wouldnt care if they throw it in a game as long as it is the very single last priority and that everything else is done first.

mikeyf1999
11-27-2013, 02:42 AM
I just thought of something, if you want a difficulty mode, you could just activate one of the cheats. IF i am correct, there's a cheat that keeps you from regenerating I'd do that until we finally get a difficulty mode