PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed



AssassinHMS
12-19-2013, 08:03 PM
In this forum there are many different views on what AC is. Some say it is any historical game with assassins, others say it is something more. Who is right? What is Assassin’s Creed?
Where can we find the meaning, the concept and the ideas behind AC?
Can any game, as long as it’s named AC (such as AC3) show us the definition of AC or, do we need to go back, to see what first defined AC, in order to understand its concept?

So, let’s take a look at some of the ideas behind AC’s concept:

“Immersion was key, with the team aiming to give you the sense that you were part of a living, breathing city in the Holy Land, and provide the freedom to choose how to carry out your mission to assassinate nine leading Templars. The challenge would lie in blending into the environment, using ‘social stealth’ to become part of the crowd, and in using AltaÔr’s athletic parkour abilities to scale buildings, dodge guards and track down your targets.”
“He remains proud of the game’s potential as a roleplaying simulator - I like the first Assassin’s Creed because it’s the purest one.”
Immersion is the key. Assassin’s Creed is about role-playing, about being in the shoes of an assassin. This is the central concept that Ubisoft thrown into the garbage instead of perfecting or developing it. There is no denying that, each game, was less and less about putting the player in the shoes of an assassin (with a few exceptions). No investigations, more overpowered gameplay, no open ended assassinations (until AC4), less Assassin related quests, less focus on the hidden blade, parkour, stealth (although there was a slight improvement in AC4, it was so small and meaningless that it would be preposterous to claim they actually focused on improving stealth), less control over the assassin, etc. No more does the player have to make choices like an assassin, there is no point in stealth, thinking beforehand isn’t required, there is no need to act like an assassin because the game puts you in the shoes of Hulk. The player doesn’t even investigate (which is a main part of being an assassin).



“Instead of asking players to make flawless individual leaps, Assassin’s Creed asked you to play a bigger game of choosing the best routes, finding your prey and stalking them, and preempting the guards or shaking them off if you’re discovered. It asked you to have the situational awareness of a killer, to walk into a room and quietly scope the exits and entrances, lines of sight and potential choke points.”
Exactly. Now the games don’t ask the player to have the situational awareness of a killer or to, quietly, scope a room (exits entrances, lines of sight, etc.), the games let the player do whatever he wants without consequences.
“Oh, so you don’t want to play as an assassin, you don’t want to take your time to think and analyze a situation? No problem, every option is viable, including not paying attention to the game or just acting foolishly. So, don’t worry about thinking like an Assassin, the game is so unrealistic and the AI is so stupid that, whatever you do, you won’t find any challenge and the last thing you'll have to be worried about is to be forced to think or feel like an Assassin.” This is bad.


When they defined AC, they didn't define any historical game with assassins, they defined the purpose of the concept (put the player in the shoes of an assassin), they defined the gameplay (core mechanics, their meaning and relevance), etc. Take anything from this concept and you wind up with a different game that, while it may have resemblances, it is not Assassin's Creed. Make the combat easy and you won't put the player in the shoes of an assassin which means he won't think or feel like one. Take investigations out and you will obtain the same result, assassins are mostly detectives (which may be hard to remember since AC1 was the only game where we actually investigated and even the investigations themselves were incredibly underdeveloped).
This isn't an opinion, this is Assassin's Creed.


As you can see, AC's concept was hardcore (the player had to think beforehand, to "quietly scope the exits and entrances, lines of sight and potential choke points"). Now, the player isn't asked to do anything but to choose what he wants to do. There is no challenge, no thought, no fear, no tension, no thrill, nothing. Just casual fun.

Do you think AC should remain casual? If so, why? When I am bored or tired and just want to have some mindless fun, I read a book, I play a casual game like Angry Birds. However, I don't demand that AC stays casual, I don't want it to be dubbed down so that it suits my lesser needs. I'm not that selfish. I actually like the franchise and that is why I want to experience it to the fullest, even if that means I can’t play it when I need mindless fun.

Do you think AC's original concept isn't fun?

Do you think AC won't feel fresh if it stays true to its concept?

DinoSteve1
12-19-2013, 08:07 PM
All Assassins Creed is is Assassin v Templers as long as those two is in it, it can be set anywhere, anytime.

AssassinHMS
12-19-2013, 08:19 PM
All Assassins Creed is is Assassin v Templers as long as those two is in it, it can be set anywhere, anytime.

You mean, Ubisoft can call a game AC as long as it has that, but that doesn't respect the AC concept. You can call it AC but it won't feel anything like it. For example, according to what you said, an AC game can be a race game where you are an Assassin (Desmond) racing against a Templar (Vidic). It's still Assassins vs Templars and they're both in it.

adventurewomen
12-19-2013, 08:28 PM
I think the original concept is fun (Assassins vs Templars & the struggle for the Assassin order) because this is what got interested in the AC series. As time goes by it's always in best interest that AC games continue to evolve, but stay true to the foundations the origions of Assassins Creed. In my experience I believe that AC games that have the most immerse experience available.

killzab
12-19-2013, 08:46 PM
I believe by the time ACII was released, if we told people we would have an AC with pirates, they would have just laughed and thought we were crazy.

As to what makes an AC IMO :

- Atmosphere ( being immersed in a beautiful setting, feeling like we've gone back in time)
- An engaging and mysterious plotline, which isn't the case anymore, both in past and present times
- Getting to discover the "truth" behind history with a well thought-out metastory (I used to really dig the explainations behind major history events, religions etc ); Black Flag kinda did it with the Voynich Manuscript and Crystal Skulls but it wasn't enough. Why did they abandon the Adam and Eve part ?
- the feeling of playing a charismatic and badass hero in uniform ( with the iconic white hood etc )
- Parkour

Gameplay's pretty much always been crap, so it never really mattered for me becoming a fan.

I'd like Ubi to grow back some balls and tackle the whole religious aspect the series introduced with Jesus, Adam and Eve, TWCB being the roman and greek gods etc.

aL_____eX
12-19-2013, 09:17 PM
I'd like Ubi to grow back some balls and tackle the whole religious aspect the series introduced with Jesus, Adam and Eve, TWCB being the roman and greek gods etc.
As much as I'd appreciate that and as much as I loved the whole TWCB mystical part of the game AND as much as I wished they will give this a meaning one day, I believe it's too late. Ubisoft changed the direction of the series and dropped this part of it. And that's just bitter for people like me who enjoyed this part of the story (and they expanded it with every release that was related to the Pieces of Eden or TWCB) and who really were into this story!

Hans684
12-19-2013, 09:20 PM
There is no single definition of what is a "true"/"pure" AC, the biggest reason is becouse it is based on history. Not to mention that Patrice changed the concept to fit Renicance, he even wanted a "AC" game in the American Revolution. Keep everything of what you just said above and then take away history. Would it still be "AC"?


Well this series is based on history and historicly the assassin order did end with the Mongolia attack. So beyond that timeline there really is no "assassins" so Ubisoft have a free pass the do what they want.

Do ever wonder why AC1 is as sosial stealth heavy? It becouse at that time the assassin order worked that way, but when the order gott destroyed by the Mongolia attack we can't really say what makes an "assassin" during Renissance, Ottoman Empire, American Revolution or The Golden Age of Piracy can we? No, there is no record of the same order or how they worked in those times becouse it was destroyed long before any of those times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins

Lonnie_Jackson
12-19-2013, 09:26 PM
What I miss most about AC is the mystery and the simplistic nature of the Assassin's vs Templar's. Looking at all the pictures/videos of leaders, popes, TWCB etc. and feeling like I was accomplishing parts of the puzzle of the greater picture. Getting closer to unraveling the true nature of TWCB and their means to save the world was a large part of my enjoyment. Linking Ezio/Altair to Desmond just felt natural and made me become that much more invested in their lives. I hated Desmond at the start and by the end I felt so bad for doing so. That's good story telling!

Now don't get me wrong I love AC IV as a game but it is missing the core element of getting me involved in the lives of the Assassin's and Templars like the previous games have done so well for me. Now that we know quite a lot about the TWCB I hope Ubisoft can find some new and exciting things to get the fans feeling like they are a part of the story than just watching it.

AC IV had the best cast of characters but not enough screen time for me to care like they have with Da Vinci, Mario, Lucy, Shawn, Rebecca, Malik AI-Sayf, the list goes on. These characters will always be remembered in AC, but with the exception of Mary and Anne's (parting glass) I don't see many talking about AC IV support cast in the future.

Now that could just be me. But it also might be the fact that in this game we were solely focused on Edwards life and not the bigger picture of the Assassin's vs Templar's. AC is about the struggle between the two (historically) and most the time world issue's get in the way or are created. This is where I think AC IV lost me in that fact. Sure Edward screws up and we see a little of the conflict between the two, but it felt empty. The story felt personal and did Edward justice in one game but you can't create the Ezio vibe in one game. Just not going to happen.

Overall I wish they could focus on more Assassin's vs Templar's, TWCB, and Juno in future AC games. If they want to focus on the historical side of the game then stay true to the conflict between the two. The conflict between them is simplistic in nature, it's the world and time they live in that is not.

Charles_Phipps
12-19-2013, 09:31 PM
For me, I hope the Templar and Assassins conflict ends.

They're both heroes.

Move on to new villains.

killzab
12-19-2013, 09:34 PM
What I miss most about AC is the mystery and the simplistic nature of the Assassin's vs Templar's. Looking at all the pictures/videos of leaders, popes, TWCB etc. and feeling like I was accomplishing parts of the puzzle of the greater picture. Getting closer to unraveling the true nature of TWCB and their means to save the world was a large part of my enjoyment. Linking Ezio/Altair to Desmond just felt natural and made me become that much more invested in their lives. I hated Desmond at the start and by the end I felt so bad for doing so. That's good story telling!

Now don't get me wrong I love AC IV as a game but it is missing the core element of getting me involved in the lives of the Assassin's and Templars like the previous games have done so well for me. Now that we know quite a lot about the TWCB I hope Ubisoft can find some new and exciting things to get the fans feeling like they are a part of the story than just watching it.

AC IV had the best cast of characters but not enough screen time for me to care like they have with Da Vinci, Mario, Lucy, Shawn, Rebecca, Malik AI-Sayf, the list goes on. These characters will always be remembered in AC, but with the exception of Mary and Anne's (parting glass) I don't see many talking about AC IV support cast in the future.

Now that could just be me. But it also might be the fact that in this game we were solely focused on Edwards life and not the bigger picture of the Assassin's vs Templar's. AC is about the struggle between the two (historically) and most the time world issue's get in the way or are created. This is where I think AC IV lost me in that fact. Sure Edward screws up and we see a little of the conflict between the two, but it felt empty. The story felt personal and did Edward justice in one game but you can't create the Ezio vibe in one game. Just not going to happen.

Overall I wish they could focus on more Assassin's vs Templar's, TWCB, and Juno in future AC games. If they want to focus on the historical side of the game then stay true to the conflict between the two. The conflict between them is simplistic in nature, it's the world and time they live in that is not.

Exactly how I feel :)

aL_____eX
12-19-2013, 09:37 PM
Amen to that. Couldn't say it any better (conditioned by language issues of course :)) Those things which made AC special are mostly gone. No more sci-fi to think about, no more wisdoms that only make sense when you get to see the whole thing getting together.

Lonnie_Jackson
12-19-2013, 09:37 PM
For me, I hope the Templar and Assassins conflict ends.

They're both heroes.

Move on to new villains.

I understand what the Kenway Saga did for us in terms of seeing both sides. However when it comes to the historical part of the game I don't think the Assassin's and Templar's see it that way in a large scale. Sure you can have the story of the two working together in that time, but at the core of even that story there is a conflict within the two. Only in the future setting do I think both ends could really learn from the mistakes and come together.

This isn't saying in a new AC they could join forces for that game on a new enemy, but if they did not go back to the conflict they have with one another the future setting would have a huge plot hole. Cause even in our time they are at each other/

Charles_Phipps
12-19-2013, 09:40 PM
I understand what the Kenway Saga did for us in terms of seeing both sides. However when it comes to the historical part of the game I don't think the Assassin's and Templar's see it that way in a large scale. Sure you can have the story of the two working together in that time, but at the core of even that story there is a conflict within the two. Only in the future setting do I think both ends could really learn from the mistakes and come together.

This isn't saying in a new AC they could join forces for that game on a new enemy, but if they did not go back to the conflict they have with one another the future setting would have a huge plot hole. Cause even in our time they are at each other/

For me, it's worth discussing but I think they've shown Templars as idealistic enough that you can't just go back to treating them as stock villains anymore. So, it's really not the same sort of triumph you felt facing Rodrigo or even your mentor in the original game.

Juno is an obvious new villain for the modern era but I *LOVED* Black Bart because he showed Edward was actually the smart one.

The First Civilization is the real villains.

Have some cryogenically frozen or otherwise nasty First Civilization bad guys show up next.

Hans684
12-19-2013, 09:42 PM
For me, I hope the Templar and Assassins conflict ends.

They're both heroes.

Move on to new villains.

It is a never ending battle, even if all the current templars and assassins was wiped out there would be someone who will rebuild both creed. You can't kill a creed, it will always return and the fight will continue.

Lonnie_Jackson
12-19-2013, 09:43 PM
For me, it's worth discussing but I think they've shown Templars as idealistic enough that you can't just go back to treating them as stock villains anymore. So, it's really not the same sort of triumph you felt facing Rodrigo or even your mentor in the original game.

Juno is an obvious new villain for the modern era but I *LOVED* Black Bart because he showed Edward was actually the smart one.

The First Civilization is the real villains.

Have some cryogenically frozen or otherwise nasty First Civilization bad guys show up next.

This is a true statement. I do think though that this really depends on the time period they chose. Remember Ubisoft is not obligated to keep going forward in time. They could simple turn it back to a time where the conflict still rages on between them.

AssassinHMS
12-19-2013, 09:56 PM
I have a few ideas for those who miss mystery, conspiracies and who want more freedom and interaction with the world.

I’d really like an AC where NPCs are fleshed out. For example, each NPC has a house, a job (unless they’re beggars or something of sorts), a story and something interesting or important to say. For example, the player could follow them and find their daily routines, their secrets, etc.
I think this would be really interesting, especially considering that these people live in a completely different reality (time period and location) from ours.
Missions could be related with them like, you are told that there is a Templar that is trying to lay low and is disguised as a civilian, near your area. By investigating, talking to people who usually know the rumors around the city, by following on clues (like a puddle of blood in an alley that actually belonged to some unlucky fella who found out the Templar’s true identity), etc. the player can find out who the Templar posing as a civilian is. Now, since the NPCs are fleshed out, we could find out that the Templar is, in fact, the apparently honest innkeeper that we talked to and visited so many times. This way the player could really feel a part of the city, of the society and have fun just exploring the world, meddling in private affairs and learning about the different cultures and characteristics of these societies.
Anyway, I really think AC could use something like this, after all, the assassin fights for the people so, might as well get to know them.
What is the point of having so many NPCs around if they don’t feel alive or aren’t actually interesting and fleshed out? Also, this could add some feel to social stealth. No more random faces that appear all the same. Investigating, spying on people’s lives would be much more interesting and the world would feel much more alive since you could interact with any civilian and explore (if you so wish) their lives (that can vary, from simple and plain, to dark and mysterious such as of those that are into cults, radical religious groups, shady affairs etc.). This could also mean more interesting random events or side missions where you can learn about the secrets of the society around you, discover conspiracies and decide whether to join or put a stop to them, etc.

Perhaps this could make AC more interesting and mysterious to those who find recent AC games lacking (myself included).

AssassinHMS
12-19-2013, 10:02 PM
There is no single definition of what is a "true"/"pure" AC, the biggest reason is becouse it is based on history. Not to mention that Patrice changed the concept to fit Renicance, he even wanted a "AC" game in the American Revolution. Keep everything of what you just said above and then take away history. Would it still be "AC"?

Well, Patrice himself said AC1 was the purest and that is the reason why he liked it. Purest means closer to ACís concept, which is far from a simple historical game. Yes, history is the background but it doesnít drive the story and it mainly serves as a connector between fiction and reality. But yeah, the History as background is part of ACís concept as well. For the record, I didnít put all of ACís premises in my post or else it would be way too big to read.


Also, he didnít change the concept to fit Renaissance. He didnít follow the concept in AC2 because, like he said, the players didnít take advantage of the situations and didnít actually explore the game for themselves so he made sure that they would follow the story instead of making their own.

ďThereís a bunch of stories that you can have, but itís all in your head. You have to create your own adventures. Whereas in Assassinís Creed II, we created the adventures for you and youíre following them. For me, the first one is an amazing toy. The second one is the real game with rules and missions and itís really precise.Ē

Although he sweetened reality with his words, you can still understand that he made AC2 scripted and removed a lot of the freedom because many players didnít understand that they could take advantage of that same freedom. Itís as if they need a shepherd, whether it is a mission marker, scripted missions or a ton of cutscenes.
And this is what Ubisoft has kept doing, more and more scripted action where the player is a follower and not the captain (although in AC4 they finally acknowledge the fun of being the one taking the reins, however, it still feels scripted in other ways).

Lonnie_Jackson
12-19-2013, 10:33 PM
I think that the NPC is a good idea for it feeling more lively. The town in AC IV did have some randomness to it but still felt with the majority of the crowd, pretty bland. AC IV is a definite push in the right direction and I love being able to do what I wanted. But like you said being a part of the town, city or village would feel very rewarding if the events were meaningful.

Take for instant if it were in Japan and the bladesmith's daughter was in trouble after doing your Creed duty you now have someone to go to that can upgrade some weapons and also supplies some of your weapons supply, not the whole thing but a little to show gratitude. Now I am just using that as an example, cause I like Japan but this could work in various ways.

Now that Bladesmith might be useless after a certain point or a story plot point but I bet you'll remember him for sometime to come. This is what I mean by action/reward for fulfilling what you are trained to do by the creed in the first place. Morals and the creed have been very missed by me since AC I.

Hans684
12-19-2013, 10:43 PM
Well, Patrice himself said AC1 was the purest and that is the reason why he liked it. Purest means closer to AC’s concept, which is far from a simple historical game. Yes, history is the background but it doesn’t drive the story and it mainly serves as a connector between fiction and reality. But yeah, the History as background is part of AC’s concept as well. For the record, I didn’t put all of AC’s premises in my post or else it would be way too big to read.


Also, he didn’t change the concept to fit Renaissance. He didn’t follow the concept in AC2 because, like he said, the players didn’t take advantage of the situations and didn’t actually explore the game for themselves so he made sure that they would follow the story instead of making their own.

“There’s a bunch of stories that you can have, but it’s all in your head. You have to create your own adventures. Whereas in Assassin’s Creed II, we created the adventures for you and you’re following them. For me, the first one is an amazing toy. The second one is the real game with rules and missions and it’s really precise.”

Although he sweetened reality with his words, you can still understand that he made AC2 scripted and removed a lot of the freedom because many players didn’t understand that they could take advantage of that same freedom. It’s as if they need a shepherd, whether it is a mission marker, scripted missions or a ton of cutscenes.
And this is what Ubisoft has kept doing, more and more scripted action where the player is a follower and not the captain (although in AC4 they finally acknowledge the fun of being the one taking the reins, however, it still feels scripted in other ways).

What someone define as "true"/"pure" is not really clear is it, he isn't the only creator of AC either, making his claim less relevant unless every other creator(s), lead writher(s) ect says the same. Actually AC1 more a historical game than the rest becouse the templars & assassin's existed that time and place, unlike AC2, ACB, ACR, AC3 & AC4BF where it had to be added. AC is far from a simple historical game, had it been historical. We would only have played the assassins when they historically existed.

Have you played any Hitman game? Anyway, the Hitman series is a sosial stealth game and it's sales is low. Had AC only used the "historical Hitman" rute the series would be as rusty as Hitman. I love the Hitman games, but people love mindless action. Stealth games is proof of that becouse of how rear it is and how low the sale numbers are.

SixKeys
12-19-2013, 10:50 PM
ďThereís a bunch of stories that you can have, but itís all in your head. You have to create your own adventures. Whereas in Assassinís Creed II, we created the adventures for you and youíre following them. For me, the first one is an amazing toy. The second one is the real game with rules and missions and itís really precise.Ē

Although he sweetened reality with his words, you can still understand that he made AC2 scripted and removed a lot of the freedom because many players didnít understand that they could take advantage of that same freedom. Itís as if they need a shepherd, whether it is a mission marker, scripted missions or a ton of cutscenes.

The so-called "create-your-own stories" Patrice is saying were in AC1 were in fact nothing more than a bunch of strategically placed guards. That's why a lot of players ignored them: they were just part of the background. Why would I go kill a group of guards that's just standing in front of a tent? What "story" is there to be made of that? "AltaÔr, the silent assassin, decided to start some **** up. He walked over to a random group of guards who had no idea what was coming and slaughtered them all. The end."

What AC2 did was better. They built the story around the missions for you so it made sense for the player to go and interact with these systems. Instead of simply placing a group of guards in a corner somewhere and saying players were too thick to understand that was meant to be a "story", they told the player "Here's a starting scenario we came up with: it's up to you how it ends". It's not shepherding, more like nudging. "Pretend this guy is an evil merchant. Now you have a reason to kill him."

AssassinHMS
12-19-2013, 11:06 PM
The so-called "create-your-own stories" Patrice is saying were in AC1 were in fact nothing more than a bunch of strategically placed guards. That's why a lot of players ignored them: they were just part of the background. Why would I go kill a group of guards that's just standing in front of a tent? What "story" is there to be made of that? "AltaÔr, the silent assassin, decided to start some **** up. He walked over to a random group of guards who had no idea what was coming and slaughtered them all. The end."

What AC2 did was better. They built the story around the missions for you so it made sense for the player to go and interact with these systems. Instead of simply placing a group of guards in a corner somewhere and saying players were too thick to understand that was meant to be a "story", they told the player "Here's a starting scenario we came up with: it's up to you how it ends". It's not shepherding, more like nudging. "Pretend this guy is an evil merchant. Now you have a reason to kill him."

That is what I thought at first and it is also partially true, but it isn't just that. After all, there are strategically placed guards in AC2, as well. However, when he says that it is precise (in AC2 we did exactly what the missions wanted as they were linear and what Ezio actually did according to them) and, when he says we followed the story instead of making our own, he is referring to how we followed the assassin step by step (cutscenes, linearity, scripted action) instead of making our own assassin. In AC1, there were no cutscenes and he said he made Altair to turn his back when other people talked. Because that was "his Altair". Both the story and the gameplay felt more personal as there weren't cutscenes, mission restrictions or scripted action to show you exactly what happened. The gameplay had this sense of freedom where you could approach missions any way you wanted and make Altair respond the way you desired. On the other hand, AC2 had us follow the assassin, follow the story and follow the missions doing precisely what Ezio did or else we desynchronized.

SixKeys
12-19-2013, 11:33 PM
That is what I thought at first and it is also partially true, but it isn't just that. After all, there are strategically placed guards in AC2, as well. However, when he says that it is precise (in AC2 we did exactly what the missions wanted as they were linear and what Ezio actually did according to them) and, when he says we followed the story instead of making our own, he is referring to how we followed the assassin step by step (cutscenes, linearity, scripted action) instead of making our own assassin. In AC1, there were no cutscenes and he said he made Altair to turn his back when other people talked. Because that was "his Altair". Both the story and the gameplay felt more personal as there weren't cutscenes, mission restrictions or scripted action to show you exactly what happened. The gameplay had this sense of freedom where you could approach missions any way you wanted and make Altair respond the way you desired. On the other hand, AC2 had us follow the assassin, follow the story and follow the missions doing precisely what Ezio did or else we desynchronized.

I disagree about AC2 being linear, mainly because I'm thinking more about the assassination contracts instead of main missions, which is what I think Patrice was talking about. The main missions in AC1 are just as linear and story-based, you just have more freedom in how you approach the situation. What I think Patrice was referring to with the systems that players ignored were the ones where you had like a captain on a wooden platform out in the middle of nowhere in Kingdom and twenty other guards watching him. In AC2 they built a story around such set-ups and called them assassination contracts.

I, too, like the fact that in AC1 you were free to change the camera angles and move AltaÔr around during cut scenes, to make the character your own (I always made him pace nervously back and forth during his conversations with Al Mualim in the early scenes, like he was impatient and irritable, and then made him act calmer as the game progressed.) However, I understand why this was changed. Keep in mind that AC1 was one of the launch titles for PS3, coming off of PS2. Devs were experimenting with new technology and putting stuff in the game that was "cute" in its way, but hardly the exciting gameplay feature Patrice makes it out to be.

I do agree in some measure about creating your own stories and I feel AC4 brought some of that back TBH. Instead of creating the character by changing camera angles you create them via the way you approach each situation, which weapons you use, how much you interact with the existing systems etc. The Ezio titles often pushed you into using violence in situations where I wish I didn't have to, AC4 allows you to decide how to play Edward. Do you go around starting fights because you see him as a reckless guy or do you sneak around plantations using only your bare fists because you think he's a good guy at heart? Do you plunder every ship that sails your way or do you only take what's necessary to get by? You can still create your own stories, it's just that the tools have been tweaked.

AssassinHMS
12-20-2013, 12:03 AM
I disagree about AC2 being linear, mainly because I'm thinking more about the assassination contracts instead of main missions, which is what I think Patrice was talking about. The main missions in AC1 are just as linear and story-based, you just have more freedom in how you approach the situation. What I think Patrice was referring to with the systems that players ignored were the ones where you had like a captain on a wooden platform out in the middle of nowhere in Kingdom and twenty other guards watching him. In AC2 they built a story around such set-ups and called them assassination contracts.

I, too, like the fact that in AC1 you were free to change the camera angles and move AltaÔr around during cut scenes, to make the character your own (I always made him pace nervously back and forth during his conversations with Al Mualim in the early scenes, like he was impatient and irritable, and then made him act calmer as the game progressed.) However, I understand why this was changed. Keep in mind that AC1 was one of the launch titles for PS3, coming off of PS2. Devs were experimenting with new technology and putting stuff in the game that was "cute" in its way, but hardly the exciting gameplay feature Patrice makes it out to be.

I do agree in some measure about creating your own stories and I feel AC4 brought some of that back TBH. Instead of creating the character by changing camera angles you create them via the way you approach each situation, which weapons you use, how much you interact with the existing systems etc. The Ezio titles often pushed you into using violence in situations where I wish I didn't have to, AC4 allows you to decide how to play Edward. Do you go around starting fights because you see him as a reckless guy or do you sneak around plantations using only your bare fists because you think he's a good guy at heart? Do you plunder every ship that sails your way or do you only take what's necessary to get by? You can still create your own stories, it's just that the tools have been tweaked.

Yeah, right, if Edward starts fights for no reason, he does so because he is bored, not because he is reckless. He could only be reckless if there was actually some challenge and danger to it, but all there is, is emptiness.
But I agree, after 6 games, Ubisoft finally brought some of the freedom back. Now all that remains, is to bring ACís concept back and improve it.

Anyway, I want to add that AC1 was a lot less intrusive and, therefore, felt much more fluid and open. For example, there were no cutscenes. When we got to the assassination location, when we started an investigation, etc. there was no clip, nothing to take the action from us. Throughout the whole game, we were always in control of Altair. In other games like AC4, the gameplay feels a lot more fragmented, like action/pause/action/pause/cutscene. Every time we finish a mission the action pauses and the same screen appears, throughout the mission there are cutscenes that break the action, when we buy something on a store we donít see Edward actually buying, we only see the menu (unlike games such as Red Dead Redemption). All these things break the action and the immersion. AC1 didnít have this and I think AC should get rid of most cutscenes and leave them only for more important moments in the story.

Lonnie_Jackson
12-20-2013, 12:30 AM
I am a sucker for cutscenes but I feel there needs to be a balance between story driven ones and interactive. That way we get the best of both worlds. Cutscenes to me can show great action with angles we can't get otherwise and emotion we can see in the faces of the characters. But I also would like the interactive scenes were we can move about and get in closer as they talk or walk.

AssassinHMS
12-20-2013, 01:18 AM
I am a sucker for cutscenes but I feel there needs to be a balance between story driven ones and interactive. That way we get the best of both worlds. Cutscenes to me can show great action with angles we can't get otherwise and emotion we can see in the faces of the characters. But I also would like the interactive scenes were we can move about and get in closer as they talk or walk.

Exactly. Cutscenes should be saved for more impactful situations where capturing the different emotions is important but, for the most part of the game, the player should be in control of the action so that the experience feels fluid and immersive.


Anyway, I really think that making more fleshed out NPCs is the way to go. It prevents cities from becoming boring and "dead" and it also pushes immersion to a new level. However, in order for it to work, the game would have to allow a seamless transition between outdoors and indoors, which is actually something I would like. It would open many possibilities too, like assassinating targets inside their own houses or random events and side missions that could start in the streets and end up inside a sinister church or a beautiful cathedral.

itsamea-mario
12-20-2013, 01:33 AM
All Assassins Creed is is Assassin v Templers as long as those two is in it, it can be set anywhere, anytime.

On this i disagree, cast your mind back to AC1, sure it was established that the Templars were the arch enemies of the assassins, but not their ONLY enemies. It came as a surprise to altair when he found out that all his targets had been templars. Back then the assassins seemed like their own group, with their own goals, but recently it seems they are little more than an Anti-Templar organisation.
I do not like this, it degrades them, their enemies are anyone who opposes their ideals of freedom and peace, and sure the Templars make the perfect nemesis, they are two groups that arose, possibly independently, with conflicting ideals, but that shouldn't mean that every single person who believes in freedom should be an assassin, nor every person who believes in control should be a Templar, it irritates me how they have managed to shoehorn every historical group and event into the Assassin Templar war.
Every now and then i'd like us to be fighting someone who isn't even affiliated with the Templars.

roostersrule2
12-20-2013, 01:35 AM
Usually helps to have the name on the cover.

itsamea-mario
12-20-2013, 01:38 AM
Usually helps to have the name on the cover.

Enough heresy for one day i think.

Assassin_M
12-20-2013, 04:12 AM
AC has 3 important element in its core. Ezio, love interest and hearing the creed 3 times...that is all...

AssassinHMS
12-20-2013, 04:22 AM
But seriously, there are two things that AC really needs to focus on: investigations and assassinations.

Assassinations need to actually become memorable, the mission, the environment and the music need to build up tension to the moment you jump onto your target. The act of assassination must require perfection, it must depend on various factors (target awareness, crouch, shadows, timing, etc.) and be more challenging so that there is that huge sense of accomplishment when we stab the target. And the moment the hidden blade penetrates the flesh, there should be some sound and visual effect like a flash and, perhaps while the assassin is retrieving the hidden blade from the falling body, time slows down a bit just to capture the other people’s and guard’s reaction and to emphasize the moment. Of course these effects could be turned off if the player so desires and they should only happen in specific situations when the player really achieves a perfect and flawless assassination.
I mean, AC really needs to make assassinations feel pure, intense and rewarding. After all, AC should be about making the perfect kill, the perfect assassination and not the biggest pile of corpses.

I really like the assassination in this trailer, especially the approach (for a moment there, it seems like Altair crouched).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd6jV67NpdM
(sorry, it seems you can only watch it on youtube)





Usually helps to have the name on the cover.
That it does.

Charles_Phipps
12-20-2013, 04:50 AM
Except, well, I'm all for killing guards or running past them to stab my targets.

;)

pirate1802
12-20-2013, 04:56 AM
Hmm, interesting question. This is how I define an Assassins Creed game:

1. It should take place in the past. (Sorry, but a modern day AC would be, to me not AC, it would be a GTA + Splinter Cell knock off.) This is, imo the defining feature of AC games, something that only it has and very few other games have.

2. It should feature the usual Assassins vs Templars storyline. Its not necessary for me to see that story through the eyes of an Assassin. I could be seeing it through the eyes of a bystander (Edward) or heck, even a Templar. What the Protagonist is doesn't matter (to me) as long as the Creed and its struggles features prominently.

3. It should feature assassinating people. And preferably using social stealth to do it. This should be the core activity of the game. You can put any other layer of naval or any stuff you like, as long as this thing is still there. And a good number of them.

Take away any one of these three things and what you have would be, to me, not AC. You can feature any pirate or scumbag templar but as long as these three conditions are et I'll gladly play it, and consider it an AC game. Thats all.

Assassin_M
12-20-2013, 05:19 AM
Hmm, interesting question. This is how I define an Assassins Creed game:

1. It should take place in the past. (Sorry, but a modern day AC would be, to me not AC, it would be a GTA + Splinter Cell knock off.) This is, imo the defining feature of AC games, something that only it has and very few other games have.

2. It should feature the usual Assassins vs Templars storyline. Its not necessary for me to see that story through the eyes of an Assassin. I could be seeing it through the eyes of a bystander (Edward) or heck, even a Templar. What the Protagonist is doesn't matter (to me) as long as the Creed and its struggles features prominently.

3. It should feature assassinating people. And preferably using social stealth to do it. This should be the core activity of the game. You can put any other layer of naval or any stuff you like, as long as this thing is still there. And a good number of them.

Take away any one of these three things and what you have would be, to me, not AC. You can feature any pirate or scumbag templar but as long as these three conditions are et I'll gladly play it, and consider it an AC game. Thats all.

I see what you did there....I like it

pirate1802
12-20-2013, 05:23 AM
You are back my queen!

Assassin_M
12-20-2013, 05:25 AM
You are back my queen!
I shall bring harmony and roses
Every thread a mod closes
I'll give you rainbows in doses

Shahkulu101
12-20-2013, 05:27 AM
I shall bring harmony and roses
Every thread a mod closes
I'll give you rainbows in doses

I wept.

pirate1802
12-20-2013, 05:30 AM
I slept.

roostersrule2
12-20-2013, 06:15 AM
I crept.

Shahkulu101
12-20-2013, 07:29 AM
This thread is inept.

pirate1802
12-20-2013, 07:33 AM
Probably why I slept.

Shahkulu101
12-20-2013, 07:39 AM
Mario's golden thread should have been kept.

Lonnie_Jackson
12-20-2013, 07:51 AM
I think when it comes down to the game I just want to feel more a part of the Creed when playing. Not saying for every game we have to go back and forth to the bureau, but it would be nice if the support cast and characters were part of the same cause and Creed. In AC III we only had Achilles and in IV Mary /Ah Tabai. Ever since AC II we have seen nothing but a shortage of Assassin's in the games. That is just how I personally feel.

aL_____eX
12-20-2013, 01:13 PM
This thread went sooo off topic on the last page, but fun to read. :o

But I totally agree with what pirate1802 said. As long as these three core elements are in the games, I will enjoy them not matter where they are set at. I hope Ubi is still working to improve things like social stealth and AI so that the gaming experience will be even better in the next ones. I don't play AC for reasons of the challenging gameplay or missions, but I play it because there is a feeling you only get when playing AC games. I played through the series (again) the last few weeks and I have to say, no other game has touched my heart so hard like AC. The stories, the cities, the roaming, the details, history... just perfect. I've become so submissive to Ubisoft! Damn these manipulating templars...

killzab
12-20-2013, 01:56 PM
This thread went sooo off topic on the last page, but fun to read. :o

But I totally agree with what pirate1802 said. As long as these three core elements are in the games, I will enjoy them not matter where they are set at. I hope Ubi is still working to improve things like social stealth and AI so that the gaming experience will be even better in the next ones. I don't play AC for reasons of the challenging gameplay or missions, but I play it because there is a feeling you only get when playing AC games. I played through the series (again) the last few weeks and I have to say, no other game has touched my heart so hard like AC. The stories, the cities, the roaming, the details, history... just perfect. I've become so submissive to Ubisoft! Damn these manipulating templars...

On the contrary, I'm rebellious against what AC is becoming, I'll fight against the templars until the end.

Hans684
12-20-2013, 02:09 PM
On the contrary, I'm rebellious against what AC is becoming, I'll fight against the templars until the end.

It will be a never ending battle with betrayal, mutiny, cruelty and debauchery.

MIA SILENT
12-20-2013, 02:25 PM
It's an Action-Adventure sandbox game with mixtures of stealth, exploration, combat and parkour. It's story driven and rarely deviates from the main plot. It's linear in that respect.

The detailed environments and awesome animations are something I've always loved about AC. Also, great and historical architecture.

AssassinHMS
12-20-2013, 03:18 PM
I agree with, pretty much, all the posters but, the way I see it, there are 3 main aspects that are crucial to the concept and which have been almost completely forgotten:

- Immersion: Like Patrice said, the goal was to make the player take his time to scan the environment, to access the situation and think beforehand. It was asked that the player was careful and methodic to push stealth to the limit or else the player would be detected and forced to outmaneuver guards (escape or shake them up). But this canít be achieved, not only because stealth isnít deep enough (and the AI is bad), but due to the fact that there is no reason to use stealth. Why would I hide or escape from ants? Combat does both stealth and escapeís job. There is no balance in the core mechanics. This has a huge impact on immersion. How can I feel immersed in the world if the game places me above it, above the rules? For example, I want to feel tension when I use stealth, I want to feel thrill when I escape and I want to feel excited when I fight (even against 2 or 3 enemies). This is real immersion, but how can I have fun, feel scared or thrilled if, all Iím doing, is squashing some ants? There needs to be a reason for us to think like an assassin, or else wonít feel like one. Fear is important, challenge is crucial so that we can feel immersed in the experience and not above it, like a God, like Hulk.

- Assassin concept: Ubisoft seems to forget (which is weird since they were the ones who create this) that an assassin is, primarily, a detective. Investigations are fundamental and they need to be delivered properly, not like AC1ís.
These are just some of my ideas for random events and side missions that use investigations as a basis:

While in free-roam, by using shadow/light stealth, the player could approach a random group of NPCs, talking to each other, undetected. Then, if the player so desires, he can stick around and eavesdrop on the conversation. This would trigger a random event where, the NPCs would start talking about possessing a treasure or some valuables hidden inside their house. After completing the eavesdropping, the player could tail that NPC and discover the location of said house. In order to avoid detection, as well as a conflict with an innocent person, the player could break in (by entering through an open window or by pickpocketing the NPC's key. Once inside, the player would find his way to the valuables and steal them. In some cases, among the valuables, there could be a letter that would mention the person who gave those valuables to the NPC and the reasons behind it. It could be, for example, that the NPC was working for a Templar and the valuables were in fact a reward for some job. This would lead to an assassination mission (previously locked) where the objective is to eliminate the Templar threat.

Random NPCs roaming the streets that are in fact Templars or people who work for them (from priests to beggars). Imagine youíre wondering around, just exploring the city, when you notice a priest passing nearby. If you look carefully, you will notice a Templar cross and, if you use eagle vision, he will be marked in golden. By tailing the target through the streets, you will eventually arrive at some church. Inside you follow the priest while using crowds and shadows to remain undetected until he leads you to a secluded place and uses a lever which unveils a hidden passage. After he ďvanishesĒ, you pull the same lever and, as the secret door closes behind you, you start to hear the sound of people whispering. As you delve deeper into what appears to be a tomb, you discover that you are in a Templarís hideout. There you can eavesdrop on the meeting (if you wish), or you can deal with the threat. Those who want to simply walk right in and expose themselves can do so, but will have to face more enemies at once, while those who choose the stealth path, can take down the guards silently, leaving the Templars unprotected. Then, it would only be a matter of interrupting the meeting and make sure none of the Templars escapes.


- Feel: Like others have asked, where is the mystery, the conspiracies, the History behind History? There used to be interesting puzzles that unveiled hidden truths about religion, about the world. There were tombs that gave off that feeling of ďmore than meets the eyeĒ. It felt that there was a whole new city inside the city I thought I knew. There was this sense of conspiracies being plotted inside the walls of beautiful buildings. This whole sense of wonder related to the Assassins and to the city seems to be gone and it is part of what makes Assassinís Creed shine.

DinoSteve1
12-20-2013, 04:23 PM
Hmm, interesting question. This is how I define an Assassins Creed game:

1. It should take place in the past. (Sorry, but a modern day AC would be, to me not AC, it would be a GTA + Splinter Cell knock off.) This is, imo the defining feature of AC games, something that only it has and very few other games have.

2. It should feature the usual Assassins vs Templars storyline. Its not necessary for me to see that story through the eyes of an Assassin. I could be seeing it through the eyes of a bystander (Edward) or heck, even a Templar. What the Protagonist is doesn't matter (to me) as long as the Creed and its struggles features prominently.

3. It should feature assassinating people. And preferably using social stealth to do it. This should be the core activity of the game. You can put any other layer of naval or any stuff you like, as long as this thing is still there. And a good number of them.

Take away any one of these three things and what you have would be, to me, not AC. You can feature any pirate or scumbag templar but as long as these three conditions are et I'll gladly play it, and consider it an AC game. Thats all.

I disagree with your first point but pretty much agree with everything else.

aL_____eX
12-20-2013, 08:25 PM
@AssassinHMS: I like reading the "Assassin concept" point and pretty much agree with it. I also think that investigations should be one of the fundamental things in the game and be brought back. I'd love to have random events which require observations and interacting with your environment. The idea of AC1 was awesome, but they didn't manage to properly handle it. And as I experienced two days ago, Ubi's attempt to bring those missions back in Freedom Cry was a ****** mess. This mission was so bad, it just made me want to demolish some cars in the neighborhood... So if they bring back these missions in one of the next games and they manage to integrate them into the environment so that they seem natural, this would be great. But PLEASE nothing like in Freedom Cry ever again... I don't have an idea yet, but there has to be a way... hope Ubi's creative heads find it

AssassinHMS
12-20-2013, 11:43 PM
@AssassinHMS: I like reading the "Assassin concept" point and pretty much agree with it. I also think that investigations should be one of the fundamental things in the game and be brought back. I'd love to have random events which require observations and interacting with your environment. The idea of AC1 was awesome, but they didn't manage to properly handle it. And as I experienced two days ago, Ubi's attempt to bring those missions back in Freedom Cry was a ****** mess. This mission was so bad, it just made me want to demolish some cars in the neighborhood... So if they bring back these missions in one of the next games and they manage to integrate them into the environment so that they seem natural, this would be great. But PLEASE nothing like in Freedom Cry ever again... I don't have an idea yet, but there has to be a way... hope Ubi's creative heads find it

The way I see it, Ubisoft fails at delivering proper investigations because they donít treat it like a core concept. For example, they make the player to investigate in a few missions (like in AC2 or AC3), but it feels scripted, forced and uninspired. I think investigations should be as present as assassinations (after all, no assassin can assassinate properly without investigating first). Investigations should come naturally and the game should encourage the player to act like a detective by offering interesting, deep, varied and mysterious puzzles that can start with something trivial and lead to something much bigger, like a plot to take over the city.
Anyway, the games should really make the player act like a detective that infiltrates into extravagant parties (disguised as a nobleman), brothels, shady cults, etc. We should roam the streets and find all the clues hidden in the ďfilthĒ that will eventually lead us to the Templars.

I actually had an idea some time ago and, although it is pretty incomplete, it could really improve investigations. Other than the investigations in form of random events and side missions, they could be tied to the main missions:

Letís say that he story is, in a simplistic way, a set of assassination targets that must be carried out. However, all we know is the name of the person to be killed. We donít know the motif, we donít know the location or any details about the target. It is our job to find out. In order to do so, we need to explore the streets as the information is everywhere (on the blood sprayed on the floor of a dark alley, inside peopleís pockets, in brothels, etc. The player must investigate, explore the city, tail suspects, bribe people, spy on citizens, etc. The objective is to follow a trail of blood, corruption and secrets to the person responsible (the target). It is this journey that shows the motifs behind the target's assassination. The longer the player investigates, the more intricate and elaborate the missions become. The missions themselves are much more than eavesdropping, pickpocketing or interrogating and they can be approached any way the player wants. For example, the player found out that there is this person who is an associate of the target and that is said to be a usual costumer of places of ill repute. It is likely that this man knows the location of the assassination target so, the objective is to interrogate him. The player also knows that he lives in a big, well-guarded mansion just outside town. The player can then decide his approach, either he waits for the target to get out of his mansion and follows him to a brothel to interrogate him there or he infiltrates the mansion (which is harder). While the player can use social stealth in the brothel, as he can pass for another costumer, in the mansion he will have to stick to the shadows and bypass the guards.

Anyway, this was just an idea I had. Are the investigations in Freedom Cry that bad?

aL_____eX
12-21-2013, 12:29 AM
Sounds good. :cool: Yeah I don't like them, just another attempt to make it right, but it feels so wrong.

Anyway, has anybody watched this video yet? I died laughing, especially the whistling part and the massive blowpipe is hilarious! :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWPUPKYWbLQ

Lonnie_Jackson
12-21-2013, 09:56 AM
Sounds good. :cool: Yeah I don't like them, just another attempt to make it right, but it feels so wrong.

Anyway, has anybody watched this video yet? I died laughing, especially the whistling part and the massive blowpipe is hilarious! :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWPUPKYWbLQ

LMAO! Thanks for sharing this. I love AC IV as my fav in the series so far though I don't agree with everything in it. However it has made people come up with the best short films and parodies ever!

oliacr
12-21-2013, 02:32 PM
Sounds good. :cool: Yeah I don't like them, just another attempt to make it right, but it feels so wrong.

Anyway, has anybody watched this video yet? I died laughing, especially the whistling part and the massive blowpipe is hilarious! :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWPUPKYWbLQ

:D:D:D:D thanks for sharing omg

yly3
12-21-2013, 07:15 PM
I am glad that the OP brought this up. I was starting to think that the AC 1/2 generation was a dying breed on these forums..
I am going to keep it as short as possible.
I fully agree with the OP. It was all abort immersion and assassin life, history was just a tool of exploring a world.
What AC has truly lost is focus, as simple as that. Ever since Brotherhood it went downhill.

People ever since Brotherhood kept saying "wait until the game is released, then judge".
Well ladies and lads, we are 4..FOUR games out of the AC1/2 era and we can certainly judge at this moment.
It is as clear as the blue sky that AC was meant to be a trilogy. Looking at how they easily threw away, release by release, the concepts of TWWCB, Adam & Eve and the entire philosophy/religion material combined with SciFi says it all.
Clearly right after they saw the succes of AC2 they decided to milk it.

Honestly, when I finished AC 2 with that jaw-dropping ending I honestly thought that we were going to be introduced to a whole new world of those TWCB.
I though the modern day would be 50-50 importance with the history one. The gamep[lay sure it was to be an assasin only, but even from AC1 you could FEEL the modern day and past were kinda meant to be 50-50 oimportance which I found to be the most exciting thing iin AC to be honest, besides the already amazing experience of Altair.


I played AC1 and 2 and loved it.
I played Brotherhood and found it the worst of the series.
Revelations also was a slightly improved Brotherhood but nothing more.
AC3 was my last hope, after how they treated Desmond and TWCB at the end of the game I finally quit.
After seeing how they treated their ...wtf man..their entire work for the past 6 years, they lost and credibility for me regardless of what they anolunce or say.


Right now the only way I am keepiing contact with the series is by the books. It's the best way since it provides better depth to the story and you don't lose a thing, most of the time it's even better than in the games.
I do check the forums every once every few months but the series is dead for me.

Perk89
12-21-2013, 07:24 PM
This is what AC originally was, but it was a terrible and boring game that would have never survived. So, praise God, they improved it so it would be fun and viable to play, though a lot of your nonsense about the game not requiring forethought and careful approaches is just that however, OP, nonsense.

pirate1802
12-23-2013, 08:30 PM
I think when it comes down to the game I just want to feel more a part of the Creed when playing. Not saying for every game we have to go back and forth to the bureau, but it would be nice if the support cast and characters were part of the same cause and Creed. In AC III we only had Achilles and in IV Mary /Ah Tabai. Ever since AC II we have seen nothing but a shortage of Assassin's in the games. That is just how I personally feel.

Au contraire, I think for the first time since AC1 the Assassins actually feel like.. you know, assassins. And like a motley gang in thieves, mercenarios and *****s calling themselves assassins.. I liked it. Wandering around Tulum and watching those hooded men and women walking about gave me a very Masayf feeling. (although I'd admit the oversizsed hoods on some of the females looked ridiculous.)


I disagree with your first point but pretty much agree with everything else.

The first is just a personal thing anyway. When I think AC, I think of a time long gone. Its why I started playing the series in the first place. The history is what attracted me.

FlamingMoh
12-23-2013, 11:17 PM
Aren't concepts subject to change? Besides, Assassin's Creed was always a team effort. Patrice may have birthed AC, but he was nothing without his team.

MIA SILENT
12-24-2013, 01:02 AM
Aren't concepts subject to change? Besides, Assassin's Creed was always a team effort. Patrice may have birthed AC, but he was nothing without his team.

Still, I think he wanted the series to go in another direction. I'd be interested to see what the games would be like now if he still had creative control.

AssassinHMS
12-24-2013, 01:30 PM
AC1 was released, it was the original AC game, it was true to the concept (pretty much) and it conveyed the real essence of AC (the mystery, the conspiracies, having History as background, putting the players in the shoes of the assassin). However, due to difficulties, the game was underdeveloped in many areas and it was, in many ways, inferior to some initial demos and to what, the team, had initially planned.

AC1 was well received but many consumers complained about the repetitive investigations, the slow pace and the lack of side activities. On the other hand, the game was praised by its huge and detailed open world, by exploring History and by the satisfying combat system.

This explains what happened to AC. AC2 was a direct response to AC1. Repetitive investigations? No more investigations then (didn’t even try to develop them). Lack of side activities? Here’s a ton of varied side missions. Like History? Then History is what will drive the series and the assassin part will just have to adapt (to the story and to the gameplay). Enjoy the open world? Well, let’s make it bigger and bigger every instalment because we know that quantity is what matters. Like easy combat? Then we’ll make it even easier and more gruesome. Well, it seems people didn’t like to be in the shoes of an assassin…let’s make them follow the cool life of this supercool guy who performs action stunts, who is a one man army, doesn’t plan missions, etc. Yeah, people like Hollywood action movies, let’s turn AC into one. Oh, by the way, do you people like Uncharted?

And every new instalment, Ubisoft followed this pattern and kept listening to the casual consumer instead of listening to the franchise or to the people who actually care about it.
And this is how AC became an open world historical game with generic violence and rotten pillars, plus naval. Now Assassin’s Creed is the background and the casual fun and cheap violence are what drives the franchise.
The pillars are a mess and the spark of AC isn’t there because Ubisoft took AC from the franchise and replaced it with the casualness that the masses praise.
This shows that AC can’t be causal because the concept of AC isn’t. But I guess many of the so-called fans prefer their yearly dose of cheap violence and mindless action instead of seeing the actual Assassin’s Creed. And Ubisoft is more than happy to give them that and keep the concept in the toilet.

By now, AC could be a revolutionary franchise with both amazing stealth and navigation, a game that pushes immersion and asks the player to access the situation, to think, to plan and to act like an assassin. History would still be the background and the experience would be filled with mystery, thrill and purpose.



Aren't concepts subject to change? Besides, Assassin's Creed was always a team effort. Patrice may have birthed AC, but he was nothing without his team.
Yes changed, not partially or completely erased. And we’re not talking about any random concept, this is the core concept, this is what defines AC. You can adapt this concept but adulterate it and you lose AC’s identity.



This is what AC originally was, but it was a terrible and boring game that would have never survived. So, praise God, they improved it so it would be fun and viable to play, though a lot of your nonsense about the game not requiring forethought and careful approaches is just that however, OP, nonsense.
The game may have been somewhat boring, but it is stupid to blame the concept for that. The boredom is a consequence of bad development. A great premise can look like **** if it is not properly developed. In the same way, AC1 was hugely underdeveloped, that is what caused boredom, not the concept.
Nonsense? I never have to access a situation in current AC games, I never have to escape because I can always fight my way through if I act recklessly. Stealth and escape have no actual purpose because combat is overpowered. Why escape from ants? Why hide from ants?

ze_topazio
12-24-2013, 02:00 PM
^ The people that think AC1 is the best thing ever made in the history of everything is a very small niche, don't make it sound like all hardcore gamers enjoyed it because that is not true, the majority of hardcore gamers did not liked it either.

AC1 was not that well received, reviewers pointed out the repetitiveness of the missions, the bad and not particularly fun combat system, the many bugs, a sandbox game that had nothing to do and nothing to interact with other than harassing guards and civilians and most believed the series had no future despite the interesting concept.

The investigations comprises of going to a certain area and activate a scripted scene, don't make it sound like some deep and complex thing, it was just a gimmick to give you the illusion of being an assassin, in AC2 the investigations were integrated in to the story.

pirate1802
12-24-2013, 02:21 PM
I think..... that you could fight your way through any situation in AC1 too, no? Once you have a few basic combat moves. The only people I ran from are the Templar dudes and that too at the beginning of the game. Other times? I just ran because I was bored or wanted the awesome feel of escaping. Exactly the reason I run in present games too. So its not as it AC1 had this perfect combat system that made you tremble at the sight of four dudes.

Hans684
12-24-2013, 03:23 PM
History never was in the background. Every target(more or less) historicly died(more or less) at the time & place(more or less), history is everything about the series. Take it away and you also take away the Assassins, Templars, every time period & and setting, every weapon, naval, every event(historical "Hollywood" events too)...... I could go on in days, but history is AC and AC is history. You can't have one without the other, it would break the series. We would end up with nothing only a concept taken from history.

oliacr
12-24-2013, 05:06 PM
History never was in the background. Every target(more or less) historicly died(more or less) at the time & place(more or less), history is everything about the series. Take it away and you also take away the Assassins, Templars, every time period & and setting, every weapon, naval, every event(historical "Hollywood" events too)...... I could go on in days, but history is AC and AC is history. You can't have one without the other, it would break the series. We would end up with nothing only a concept taken from history.

And that is why I love this series. I haven't had any problems with the ACs yet. I have enjoyed every of them. Ubisoft can do no wrong in this series unless they go forward in the time after 1800. Otherwise it will be good for me, every year they did and do something new if a small/minor change but still something new.

AssassinHMS
12-24-2013, 05:28 PM
^ The people that think AC1 is the best thing ever made in the history of everything is a very small niche, don't make it sound like all hardcore gamers enjoyed it because that is not true, the majority of hardcore gamers did not liked it either.

AC1 was not that well received, reviewers pointed out the repetitiveness of the missions, the bad and not particularly fun combat system, the many bugs, a sandbox game that had nothing to do and nothing to interact with other than harassing guards and civilians and most believed the series had no future despite the interesting concept.

The investigations comprises of going to a certain area and activate a scripted scene, don't make it sound like some deep and complex thing, it was just a gimmick to give you the illusion of being an assassin, in AC2 the investigations were integrated in to the story.
It seems like you didnít read my post at all.






History never was in the background. Every target(more or less) historicly died(more or less) at the time & place(more or less), history is everything about the series. Take it away and you also take away the Assassins, Templars, every time period & and setting, every weapon, naval, every event(historical "Hollywood" events too)...... I could go on in days, but history is AC and AC is history. You can't have one without the other, it would break the series. We would end up with nothing only a concept taken from history.

That is what Iím saying. Real assassination targets that died according to History is an example of what puts it in the background. The protagonist being shoved into every historical event or meeting every historical character for the sake of it, is what makes History drive the action, drive the game. History is there to keep the game grounded, to add realism and is also part of the lore, however both the story and the gameplay must focus on the Assassins, the Templars and on ďThe Ones Who Came BeforeĒ/Pieces of Eden. For example AC4 BF isnít about Assassins or Templars, it is about History. Naval takes the lead while stealth, navigation and combat remain the same underdeveloped rotten pillars. The story is about Edward and pirates (hardly about Assassins or about the Creed). The game is all about something else other than Assassinís Creed, from gameplay to story. Yes, the assassinations are open ended, sure stealth is more viable than AC3ís, but is that enough to justify the name ďACĒ? What about all the rest?

I really like History and Iím by no means saying it should be less important, what Iím saying is that it should not take the lead and place Assassins and Templars in the distant background.

MnemonicSyntax
12-24-2013, 05:57 PM
For example AC4 BF isnít about Assassins or Templars, it is about History.

In the first two minutes, you see an Assassin assassinate a ship captain, and then two minutes after that, you're fighting one. Ten minutes after that, you're mixed up in the Assassin/Templar conflict, all to collect a reward. Yes, it's about a reward, but that reward makes Edward realize what is wrong with the world.


Naval takes the lead while stealth, navigation and combat remain the same underdeveloped rotten pillars.

This is the best stealth in any previous AC game. Oh, it's hiding in a bush, not "Light/Shadow" so there for it's underdeveloped.


The story is about Edward and pirates (hardly about Assassins or about the Creed). The game is all about something else other than Assassinís Creed, from gameplay to story. Yes, the assassinations are open ended, sure stealth is more viable than AC3ís, but is that enough to justify the name ďACĒ? What about all the rest?

What about the rest? AC4 was meant to tell the story of Edward. I know you think that it shouldn't be about a character and instead the overall arc, but characters drive stories. AC4 was very much how Edward grew and matured and realized what he lost, and after it's too late. You don't see that in "Hollywood Action Films." The hero saves the day, and gets the girl. None of that happens in AC4.

The Templar/Assassin story is still very present. It's enough to justify the name Assassin's Creed because it's what the people who own the franchise believe it to be. It's their franchise. You can't say what is or isn't really "Assassin's Creed" when it's not your right to say so. Sure, you're free to have an opinion, but to flat out say "this isn't AC" is highly incorrect.


I really like History and Iím by no means saying it should be less important, what Iím saying is that it should not take the lead and place Assassins and Templars in the distant background.

Then don't focus on History. Focus on the Assassins and Templars.

Also, the Assassin/Templar conflict is something that's "in the background" as it is. Altair doesn't even know he's dealing with Templars until after his fifth or sixth assassination.

It doesn't need to be in your face every game. Sometimes less is more.

Hans684
12-24-2013, 10:20 PM
That is what I’m saying.

That's not what i'm saying.


Real assassination targets that died according to History is an example of what puts it in the background.

History is everything AC is becouse AC is history. It puts history everywhere in AC not the background only, the fact that we kill people that historicly died around that time & place just puts the history even more at everything, not the background only.


The protagonist being shoved into every historical event or meeting every historical character for the sake of it, is what makes History drive the action, drive the game.

History don't drive anything becouse it is everywhere, it's the story that is driving thought history. Have you tried to look up every setting and time period, every assassnation target....for every game?
Everything in history is AC becouse AC is history.


History is there to keep the game grounded, to add realism and is also part of the lore, however both the story and the gameplay must focus on the Assassins, the Templars and on “The Ones Who Came Before”/Pieces of Eden. For example AC4 BF isn’t about Assassins or Templars, it is about History.

History is everywhere, meaning everything is going to connected. The story is going to go thought historical events and we are going to do it "for the sake of it" or should i say becouse it is history. The lore is history becouse history has and is everything about AC. The fact that you haven't played ACIVBF just put your "claim"(a.k.a opinion) of what it is out of the window. Not to mention that the lead writhers and ever other person developing AC know what AC is. We are just some fans, having a random discussion in a random forum while those who work on AC laugh theire *** of reading this. And if you want to be "realistic", not every event is going to be done stealthy, "perfection" don't exist becouse humans are not "perfect", something that makes everything that has something to do with humans not "perfect".


Naval takes the lead while stealth, navigation and combat remain the same underdeveloped rotten pillars. The story is about Edward and pirates (hardly about Assassins or about the Creed). The game is all about something else other than Assassin’s Creed, from gameplay to story. Yes, the assassinations are open ended, sure stealth is more viable than AC3’s, but is that enough to justify the name “AC”? What about all the rest?

The fact that ou haven't played ACIVBF becouse it is "Pirate's Creed"(not saying you "claimed" that, but you gett the point) makes you miss the fact that you can go all guns blazing or plan hat to do. I always plan, I always have some form of plan or tactic in every AC(and other games), scripted or open ended. I always plan when ever i can. Naval uses every core pillar, stealth, navigation & combat and naval is part of history and history is AC. If it is underdeveloped is your opinion, do you say that becouse the post-AC1 games have all disepointed? Or becouse of the yearly releases? Or becouse Patrice left?


I really like History and I’m by no means saying it should be less important, what I’m saying is that it should not take the lead and place Assassins and Templars in the distant background.

Without history there would be no "assassins" or "templars", as said before AC is history and history is AC. History is every and anything. We could have Viking assassin, WW assassin, cowboy assassin, ninja assassin, samurai assassin, pirate assassin, military assassin ect....and it would still be AC. Pirates did exists and The Golden Age Of Piracy did happen so it is AC either we play a pirate, pirate assassin, assassin or assassin pirate in the AvT war during The Golden Age Of Piracy and it would still be AC. I like history as much as the next lad/lass, but that don't change the fact that history is AC and AC is history. AC can be any kind of game becouse of history, that what's makes AC so diffrent and so spectacular.

pirate1802
12-25-2013, 03:29 AM
For example AC4 BF isn’t about Assassins or Templars, it is about History.

Not more than any other AC game. "About" Assassins and Templars, does it only have to be come with the protag being one of them? For example even though Edward was not one of them he already had far more exposure to both the Orders than our beloved Ezio did by that point in AC2. Heck the whole game. Is AC2 more about AvT than AC4? Guy avenges his family and kills a bunch of people. He has close to zero idea about what both the groups represent and why he's fighting them. Edward has a far greater interactions with both the factions than Ezio does in AC2. He gets to see different sides of each faction, their ideologies, what they aim to. AC4 shows us ore sides of the Creeds than AC2 did. Yet AC2 is about AvT and AC4 is merely about history..

Did you watch the cutscene where Ah Tabai and Edward are talking, or Read? They give the best explanation of the Creed and what it means that everything is permitted, better than anything you can find in AC2 or ACB. Only Ezio's ACR explanation matches it. No surprises that that game was also written by Darby. Yet none of this matters because the hero is not carrying the Assassin's blessings.

Hans684
12-25-2013, 11:09 PM
Yet none of this matters because the hero is not carrying the Assassin's blessings.

If we only have to play an "assassin" carrying the "Asssassin's blessing" for it to be AC, then almost every new AC would more or less be the same year...after...year...after...year until it reaches the definition of insanity.

MnemonicSyntax
12-25-2013, 11:25 PM
If we only have to play an "assassin" carrying the "Asssassin's blessing" for it to be AC, then almost every new AC would more or less be the same year...after...year...after...year until it reaches the definition of insanity.

Bingo.

funnyman44
12-26-2013, 01:36 AM
STORY:

Assassin's Creed, simply, is an underdog story. The Templars (large organization with many connections, resources, and followers) are trying to rule the world in the name of peace. The Assassins (small organization that has connections and resources but no where near the size and power of the Templars) are trying to stop the Templars from ruling the world. The "Assassins" are only assassins due to the obvious power difference. They must work in the "shadows" and be smart about their moves.

Now note that know where in there did I say that stealth or "acting like an assassin" is a necessity. How the Assassins stop the Templars is irrelevant. Stealth (in game and politically) is just a big aspect of the game due to, like I said, the power difference.

GAMEPLAY:

Knowing the info above. AC can be like a FPS or other high action game. Stealth is just one way to remove/complete a target or objective. It makes it easier, but that doesn't mean that that is the end all be all. It's just a different way to play.

AC1 VS OTHER ACs:

The reason AC1 was the way it was was because assassinations was ALL it was about. In AC4 for example, you have ship battles, necessary fights, the West Indies (not much info needed to find a target on an island), etc.
That doesn't make AC1 better, it just means AC1 was more oriented towards stealth gameplay (very weak protagonist requiring you to use stealth in order to win) while AC4 works towards multiple different playstyles (like combat).

Now whether combat could use more layers and what not is another discussion.

MnemonicSyntax
12-26-2013, 01:42 AM
STORY:

Assassin's Creed, simply, is an underdog story. The Templars (large organization with many connections, resources, and followers) are trying to rule the world in the name of peace. The Assassins (small organization that has connections and resources but no where near the size and power of the Templars) are trying to stop the Templars from ruling the world. The "Assassins" are only assassins due to the obvious power difference. They must work in the "shadows" and be smart about their moves.

Now note that know where in there did I say that stealth or "acting like an assassin" is a necessity. How the Assassins stop the Templars is irrelevant. Stealth (in game and politically) is just a big aspect of the game due to, like I said, the power difference.

GAMEPLAY:

Knowing the info above. AC can be like a FPS or other high action game. Stealth is just one way to remove/complete a target or objective. It makes it easier, but that doesn't mean that that is the end all be all. It's just a different way to play.

AC1 VS OTHER ACs:

The reason AC1 was the way it was was because assassinations was ALL it was about. In AC4 for example, you have ship battles, necessary fights, the West Indies (not much info needed to find a target on an island), etc.
That doesn't make AC1 better, it just means AC1 was more oriented towards stealth gameplay (very weak protagonist requiring you to use stealth in order to win) while AC4 works towards multiple different playstyles (like combat).

Now whether combat could use more layers and what not is another discussion.

Bingo. Assassins grow, adapt and change to their environment. That's probably their greatest weapon.

And, welcome to the forums!

funnyman44
12-26-2013, 01:43 AM
Thank you.

baraka_BR
12-26-2013, 03:37 AM
actually, there's so much information gathering in AC1 because Altair was downgraded from his High Assassin rank and had to do all the research by himself, normally some other Assassin would do it for him.

JumpInTheFire13
12-26-2013, 07:59 AM
I have a few ideas for those who miss mystery, conspiracies and who want more freedom and interaction with the world.

Iíd really like an AC where NPCs are fleshed out. For example, each NPC has a house, a job (unless theyíre beggars or something of sorts), a story and something interesting or important to say. For example, the player could follow them and find their daily routines, their secrets, etc.
I think this would be really interesting, especially considering that these people live in a completely different reality (time period and location) from ours.
Missions could be related with them like, you are told that there is a Templar that is trying to lay low and is disguised as a civilian, near your area. By investigating, talking to people who usually know the rumors around the city, by following on clues (like a puddle of blood in an alley that actually belonged to some unlucky fella who found out the Templarís true identity), etc. the player can find out who the Templar posing as a civilian is. Now, since the NPCs are fleshed out, we could find out that the Templar is, in fact, the apparently honest innkeeper that we talked to and visited so many times. This way the player could really feel a part of the city, of the society and have fun just exploring the world, meddling in private affairs and learning about the different cultures and characteristics of these societies.
Anyway, I really think AC could use something like this, after all, the assassin fights for the people so, might as well get to know them.
What is the point of having so many NPCs around if they donít feel alive or arenít actually interesting and fleshed out? Also, this could add some feel to social stealth. No more random faces that appear all the same. Investigating, spying on peopleís lives would be much more interesting and the world would feel much more alive since you could interact with any civilian and explore (if you so wish) their lives (that can vary, from simple and plain, to dark and mysterious such as of those that are into cults, radical religious groups, shady affairs etc.). This could also mean more interesting random events or side missions where you can learn about the secrets of the society around you, discover conspiracies and decide whether to join or put a stop to them, etc.

Perhaps this could make AC more interesting and mysterious to those who find recent AC games lacking (myself included).

You, sir, are on to something. I think this is similar to what they tried doing in AC3, how you can meet all the people on the homestead and interact with them, like the blacksmith, miner, woodworkers, priest, ect. However, the thing about the homestead in AC3 is that the people didn't have anything to do with the Assassins or Templars and they weren't overly interesting; they're missions were about menial tasks like finding a gift to impress a girl and other nonsense that an Assassin shouldn't be too involved with. This was the problem with ACR as well; the game had many points where Ezio completely forgot about the Creed. The leader of the Assassins shouldn't be worrying about gathering flowers for a woman, nor should be torching an entire harbour and, therefore, destroying the livelihoods of the very people he's supposed to be protecting.

The games need to focus more on the overall story of the Assassins, Templars, and First Civilization, and less on the stories of the individual characters. AC4 fell short in this way because it was only the story of Edward, even though it was quite a good story. AC4, to me, was a terrific game, just not a good AC game. I made a similar thread a while ago which I will post the link to. Basically, I think the developers need to have a good look at AC1 and make a sequel that truly deserves to bear the same name as this masterpiece. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/818753-Something-Wrong-With-AC-*spoilers*

JumpInTheFire13
12-26-2013, 08:43 AM
I agree with, pretty much, all the posters but, the way I see it, there are 3 main aspects that are crucial to the concept and which have been almost completely forgotten:

- Immersion: Like Patrice said, the goal was to make the player take his time to scan the environment, to access the situation and think beforehand. It was asked that the player was careful and methodic to push stealth to the limit or else the player would be detected and forced to outmaneuver guards (escape or shake them up). But this canít be achieved, not only because stealth isnít deep enough (and the AI is bad), but due to the fact that there is no reason to use stealth. Why would I hide or escape from ants? Combat does both stealth and escapeís job. There is no balance in the core mechanics. This has a huge impact on immersion. How can I feel immersed in the world if the game places me above it, above the rules? For example, I want to feel tension when I use stealth, I want to feel thrill when I escape and I want to feel excited when I fight (even against 2 or 3 enemies). This is real immersion, but how can I have fun, feel scared or thrilled if, all Iím doing, is squashing some ants? There needs to be a reason for us to think like an assassin, or else wonít feel like one. Fear is important, challenge is crucial so that we can feel immersed in the experience and not above it, like a God, like Hulk.

- Assassin concept: Ubisoft seems to forget (which is weird since they were the ones who create this) that an assassin is, primarily, a detective. Investigations are fundamental and they need to be delivered properly, not like AC1ís.
These are just some of my ideas for random events and side missions that use investigations as a basis:


- Feel: Like others have asked, where is the mystery, the conspiracies, the History behind History? There used to be interesting puzzles that unveiled hidden truths about religion, about the world. There were tombs that gave off that feeling of ďmore than meets the eyeĒ. It felt that there was a whole new city inside the city I thought I knew. There was this sense of conspiracies being plotted inside the walls of beautiful buildings. This whole sense of wonder related to the Assassins and to the city seems to be gone and it is part of what makes Assassinís Creed shine.

Honestly could not agree with you more. This post made me more excited than the entirety of the last three games have. With the capabilities of the new consoles and the ever-powerful PC, I really hope Ubisoft does this.

MnemonicSyntax
12-27-2013, 06:09 PM
You, sir, are on to something. I think this is similar to what they tried doing in AC3, how you can meet all the people on the homestead and interact with them, like the blacksmith, miner, woodworkers, priest, ect. However, the thing about the homestead in AC3 is that the people didn't have anything to do with the Assassins or Templars and they weren't overly interesting; they're missions were about menial tasks like finding a gift to impress a girl and other nonsense that an Assassin shouldn't be too involved with. This was the problem with ACR as well; the game had many points where Ezio completely forgot about the Creed. The leader of the Assassins shouldn't be worrying about gathering flowers for a woman, nor should be torching an entire harbour and, therefore, destroying the livelihoods of the very people he's supposed to be protecting.

How is getting flowers for Sophia forgetting about the Creed? You guys act like he has to be an Assassin 24/7. The man was sweet on Sophia, she had information for him... information "for the Creed" and so he went to get them for her. I don't see the problem. Assassins help people, regardless if it's getting them flowers or carrying heavy boxes (Brotherhood). That's what the Assassins fight for, the people.

The entire harbor was torched because of the blockade. Again, "for the Creed." He destroyed enemy boats, not some small fisherman's boats or something, but the large ones that carry soldiers.


The games need to focus more on the overall story of the Assassins, Templars, and First Civilization, and less on the stories of the individual characters. AC4 fell short in this way because it was only the story of Edward, even though it was quite a good story. AC4, to me, was a terrific game, just not a good AC game. I made a similar thread a while ago which I will post the link to. Basically, I think the developers need to have a good look at AC1 and make a sequel that truly deserves to bear the same name as this masterpiece. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/818753-Something-Wrong-With-AC-*spoilers*

AC4 was designed to be about Edward from the get-go. If every single AC game was JUST about the Templars and Assassins, it would be a very boring story and repetitive, much like AC1. But even then, it was the story of Altair and Desmond. Characters shouldn't take a back seat to not only their story, but their lives as well just for "The Creed." You have Assassins who lead multiple lives, and aren't just Assassins, like Giovanni Auditore and Edward.

MnemonicSyntax
12-27-2013, 06:11 PM
Honestly could not agree with you more. This post made me more excited than the entirety of the last three games have. With the capabilities of the new consoles and the ever-powerful PC, I really hope Ubisoft does this.

And this is just ridiculous. The way it is now, it gives the player a choice. This idea just forces the player. We've been down this road before, it's not pretty.

funnyman44
12-27-2013, 07:11 PM
You, sir, are on to something. I think this is similar to what they tried doing in AC3, how you can meet all the people on the homestead and interact with them, like the blacksmith, miner, woodworkers, priest, ect. However, the thing about the homestead in AC3 is that the people didn't have anything to do with the Assassins or Templars and they weren't overly interesting; they're missions were about menial tasks like finding a gift to impress a girl and other nonsense that an Assassin shouldn't be too involved with. This was the problem with ACR as well; the game had many points where Ezio completely forgot about the Creed. The leader of the Assassins shouldn't be worrying about gathering flowers for a woman, nor should be torching an entire harbour and, therefore, destroying the livelihoods of the very people he's supposed to be protecting.

The games need to focus more on the overall story of the Assassins, Templars, and First Civilization, and less on the stories of the individual characters. AC4 fell short in this way because it was only the story of Edward, even though it was quite a good story. AC4, to me, was a terrific game, just not a good AC game. I made a similar thread a while ago which I will post the link to. Basically, I think the developers need to have a good look at AC1 and make a sequel that truly deserves to bear the same name as this masterpiece. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/818753-Something-Wrong-With-AC-*spoilers*

Edward was a greedy pirate first. Then through all the crap he causes, he learns that having that mindset is a bad idea. His story was about a transformation. For most of the story, he was neutral with the Assassins and hostile with the Templars. Meaning none of the views of either side mattered to him.

AssassinHMS
12-28-2013, 02:16 PM
That's not what i'm saying.
History is everything AC is becouse AC is history. It puts history everywhere in AC not the background only, the fact that we kill people that historicly died around that time & place just puts the history even more at everything, not the background only.
History don't drive anything becouse it is everywhere, it's the story that is driving thought history. Have you tried to look up every setting and time period, every assassnation target....for every game?
Everything in history is AC becouse AC is history.
History is everywhere, meaning everything is going to connected. The story is going to go thought historical events and we are going to do it "for the sake of it" or should i say becouse it is history. The lore is history becouse history has and is everything about AC. The fact that you haven't played ACIVBF just put your "claim"(a.k.a opinion) of what it is out of the window. Not to mention that the lead writhers and ever other person developing AC know what AC is. We are just some fans, having a random discussion in a random forum while those who work on AC laugh theire *** of reading this. And if you want to be "realistic", not every event is going to be done stealthy, "perfection" don't exist becouse humans are not "perfect", something that makes everything that has something to do with humans not "perfect".
The fact that ou haven't played ACIVBF becouse it is "Pirate's Creed"(not saying you "claimed" that, but you gett the point) makes you miss the fact that you can go all guns blazing or plan hat to do. I always plan, I always have some form of plan or tactic in every AC(and other games), scripted or open ended. I always plan when ever i can. Naval uses every core pillar, stealth, navigation & combat and naval is part of history and history is AC. If it is underdeveloped is your opinion, do you say that becouse the post-AC1 games have all disepointed? Or becouse of the yearly releases? Or becouse Patrice left?
Without history there would be no "assassins" or "templars", as said before AC is history and history is AC. History is every and anything. We could have Viking assassin, WW assassin, cowboy assassin, ninja assassin, samurai assassin, pirate assassin, military assassin ect....and it would still be AC. Pirates did exists and The Golden Age Of Piracy did happen so it is AC either we play a pirate, pirate assassin, assassin or assassin pirate in the AvT war during The Golden Age Of Piracy and it would still be AC. I like history as much as the next lad/lass, but that don't change the fact that history is AC and AC is history. AC can be any kind of game becouse of history, that what's makes AC so diffrent and so spectacular.

Clearly weíre not on the same page.

When a protagonist is shoved into every historical event just because it happened, because History and, if the assassin meets every major historical character for the same reason, the game becomes nothing but a historical tour. AC3 is the best example of this. Connor has to be everywhere, do everything and be every major historical characterís pet.

AC1ís story and action were independent in the sense that they didnít ďfollowedĒ History. History was AC1ís background. Some assassination targets existed and died when according to History (only by Altairís hand). This was a relatively small connection to History. History was in these details, along with the historically accurate cities. History was the background, it was the setting and the time period. However, it didnít influence the action, the story. AC1ís missions were completely independent of History, the only connection some of them had was the target. See the difference?
AC3 wouldíve been better if both the story and the action werenít so deeply connected to History, if they didnít follow History wherever it goes. Instead of being in the battlefield, Connor could be doing his own thing. Instead of befriending Washington and the rest of the endless crew, he could simply ignore their wars and scuffles and focus on the Templars. ďLet the Patriots fight their own battles, Iím here for the Templar.Ē instead of ďWhat would you have me do?Ē Oh right, but then we wouldnít meet every historical character or act like a lunatic in every historical eventÖsuch a shame that would be.
Get it? This is what happens when History drives the action, drives the story instead of simply connecting to it through small details.

Oh, by the way, Iím not talking simply about the story. Iím talking about the gameplay too. AC4 worried more about showing the pirate side, the golden age of piracy (History), than the Assassin side (Assassinís Creed). Assassins were in the background of the game as it focused on the pirate thingy, on the Historical part. I donít think I have to tell how the story (although no less focused on assassins than most so-called AC games) didnít go according to ACís concept.
But look in terms of gameplay. What if there was no naval? What if the Assassin part wasnít in the background, hidden by naval and all the gameplay additions related to History (to the time period and location)? What if the game actually focused on Assassins?
You would see just how rotten the core pillars are, how underdeveloped the whole Assassin part of the game is and how little it has left of ACís concept. This is what happens when History takes the lead and puts Assassins in the background, when it places Assassinís Creed in the background.
So donít say, Assassins adapt or that History is everything because those are just bad excuses. No matter where and when an Assassin lives, he always has to investigate and assassinate (whether by using modern devices like in Watch Dogs or by something similar to what Altair did). Assassinís Creed isnít the same as History. History is part of ACís concept and it is far from what drives AC.

AC is a work of fiction that has a connection to History and a well-established concept that was ignored in the name of profit.

MnemonicSyntax
12-28-2013, 07:11 PM
Assassins aren't even supposed to do investigations. Altair had to do that because he was demoted. Other Assassins are supposed to do it for him.

So with that being said, you'd have how many games where the Assassin was either demoted, or was initially rising up in ranks. There's no other way to have an Assassin do investigations based on "the true Creed" otherwise.

Having a game where the Assassin did only investigations and focused on a single target is boring. Most people didn't even finish the first Assassin's Creed, and others ignored it completely, starting with 2.

And the Assassins fight for the people. Yes, it was pretty ridiculous that Connor was part of a lot of every event leading and during the Revolutionary War, but his purpose is to help the people as well. Achilles told him that. Plus, the Templars were pretty much involved in every major plot point in the Revolutionary War, so aiding others so they can aid Connor is just logical.

Lastly, the history thing probably won't change. Devs have said it's a field trip through time, and history is their literal playground.

You can say that "adapting" is a bad excuse, but that's what Al Mualim said to Altair, flat out. Assassins aren't just Assassins anymore. They do other things, their interests parallel with others for a time, then they move on.

Again, Altair's Codex mentioned going into hiding, doing things behind the scenes. No longer having a huge base for everyone to see and attack, but to spread out and hide. Putting the Assassins and Templar conflict in the background is natural and should be expected.

Hans684
12-28-2013, 07:12 PM
Clearly we’re not on the same page.

You don't say.


When a protagonist is shoved into every historical event just because it happened, because History and, if the assassin meets every major historical character for the same reason, the game becomes nothing but a historical tour.

What you consider "showed" and "historical tour" is on you. Your opinion.


AC3 is the best example of this. Connor has to be everywhere, do everything and be every major historical character’s pet.

All to gett to the Templars. Do you remember why he was at the The Boston Tea Party to stopp Sir William Johnson(Templar) fro buying the land of his people. He tried avoiding killing him, but was forced in the end. Reson not excuse.

The same with The Paul Reveirs Ride, The Battle Of Concord And Lexington, The Battle Of Bunker Hill, to gett an army(can't do everything alone) and to kill John Pitcarn(Templar). Reson not excuse.


AC1’s story and action were independent in the sense that they didn’t “followed” History. History was AC1’s background. Some assassination targets existed and died when according to History (only by Altair’s hand). This was a relatively small connection to History.
History was in these details, along with the historically accurate cities. History was the background, it was the setting and the time period. However, it didn’t influence the action, the story. AC1’s missions were completely independent of History, the only connection some of them had was the target. See the difference?

It is just as historical as every other AC. Do you know that Al Mualim is a historical charecter? His real name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_ad-Din_Sinan.
Every weapon(History except Hidden Blades) was used in The Crusade(History), every target(More or less & History), Every city(history), the way AltaÔr hunted his targets(history), the Assassin/Templar Orders(history(more or less)) ect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins

As said it is everywhere, it affected how we worked(stealth, navigation & combat) in AC1, obviously who we kill depending on their date of death(more or less), what weapons we had ect.


AC3 would’ve been better if both the story and the action weren’t so deeply connected to History, if they didn’t follow History wherever it goes.

That can be said about every AC, all of them could have been "better". Ah, but what someone consider better is opinion. All the story's of each AC game go trough history, if a historical person dies in a battlefield or drunk at home dosen't change the fact the have to kill him.


Instead of being in the battlefield, Connor could be doing his own thing. Instead of befriending Washington and the rest of the endless crew, he could simply ignore their wars and scuffles and focus on the Templars. “Let the Patriots fight their own battles, I’m here for the Templar.” instead of “What would you have me do?” Oh right, but then we wouldn’t meet every historical character or act like a lunatic in every historical event…such a shame that would be.
Get it? This is what happens when History drives the action, drives the story instead of simply connecting to it through small details.

He did his owned thing, he hunted the Templars. Being "friends" with GW & crew just gives him even more usefull intell needed to hunt them, it is a war. The Patriots fought for freedom, the same as the assassins meaning that "siding" with them just further theire goals. Remember the memory where GW ask why Connor wants to help getting the stolen supplys, becouse he is hunting for Benjamin(don't remember his last name). Unknown to him Benjamin isn't a Templar anymore, but he supports the fight for freedom so he helps.


Oh, by the way, I’m not talking simply about the story. I’m talking about the gameplay too. AC4 worried more about showing the pirate side, the golden age of piracy (History), than the Assassin side (Assassin’s Creed). Assassins were in the background of the game as it focused on the pirate thingy, on the Historical part. I don’t think I have to tell how the story (although no less focused on assassins than most so-called AC games) didn’t go according to AC’s concept.

I'm also talking about gameplay & the story, seems we are on the same page.
What do you think when hearing pirates? Killers with no moral and no ability of stealth. That's the historical inaccurate version that is used in Pirates of The Caribbean. The assassin part of the series is history too, until their fall(if you read the link above). Beyond the fall of the order the assassin part is fiction, meaning they can do what they want and it would still be assassins. In AC1 the assassins is history, in AC2/ACB/AC3/ACIVBF they are fiction and in ACR they are history(AltaÔr's memory's) and fiction(Every Ezio memory). AC is history and history is AC. Lett me sum it a bit nicer regarding ACIVBF: assassins(fiction), pirates(history), The Golden Age Of Piracy(history). If it went after the AC concept that died with the Assasdin Order during their fall is opinion.


But look in terms of gameplay. What if there was no naval? What if the Assassin part wasn’t in the background, hidden by naval and all the gameplay additions related to History (to the time period and location)? What if the game actually focused on Assassins?

If there ever is made a game during The Golden Age Of Pirecy(history) without pirates(history, stealth, navigation & combat), naval(history, stealth, navigation & combat) it would be the same as asking for a game in The Crusades(history) without assassins(history, stealth, navigation & combat), templars(history) ect. The entire game would be "underdeveloped" not taking advantage of what the time period & setting gives becouse it wouldt be "true" to what some "claim" is what makes that series what it is.


You would see just how rotten the core pillars are, how underdeveloped the whole Assassin part of the game is and how little it has left of AC’s concept. This is what happens when History takes the lead and puts Assassins in the background, when it places Assassin’s Creed in the background.

Sorry to disepoint, but i "see" just fine. What you consider "rotten"/"underdeveloped" is your opinion. The series is history and AC is history, it's "concept" is just as much history. What you think is in the lead is on you. History is everything and anything about this series. It's all it's "concepts"(stealth, navigation combat and every time period & setting and what all of it provide). It's the all-in-one package in the series. Without history none of it would be part of the series.


So don’t say, Assassins adapt or that History is everything because those are just bad excuses. No matter where and when an Assassin lives, he always has to investigate and assassinate (whether by using modern devices like in Watch Dogs or by something similar to what Altair did). Assassin’s Creed isn’t the same as History. History is part of AC’s concept and it is far from what drives AC.

Everything ain't an an excuse, even AC1 said assassins adapt and history is everything. No history, no assassins. Take history away and this series is about two fictional organizations(Templars and Assassins is part of history) fighting trough time in fictional places and times(every real time period & setting is part of our history, not the fictional one) with unknown means and tools(it's fictional not our history, so we don't know how they would work and what kind of tools they would have) becouse of unknown reason(not our history, so we can't give a reason for their fight).


AC is a work of fiction that has a connection to History and a well-established concept that was ignored in the name of profit.

I know AC is partly fiction, the same is said about the assassins. After thir fall(history) we can't say what a assassin would be in Renissance(history), American Revolution(history), The Golden Age of Piracy(history) can we? No, there is no metion of same assassin order in any of those.

AssassinHMS
12-28-2013, 09:11 PM
Assassins aren't even supposed to do investigations. Altair had to do that because he was demoted. Other Assassins are supposed to do it for him.
So with that being said, you'd have how many games where the Assassin was either demoted, or was initially rising up in ranks. There's no other way to have an Assassin do investigations based on "the true Creed" otherwise.

Are you serious? No other way? Take AC3 for example. Connor was, pretty much, alone. That means there was no one to investigate for him. The only reason why Connor almost didnít investigate or plan was because he could go head on and the story was made in such a way that he would end up victorious even if that meant his enemies would make the dumbest decisions or that he had to be a one-man-army. In reality, Connor wouldnít last a day as an assassin like that, no one would. An assassin must plan and investigate by himself.
Every Assassin investigates. Yes, since Altair was an elite back then, there were other assassins that would find and track down the target for him. However, he was still the one to find the best route and plan the assassination. No Assassin would go blindly into a mission without planning first for himself as that would mean certain death unless of course, if he has super powers or is the protagonist of a Hollywood movie where the hero can always avoid death and look cool for the camera.

Assassinís Creed needs to get back to its roots and stop ignoring itself. Investigations are a must. They are part of the concept and they are essential for an assassin plus, from a gamer view, they can be a lot of fun. Donít blame investigations, donít blame AC1, blame how underdeveloped it was. Naval would be boring too if it was as underdeveloped as AC1ís investigations. Imagine if AC4 BF didnít have naval. Would you have fun with the core mechanics in that state? Would you blame them for that or would you blame the lack of attention they were given?
Being a detective (especially in those times) is a lot of fun, much better than naval or whatnot. I know how to make it great, itís up to Ubisoft to give them a real chance now.

MnemonicSyntax
12-28-2013, 09:21 PM
Are you serious? No other way? Take AC3 for example. Connor was, pretty much, alone. That means there was no one to investigate for him. The only reason why Connor almost didnít investigate or plan was because he could go head on and the story was made in such a way that he would end up victorious even if that meant his enemies would make the dumbest decisions or that he had to be a one-man-army. In reality, Connor wouldnít last a day as an assassin like that, no one would. An assassin must plan and investigate by himself.
Every Assassin investigates. Yes, since Altair was an elite back then, there were other assassins that would find and track down the target for him. However, he was still the one to find the best route and plan the assassination. No Assassin would go blindly into a mission without planning first for himself as that would mean certain death unless of course, if he has super powers or is the protagonist of a Hollywood movie where the hero can always avoid death and look cool for the camera.

Assassinís Creed needs to get back to its roots and stop ignoring itself. Investigations are a must. They are part of the concept and they are essential for an assassin plus, from a gamer view, they can be a lot of fun. Donít blame investigations, donít blame AC1, blame how underdeveloped it was. Naval would be boring too if it was as underdeveloped as AC1ís investigations. Imagine if AC4 BF didnít have naval. Would you have fun with the core mechanics in that state? Would you blame them for that or would you blame the lack of attention they were given?
Being a detective (especially in those times) is a lot of fun, much better than naval or whatnot. I know how to make it great, itís up to Ubisoft to give them a real chance now.

In your opinion, of course.

I mean, you dry hump the Creed and what it stands for, but investigations are done by low level Assassins. "In reality" (LOL) Master Assassins are sent to go to a target and kill them, that's all. They don't even need permission from the Bureau to do it.

So which is it? You want a "pure" Assassin, but... "In reality" (LMAO) Altair should have never done any sort of investigations, period. He should have never gone to the Rafiq and gained their permission. Period.

"In reality." (ROFL)

AssassinHMS
12-28-2013, 11:19 PM
In your opinion, of course.
Haha, no.





I mean, you dry hump the Creed and what it stands for, but investigations are done by low level Assassins. "In reality" (LOL) Master Assassins are sent to go to a target and kill them, that's all. They don't even need permission from the Bureau to do it.

So which is it? You want a "pure" Assassin, but... "In reality" (LMAO) Altair should have never done any sort of investigations, period. He should have never gone to the Rafiq and gained their permission. Period.

"In reality." (ROFL)
You just refuse to understand. Like I said, low-level members of the order were the ones who spend years investigating in order to find out possible targets that require elimination and that’s it. Then they pass that information to the Assassin who will carry down the actual assassination. However, the Assassin also investigates. He is the one who finds the best location to strike, he is the one who discovers the best route to the target, the best time to assassinate, the best entering and exiting points, etc. Get it? They all investigate. Spies (low-ranked) investigate possible targets and keep in par with the political situation of the city while Assassins (high-ranked) find every bit of information that is useful for the actual assassination. They are all detectives, the only difference is the kind of information they look for.


I’ll leave this here in case you don’t believe my words.

"However, in order to ascertain which death might best assist the Assassins' goals, extensive political knowledge was required for target selection. Thus, the Assassins endeavored to remain in tune with the ever-changing politics surrounding them. Obtaining information on this was the job of low-level members of the Order, who would be stationed throughout the cities of the world.

These spies would watch the local nobles and rulers, looking for signs of corruption, or for membership in the Templars. Once gathered, any information was passed on to the Assassins responsible for the actual assassination."



I don’t suppose you knew this so I won’t say much more but, in the future, try to investigate first before making such bold statements.

MnemonicSyntax
12-28-2013, 11:32 PM
An opinion is a personal idea or belief that you have. This is your idea or belief. Your idea or belief isn't shared by many people. Your idea or belief isn't shared by Ubisoft.

o∑pin∑ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions


1.
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.



(I'll reserve some space here so that can sink in for a minute.)



And, you're also wrong. In Assassin's Creed, you know, the one you keep harking back to, your favorite? Assassin spies, who were gatherers of information only, would also show information on the best places to strike and escape routes. There was a map, for you to look at, given to you by a low level Assassin. In fact, the first Assassination shows escape routes and citizen locations who will aid Altair in case he needs to get away! You get another map in Acre when you invade the castle, show locations of guard routes and work that has been done to the castle! All this is given to Altair by people who are in need of his help and, le gasp! are lower level Assassins than he is!

And you so conveniently bolded... part of the quote that... uh.. doesn't really help your argument.

Here, let me show you the rest.

"However, in order to ascertain which death might best assist the Assassins' goals, extensive political knowledge was required for target selection. Thus, the Assassins endeavored to remain in tune with the ever-changing politics surrounding them. Obtaining information on this was the job of low-level members of the Order, who would be stationed throughout the cities of the world.

These spies would watch the local nobles and rulers, looking for signs of corruption, or for membership in the Templars. Once gathered, any information was passed on to the Assassins responsible for the actual assassination."

It's absolutely adorable you try to put me in my place by telling me to investigate, yet you're just twisting words when the rest of the sentence held the real information.

Also, investigate first? Where did this even come from? For all I know, you could have pulled it out of that delusional brain of yours. Regardless, I just negated everything you said. Next time, try reading all your "proof" before making yourself look foolish.

But hey... "in reality" (ROFLMAO)

AssassinHMS
12-28-2013, 11:52 PM
An opinion is a personal idea or belief that you have. This is your idea or belief. Your idea or belief isn't shared by many people. Your idea or belief isn't shared by Ubisoft.

o∑pin∑ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions


1.
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.



(I'll reserve some space here so that can sink in for a minute.)



And, you're also wrong. In Assassin's Creed, you know, the one you keep harking back to, your favorite? Assassin spies, who were gatherers of information only, would also show information on the best places to strike and escape routes. There was a map, for you to look at, given to you by a low level Assassin. In fact, in

And you so conveniently bolded... part of the quote that... uh.. doesn't really help your argument.

Here, let me show you the rest.

"However, in order to ascertain which death might best assist the Assassins' goals, extensive political knowledge was required for target selection. Thus, the Assassins endeavored to remain in tune with the ever-changing politics surrounding them. Obtaining information on this was the job of low-level members of the Order, who would be stationed throughout the cities of the world.

These spies would watch the local nobles and rulers, looking for signs of corruption, or for membership in the Templars. Once gathered, any information was passed on to the Assassins responsible for the actual assassination."

It's absolutely adorable you try to put me in my place by telling me to investigate, yet you're just twisting words when the rest of the sentence held the real information.

Also, investigate first? Where did this even come from? For all I know, you could have pulled it out of that delusional brain of yours. Regardless, I just negated everything you said. Next time, try reading all your "proof" before making yourself look foolish.

But hey... "in reality" (ROFLMAO)

Can you even read? I went to the point of putting the key segments in bold but still you don’t understand.

Since you don’t understand what’s in there I’ll have to break it down for you:
The quote says the spies were in par with the political situation so that they could discover the possible targets and keep track of their movements. Then, they would pass this information to the Assassin(s) who would carry out the actual assassination. However, in order to carry the assassination, they had to investigate on their own. The spies couldn’t possibly do this for them for reasons that should be obvious. The Assassin is the one who plans the assassination, not the spy. But, if you have proof of otherwise, please show me.

Also, where did you find in my quote that the Assassins didn’t investigate? Again, you’re not even trying.
Oh and that quote is from http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassins.


Also, trying to use my own posts against me isn’t going to work, I know very well what I posted. Your reasoning is flawed.

MnemonicSyntax
12-28-2013, 11:58 PM
Can I read? I can read an entire sentence and not just read what I want to see in my delusional head.

I don't have to try with you. You totally negate yourself each time you post. When you don't repeat yourself that is.

Have you even played Assassin's Creed 1? There's your proof right there. Entrances, exits, best possible places to strike. It's all on the maps you're given.

I already said this, did you miss that too?

Al Mualim tells Altair he's to investigate and find the traitor and Altair responds that investigating is entry level Assassin work. He also then says that he'll have to later report to the Rafiq, and Altair throws a hissy fit.

And, the AC Wikia? The one that's user editable and... LMAO, hasn't been updated properly since Revelations? Really? That's your source?

Don't forget to respond to other people in this thread too, the same that told you what you have is an opinion, not fact. I'm sure they'd love to hear how wrong their opinions are.

My reasoning is flawed, but apparently your reading comprehension is much more flawed son. Work on that.

AssassinHMS
12-29-2013, 12:30 AM
I don't have to try with you. You totally negate yourself each time you post. When you don't repeat yourself that is.

Have you even played Assassin's Creed 1? There's your proof right there. Entrances, exits, best possible places to strike. It's all on the maps you're given.

I already said this, did you miss that too?

It seems youíre the one who hasnít played AC1. These maps arenít given, Altair has to investigate in order to get them and, in reality, these maps would most likely be drawn by the actual Assassin (like Garret in Thief). Also, Altair overheard conversations where he learned the best routes to follow and places to hide. Again, your point is pointless.



Al Mualim tells Altair he's to investigate and find the traitor and Altair responds that investigating is entry level Assassin work. He also then says that he'll have to later report to the Rafiq, and Altair throws a hissy fit.

No, no. Al Mualim says that Altair will be the one to locate and track down his targets now. Planning the assassination is another thing and it was never mentioned. By the way, Altair only had to discover the target's identity in the first mission (the one in Masyaf). After that, he was already given the targets' names and general locations. Notice that Altair was only an actual novice in the beginning. Each time he assassinated, he moved up rank but notice that he always had to investigate and plan the assassination. See?



And, the AC Wikia? The one that's user editable and... LMAO, hasn't been updated properly since Revelations? Really? That's your source?
Not only, but it is the one I found more fitting for the occasion. Anyway, it is still better than your source which, sadly, is ignorance.




Don't forget to respond to other people in this thread too, the same that told you what you have is an opinion, not fact. I'm sure they'd love to hear how wrong their opinions are.

My reasoning is flawed, but apparently your reading comprehension is much more flawed son. Work on that.

Haha, as always when you can't offer an actual argument you escape or pass the ball. Too bad you canít feel badass in a fight as youíre forced to escape, unlike in AC games. Now I understand why you like the super easy combat system so much.

Quit it, youíre just proving that, not only you canít read, but you canít discuss a topic openly.
Again, any Assassin investigates before assassinating.

MnemonicSyntax
12-29-2013, 01:03 AM
It seems you’re the one who hasn’t played AC1. These maps aren’t given, Altair has to investigate in order to get them and, in reality, these maps would most likely be drawn by the actual Assassin (like Garret in Thief). Also, Altair overheard conversations where he learned the best routes to follow and places to hide. Again, your point is pointless.

The maps are given by low level Assassins after you help them. Either an escort mission or a rooftop race, etc. They're not drawn by Altair.




No, no. Al Mualim says that Altair will be the one to locate and track down his targets now. Planning the assassination is another thing and it was never mentioned. By the way, Altair only had to discover the target's identity in the first mission (the one in Masyaf). After that, he was already given the targets' names and general locations. Notice that Altair was only an actual novice in the beginning. Each time he assassinated, he moved up rank but notice that he always had to investigate and plan the assassination. See?

Yes, I'm well aware of how the game works. Al Mualim told Altair he would be the one doing the investigations for punishment. To relearn, to grow, to mature. If Al Mualim didn't demote him, then Altai wouldn't have to do any investigations. That's my point, see?




Not only, but it is the one I found more fitting for the occasion. Anyway, it is still better than your source which, sadly, is ignorance.

Seriously mate? Your most fitting source was a Wiki while mine was the game itself.

And ignorance should never be used in a negative tone. People who are ignorant of how ignorance is used are ignorant and need to be taught.




Haha, as always when you can't offer an actual argument you escape or pass the ball. Too bad you can’t feel badass in a fight as you’re forced to escape, unlike in AC games. Now I understand why you like the super easy combat system so much.

I did offer an actual argument. You're too blind to see it. Let me tell you again so maybe you'll get it this time. Third times the charm I guess.

And I enjoy the combat system because it's a game. Not real life.

- Altair was a Master Assassin.
- His arrogance caused him to break the three tenants of the Creed. (You guys have a lot in common!)
- Altair was demoted.
- Altair was forced to do investigations.
- Master Assassins do not do investigations
- Altair was forced to do investigations anyway.
- A true Master Assassin does not require investigations. He has his information given to him.
- You want to feel like a "True Assassin" in "Assassin Shoes"
- Therefore, as a "True Assassin" in reality (lulz) you wouldn't ever do investigations.

Altair had to listen and eavesdrop to get the information he needed because he had no one to do his work for him. Other Assassins also gave him maps which I've said before.

These maps include (and are all separate mind you!)

- A path of guard routes taken (Garneir de Naplouse)
- A path of least resistance to escape from an Assassination (Tamir)
- A path that shows the best entrance and exit based on work that has been done to the castle (William of Montferrat)

I'm fairly sure there are more, but these are the ones that come off the top of my head. It's not drawn my Altair, it's information, and it's in the game.


Quit it, you’re just proving that, not only you can’t read, but you can’t discuss a topic openly.
Again, any Assassin investigates before assassinating.

Riiiight, that's why again, I've told you what I say is in the game, yet you rely on Wikipedia. And, you ignore other posters who say the same thing I'm saying.

Master Assassin's are not required to investigate before Assassinating. It's in the game. Clear as crystal.

Of course, we can keep this up. I'll go play the game again and take screen shots, record videos, whatever you need mate.

Or, you can just keep relying on that Wiki. Fitting for the occasion indeed. Everyone knows a Wiki is never a source for 100% factual information.

AssassinHMS
12-29-2013, 01:39 AM
Did Al Mualim say "investigations" or did he say "locate and track down the target"? Because those are two different things. From what I've seen, spies focus on investigating the whereabouts of the target and leave the rest for the assassin. It doesn't make sense for someone else (especially a lower-level assassin) to plan the mission for a high-level assassin. The Assassin responsible for the actual assassination should be the one to investigate and plan the mission according to his skills, preferences and knowledge. Anyway, AC1 is not proof that Master Assassins don't investigate.
Investigations are crucial and, in reality, the actual Assassins were the ones who investigated. There are many examples in History where Assassins were infiltrated and worked for the target as advisors, guards, etc. and could remain "asleep" for years until they found the best way to eliminate them and an opportunity to put their plan to the test. Anyway, there is not a single mention of lower-level members of the order that investigate the actual details of the assassination. Besides, the target’s habits and locations can vary often and change completely from the moment when the spy investigated to the Assassin’s arrival (which often took months).
Also:
“To get to their targets, the Assassins had to be patient, cold, and calculating. They were generally intelligent and well-read because they were required to possess not only knowledge about their enemy, but his or her culture and their native language. They were trained by their masters to disguise themselves and sneak into enemy territory to perform the assassinations, instead of simply attacking their target outright.”
Why would Assassins require the knowledge about their enemy, culture and native language if they only carried out a predetermined assassination?

Seriously, there is no way that Assassins didn’t investigate by themselves.

pirate1802
12-29-2013, 01:34 PM
Time for some popcorn I guess.

oliacr
12-29-2013, 01:45 PM
Did Al Mualim say "investigations" or did he say "locate and track down the target"? Because those are two different things. From what I've seen, spies focus on investigating the whereabouts of the target and leave the rest for the assassin. It doesn't make sense for someone else (especially a lower-level assassin) to plan the mission for a high-level assassin. The Assassin responsible for the actual assassination should be the one to investigate and plan the mission according to his skills, preferences and knowledge. Anyway, AC1 is not proof that Master Assassins don't investigate.
Investigations are crucial and, in reality, the actual Assassins were the ones who investigated. There are many examples in History where Assassins were infiltrated and worked for the target as advisors, guards, etc. and could remain "asleep" for years until they found the best way to eliminate them and an opportunity to put their plan to the test. Anyway, there is not a single mention of lower-level members of the order that investigate the actual details of the assassination. Besides, the targetís habits and locations can vary often and change completely from the moment when the spy investigated to the Assassinís arrival (which often took months).
Also:
ďTo get to their targets, the Assassins had to be patient, cold, and calculating. They were generally intelligent and well-read because they were required to possess not only knowledge about their enemy, but his or her culture and their native language. They were trained by their masters to disguise themselves and sneak into enemy territory to perform the assassinations, instead of simply attacking their target outright.Ē
Why would Assassins require the knowledge about their enemy, culture and native language if they only carried out a predetermined assassination?

Seriously, there is no way that Assassins didnít investigate by themselves.

I can agree with you. I have almost forgot the investigations from AC1. In one mission in Freedom Cry you could investigate. Probably need this feature again.

shop399615883
12-29-2013, 04:36 PM
It seems that with every game, they are designing it for new players who havent been with the story since the first AC. The whole pirate thing was silly because he wasnt a Assassin. Idid enjoy the story, but the lack of focus on the more esoteric sides of the AC Universe was disappointing. I got into this because i enjoyed being in the shoes of an Assassin not a Pirate. For me AC will always be my favorite game. Ezio forever!

pirate1802
12-29-2013, 05:27 PM
Because in AC2 Ezio totally was an assassin. yeah, nothing new to see here.

I-Like-Pie45
12-29-2013, 05:30 PM
Time for some popcorn I guess.

buttered or caramel?

pirate1802
12-29-2013, 05:32 PM
buttered or caramel?

Butter 4eva

AssassinHMS
12-29-2013, 05:58 PM
Because in AC2 Ezio totally was an assassin. yeah, nothing new to see here.

I donít think thatís what he is saying, heís talking about AC2 in general and not just about Ezio.
I have to say, now that I have played AC4 BF (borrowed from a friend), that AC2 felt much more like an Assassinís Creed game despite the lack of open ended main assassinations.

AC2ís cities, environments and atmosphere felt a lot more like AC in the sense it made me feel a lot more like an assassin. Altairís codex pages, the glyphs, the Assassin tombs, etc. were much more interesting (to me) and much more mysterious than any side activity in AC4. Besides, all the content in Black Flag that had anything to do with AC felt like a ďdťjŗ vuĒ. The stealth, the parkour (worse than AC2ís), the combat (in my opinion worse than AC1ís) were quite boring, but thatís what happens when the core mechanics are shamelessly ignored. The fact that Edward was constantly putting the hood down, the lack of darkness, of conspiracies and mysteries were all huge factors that placed AC4 BF way under AC2 as Assassinís Creed games.
I didnít feel like an Assassin at all in Black Flag except for some rare occasions. I didnít feel part of the cities, I didnít feel like a detective, I didnít feel the blade in the crowd, etc. It was a fun game, I liked it but the reasons why I enjoyed it weren't the reasons why I play Assassinís Creed and they had almost nothing to do with what ACís concept has to offer. The way I see it, this isnít a good thing at all.

oliacr
12-29-2013, 06:02 PM
Butter 4eva
and some cheesy

Because in AC2 Ezio totally was an assassin. yeah, nothing new to see here.
He was. :D:D

I don’t think that’s what he is saying, he’s talking about AC2 in general and not just about Ezio.
I have to say, now that I have played AC4 BF (borrowed from a friend), that AC2 felt much more like an Assassin’s Creed game despite the lack of open ended main assassinations.

AC2’s cities, environments and atmosphere felt a lot more like AC in the sense it made me feel a lot more like an assassin. Altair’s codex pages, the glyphs, the Assassin tombs, etc. were much more interesting (to me) and much more mysterious than any side activity in AC4. Besides, all the content in Black Flag that had anything to do with AC felt like a “dťjŗ vu”. The stealth, the parkour (worse than AC2’s), the combat (in my opinion worse than AC1’s) were quite boring, but that’s what happens when the core mechanics are shamelessly ignored. The fact that Edward was constantly putting the hood down, the lack of darkness, of conspiracies and mysteries were all huge factors that placed AC4 BF way under AC2 as Assassin’s Creed games.
I didn’t feel like an Assassin at all in Black Flag except for some rare occasions. I didn’t feel part of the cities, I didn’t feel like a detective, I didn’t feel the blade in the crowd, etc. It was a fun game, I liked it but the reasons why I enjoyed it weren't the reasons why I play Assassin’s Creed and they had almost nothing to do with what AC’s concept has to offer. The way I see it, this isn’t a good thing at all.
Agreed with the text in bold.

MnemonicSyntax
12-29-2013, 06:16 PM
It seems that with every game, they are designing it for new players who havent been with the story since the first AC. The whole pirate thing was silly because he wasnt a Assassin. Idid enjoy the story, but the lack of focus on the more esoteric sides of the AC Universe was disappointing. I got into this because i enjoyed being in the shoes of an Assassin not a Pirate. For me AC will always be my favorite game. Ezio forever!

Yes, Ezio forever, except the majority of 2 was about a kid who put on his banker daddy's robes and was initially planning on running away to Spain but then decided to, at his Uncle's "behest" to extract revenge on his family with a little "coaxing."

And even then, Ezio wasn't an Assassin until far later in the game. Like Edward.




He was. :D:D



He wasn't. See above.

pirate1802
12-29-2013, 06:36 PM
He ends his post by Ezio forever! yet says Edward wasn't an assassin..I think I guessed correctly a part of what he's saying. Anyhow I'd place AC IV far above AC2 as an Assassins Creed game. And its only reinforced since I recently replayed AC2.

AssassinHMS
12-29-2013, 06:53 PM
He ends his post by Ezio forever! yet says Edward wasn't an assassin..I think I guessed correctly a part of what he's saying. Anyhow I'd place AC IV far above AC2 as an Assassins Creed game. And its only reinforced since I recently replayed AC2.

Perhaps. Anyway, I notice that it's much less dangerous to shout "Connor Forever" in here.
I still get his point though, after all, Edward wasn't an Assassin till near the end of the game while Ezio, although hardly an official Assassin for the majority of the story, never really "wasted" time searching for riches or anything else other than hunting the Templars (for his personal motives though). I'm not saying one is worse than the other, but I get where he comes from. I enjoy the different perspectives and angles but I think it’s time for a more Assassin focused experience for the sake of AC’s concept and core mechanics.

Did you feel like an Assassin more in AC4 BF than in AC2?

Honey-McBadger
12-29-2013, 07:02 PM
It seems that with every game, they are designing it for new players who havent been with the story since the first AC. The whole pirate thing was silly because he wasnt a Assassin. Idid enjoy the story, but the lack of focus on the more esoteric sides of the AC Universe was disappointing. I got into this because i enjoyed being in the shoes of an Assassin not a Pirate. For me AC will always be my favorite game. Ezio forever!

This game takes a different approach to the Assassins, so it's understandable that you may not like the new angle. I can't agree at all with you saying he isn't an Assassin though.

The vast majority of the game shows Edward in a terrible light. He doesn't care about consequences, all he wants is riches. In the end, he loses nearly everyone close to him (partly) because of this, and achieves practically nothing. When he finally joins the Assassins (and this would be clearer if the main assassination sequence had the investigation system intended) things start to fall into place. This game shows us why the Creed is so important.

pirate1802
12-29-2013, 07:13 PM
I dare you to shout Connor 4eva :p.. go on, just try..

And I felt equally non-assassin in both AC2 and AC4. The only game I felt well and truly an assassin was AC1.

AssassinHMS
12-29-2013, 07:21 PM
I dare you to shout Connor 4eva :p.. go on, just try..

Ahah, I'll leave that to the rest of his fanbase



And I felt equally non-assassin in both AC2 and AC4. The only game I felt well and truly an assassin was AC1.

Then shouldn't you place those games at the same level? I mean, as games, you may feel AC4 BF to be a lot superior but, if you're comparing them as Assassin's Creed games (and since the goal of an Assassin's Creed game is to make the player feel like an assassin) you should place them at the same level.

For example, I think AC1 is a far better Assassin's Creed game but a worse game than AC4 BF.

pirate1802
12-29-2013, 07:29 PM
I was talking about the overall feel. Though during the main story missions I felt far more assassinlike than Ezio in AC2, heck all his games combined. People rave about the overt tail missions and having to be "forced" through those sneaky missions but I'd take them over what AC2's main missions were.. a handful of main missions where you actually had to be stealthy and the majority of them being rescuing and escorting mercenaries, thieves etcetera.

In AC1, again.. you had those investigation missions but the main assassination missions were worse than AC4 stealthwise (which I don't mean as a bad thing ofcourse, it is to be expected since that game was the very first one and it came six years ago.) Eveything else in AC1 was pretty much barebones. No assassination contracts, no plantations.

Honey-McBadger
12-29-2013, 07:46 PM
Then shouldn't you place those games at the same level? I mean, as games, you may feel AC4 BF to be a lot superior but, if you're comparing them as Assassin's Creed games (and since the goal of an Assassin's Creed game is to make the player feel like an assassin) you should place them at the same level.

For example, I think AC1 is a far better Assassin's Creed game but a worse game than AC4 BF.

The way they approach the creed has changed, but the messages at the heart of the game haven't.

"and since the goal of an Assassin's Creed game is to make the player feel like an assassin" - The goal of a simulator-type game is to do that. The first game took a simulator approach to present the assassins. They then moved to approaching it from an adventure standpoint, which, as they are a company who need money to make the games, is understandable.

They decide the purpose of the game, not us. We can of course examine what we think the purpose is. I don't see how, looking at the franchise, you conclude that its main purpose is to present a pure assassin simulator. In the latter games that's clearly not the purpose, and so it's not surprising you find them objectively unsuccessful.

For example, I'd argue that one of the purposes is examining the usefulness of the Assassin's Creed. Altair needs the creed to keep control of a large ego. Edward needs the creed to give him a purpose beyond loot. The first game presents that through a simulator approach. Black Flag presents that through an action-adventure approach. There are more examples of how their presentation has changed with the original messages still intact - I think you're being unfair judging these games by how similar they are to the first game.

Edit: I should say, however, that I'm concerned by the amount of praise the game got for concentrating on the pirate aspect and not the assassin aspect. While I think, as I said above, it's justified by the lead writer for this game, in the future the temptation to stick with that approach could be an issue.

AssassinHMS
12-30-2013, 05:47 PM
The way they approach the creed has changed, but the messages at the heart of the game haven't.

"and since the goal of an Assassin's Creed game is to make the player feel like an assassin" - The goal of a simulator-type game is to do that. The first game took a simulator approach to present the assassins. They then moved to approaching it from an adventure standpoint, which, as they are a company who need money to make the games, is understandable.

They decide the purpose of the game, not us. We can of course examine what we think the purpose is. I don't see how, looking at the franchise, you conclude that its main purpose is to present a pure assassin simulator. In the latter games that's clearly not the purpose, and so it's not surprising you find them objectively unsuccessful.

For example, I'd argue that one of the purposes is examining the usefulness of the Assassin's Creed. Altair needs the creed to keep control of a large ego. Edward needs the creed to give him a purpose beyond loot. The first game presents that through a simulator approach. Black Flag presents that through an action-adventure approach. There are more examples of how their presentation has changed with the original messages still intact - I think you're being unfair judging these games by how similar they are to the first game.

Edit: I should say, however, that I'm concerned by the amount of praise the game got for concentrating on the pirate aspect and not the assassin aspect. While I think, as I said above, it's justified by the lead writer for this game, in the future the temptation to stick with that approach could be an issue.

In a simplistic way, AC1 stood for the concept, the rest stood for money (more or less). Unfortunately, this is not an opinion. Proof is everywhere, the core is a mess, the mystery and spark are mostly gone, the franchise focuses more on everything else other than putting the player in the shoes of an Assassin, the franchise has become more and more casual and closer to Uncharted than to itself, etc. This is undeniable proof, only a blind person would refuse to acknowledge this and claim AC is fine or better.
I used to love AC, I still remember the excitement when I first set sight on Damascus, when I first took down a Templar in AC1 and when I first explored Florence and Venice. The mystery and secrecy conveyed in glyphs, tombs, dark religious groups, the creed, etc. And the hidden blade.
But, after ACB, I started feeling bored playing the same games over and over again that became more and more distant from everything that AC used to be and closer to a generic Hollywood movie.
I’ve recently played AC4 BF. I didn’t feel a thing. I enjoyed it, but I wasn’t actually there, I didn’t care. I didn’t care for Edward, I didn’t care about Blackbeard, Kidd or anyone else from that huge cast. I didn’t give two cents for naval, I tried to, but I couldn’t, not when I was supposed to be playing AC and not getting any vibes from it. All the assassin part was the same thing I did in previous games, only worse. The environment was too bright and too joyful, the core mechanics are still unbalanced and underdeveloped, the AI is bad, there is no fear, no tension, no thrill, no fun, nothing. I’m deeply sad that I can’t enjoy AC like I used to, since it used to be my favorite franchise. However, I can see that the problem isn’t mine, It’s not that I can’t enjoy AC anymore, Ubisoft just isn’t making real Assassin’s Creed games. They gave up on the concept as soon as they decided to make AC for everyone, as soon as they decided to sell AC’s identity for profit. They don’t care if the core mechanics are the same **** for 8 games in a row, they don’t care if Assassin’s Creed has investigations or assassinations. They don’t care if it is an Uncharted game, a Hollywood movie or a Pirate game, all they care about is money. And the worst part is AC has potential, way more potential than Uncharted or most franchises out there, but they never gave it a chance. Investigations were always underdeveloped and felt nothing like a real detective job, the NPC’s were always faceless, nameless, stealth is a mess, a joke, combat isn’t actual combat (unless 90% of the AC fan base is mentally challenged), navigation is completely automatic. But sure Ubisoft, keep focusing on naval, on crafting, underwater, make bigger worlds, focus on animations and whatnot and leave AC’s pillars rotten. And AC’s spark is also dead. This is harder to explain since this is more subjective and it is something that is felt but, since I have felt it, I can tell when it isn’t there and current AC games don’t have it.
In short, this franchise is less than a shadow of its former self and has nothing to do with the AC I know, with AC’s concept.


Also, there is one more thing that shows just how badly Ubisoft treated AC.
The hidden blade (or should I say, the hidden blades). It’s completely mainstream and it lost all its charm and transcendence.
There are things that shouldn’t become casual, AC is one of them.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-30-2013, 05:57 PM
When I started It was a game based on the Ancient Astronaut Theory and the idea that just because text says so doesn't make it so. It was a game that made you think and question everything you knew.
It was a game that told the good and evil of religion.
AC3 and AC4 thoguh great games don't fit in...they are more disney films than an AC game..there is no mystery in these 2 games...they make me wish that the series ended in ACR and that ubisoft started a new Historical setting IP that borrowed heavily from AC like AC borrowed heavily from POP.
Lets be honest....the assassin inclusion in Black Flag felt forced...it felt Disney...not like it really could have existed.

Honey-McBadger
12-30-2013, 11:52 PM
AssassinHMS, I think that's a good response to my post - it helped me understand where you are coming from clearer than your others. I must admit though, the way I read it, a lot of your dislike for the changes seems to come from a sense of elitism.

I agree that as the franchise has moved on the financial success of it has become more important - hence the annualisation. There are two sides to this, but I'm not sure it's worth discussing much. It's a reality that would come with any successful game, and if the original game had a heart as good as you claim, it would have found success as well.

"However, I can see that the problem isnít mine, Itís not that I canít enjoy AC anymore, Ubisoft just isnít making real Assassinís Creed games."
I just argued why I disagree with this point, but you didn't seem to address it. If you did, I'd appreciate it if you could rephrase it into answers to a couple of questions I have so it's clearer. Do you think that for a game to truly be an Assassin's Creed game it has to be more like a simulator (AC1) than an action-adventure game (AC2)? Do you agree that examining the usefulness of a creed to guide people has also been also a purpose throughout the franchise?

Going back to the elitism I mentioned, let me explain what I mean.
"Also, there is one more thing that shows just how badly Ubisoft treated AC. The hidden blade (or should I say, the hidden blades). Itís completely mainstream and it lost all its charm and transcendence. "
Would you be able to say why you think it's lost its charm and transcendence, please? I believe that something becoming popular does not make it bad. If you can argue that it has lost its charm and transcendence, then fair enough. If not, then the argument you're making is that its lost those qualities because it is mainstream, which is an elitist view.

"They donít care if it is an Uncharted game, a Hollywood movie or a Pirate game, all they care about is money."
I encourage you to go look at some interviews with, or even the Twitter accounts of some people involved in the making of these games. They certainly don't come across as people who only care about money.

You do have my sympathy, by the way. If you really "didnít feel a thing" at the end of Edward's story, that's a genuine shame.

AssassinHMS
12-31-2013, 01:34 AM
"However, I can see that the problem isnít mine, Itís not that I canít enjoy AC anymore, Ubisoft just isnít making real Assassinís Creed games."
I just argued why I disagree with this point, but you didn't seem to address it. If you did, I'd appreciate it if you could rephrase it into answers to a couple of questions I have so it's clearer. Do you think that for a game to truly be an Assassin's Creed game it has to be more like a simulator (AC1) than an action-adventure game (AC2)? Do you agree that examining the usefulness of a creed to guide people has also been also a purpose throughout the franchise?
Let me try to explain what I think. As far as I can see, Assassinís Creed is the following concept: an experience meant to put the player into the shoes of an Assassin (by portraying the Assassinís life in the story and by allowing the player to feel like an assassin through the gameplay, navigation, stealth and combat) while exploring the different views and takes on the creed, its limitations, purposes, etc. Hence the name Assassinís Creed. This is the most simplistic way I can find to describe ACís concept. If AC can be something other than this, then the name is misleading and the original concept is being seen as a tool rather than what makes AC, AC, its identity.
If this is ACís purpose (at least it is AC1ís purpose as Patrice said), then the best way to achieve it is with a simulator (like AC1). Iím not saying it is the only way, but it is clearly the best.

However, one thing is to take a different approach on the concept and another is to actually change the concept, ignore it or pretend it was never there.
Hereís the thing, AC2 was a direct response to AC1ís critics (I can fundament this if you want). AC2 wasnít a simulator like AC1 (which Iím fine with, although I prefer AC1ís take) but it also changed the concept. The whole ďthe player has the freedom to approach the situation according to his own decisionsĒ was replaced with ďthis is how the ancestor performed this action and you must do it that way or else youíll desynchronizeĒ which was taken to the extreme in AC3. The ďyou are an Assassin, you investigate, you collect information and you use it to plan your moveĒ was completely gone and suddenly the only thing I could do as an Assassin in Assassinís Creed was to assassinate (which isnít much since most of their time Assassins are playing detectives). Oh, and the developers didnít even give investigations a chance. They made some hugely underdeveloped investigations for AC1, didnít like the response and never bothered to improve them or to respect the concept, they simply cut them off from AC2.
Suddenly, AC became like a Hollywood simulator where you follow the life of this cool guy who happens to be an Assassin but that does something else to ensure his life is as entertaining as possible (whether itís naval, crafting, scuba diving, hunting, beating up unfaithful husbands, etc.). And notice that Iím fine with a little mindless fun completely unrelated to AC but, when the core mechanics are underdeveloped as hell while the rest gets all attention and steals the show, it becomes unacceptable.
These are just a few examples of how Ubisoft is ignoring and taking bits of ACís concept in the name of casual fun. I could keep talking about what they made to social stealth, combat and navigation, about how they drained the mystery and the conspiracies (which I consider to be a very important aspect of ACís concept), about how they focus more on making a huge world but fail in making the cities interesting places to spend time in (the citizens are dead, faceless, etc.), about how they made AC more and more casual which turned it, not into a Hulk in History times simulator, but into an interactive experience where you follow this guyís life and do what this guy does whether which involves being Hulk, naval and anything but actual Assassin stuff (oh, with exception for some assassinations of course).
Where is the spirit, the essence of AC? Why is the Assassin part of the game such a ďdťjŗ vuĒ? Why is it that the franchise is so good at making pirates, superheroes but not at making an experience where we feel like an assassin?
And I could keep on and on and go to the details but the point is simple. One thing is changing the perspective on the concept (the concept that defines ACís identity) and another is to change it, to ditch it and mask the space it left with other additions that, although fun, canít and shouldnít replace AC.

As for your second question, I agree that that is one of ACís purpose (the Creed part) but youíre missing the purpose behind the Assassin in Assassinís Creed.






Going back to the elitism I mentioned, let me explain what I mean.
"Also, there is one more thing that shows just how badly Ubisoft treated AC. The hidden blade (or should I say, the hidden blades). Itís completely mainstream and it lost all its charm and transcendence. "
Would you be able to say why you think it's lost its charm and transcendence, please? I believe that something becoming popular does not make it bad. If you can argue that it has lost its charm and transcendence, then fair enough. If not, then the argument you're making is that its lost those qualities because it is mainstream, which is an elitist view.
The hidden blade was unique, now itís just another weapon in the Assassinís huge (and permanent) arsenal. The hidden blade is being misused and it has been forgotten. The hidden blade shouldnít work as just another weapon, if anything, it should be like AC1ís. Also, the beauty of the hidden blade is the uniqueness and the usefulness. It should be fundamental to the gameplay. The whole job of the Assassin should rely deeply on the hidden blade like in AC1. The hidden blade is a mark of stealth. Using the hidden blade resumes to pressing a button and thatís it. This is mostly due to the lack of a deep stealth system. The player should have more control over the hidden blade. I have a few ideas of my own on this but I think you get my point. Also, using two hidden blades instead of just one, feels too mainstream, too casual as it cheapens the hidden blades in a way. If you donít treat the hidden blade as a ďsacredĒ object and instead just as a practical addition, then it doesnít feel transcendent anymore. Also, the Assassin in the white (pure) robes carrying no weapons other than the hidden blade and the sense of being a blade in the crowd are concepts that I really like and that add that feel of purity and darkness to the experienceÖitís hard to explain.



"They donít care if it is an Uncharted game, a Hollywood movie or a Pirate game, all they care about is money."
I encourage you to go look at some interviews with, or even the Twitter accounts of some people involved in the making of these games. They certainly don't come across as people who only care about money.
And I encourage you to look at the games. They say everything. Pretty words arenít hard to come byÖnotice how many times they ask in their surveys if people like Uncharted. Then why not make an Uncharted game unrelated to this franchise? Why use ACís name if theyíre clearly not interested in using ACís concept, if theyíre interested in making some other game? Oh, thatís rightÖprofit.

Honey-McBadger
12-31-2013, 02:48 AM
If this is AC’s purpose (at least it is AC1’s purpose as Patrice said), then the best way to achieve it is with a simulator (like AC1). I’m not saying it is the only way, but it is clearly the best.
I more or less agree with what you said about the purpose. I don't agree that the best way to achieve it is with a simulator, though. I think the difference is this - and feel free to object if I'm being unfair. You think the main purpose of AC is to provide the player with an experience of being an assassin, and I think it is to provide us with insight on, to use your useful explanation, "different views and takes on the creed, its limitations, purposes, etc."

I agree, a simulator is the best way to make you feel like an assassin - though they'd have to use some imagination when operating in areas where the kind of organisation Altair was in didn't exist. However, the way Edward's story is told is an equally insightful look into the Creed as a simulator, in my opinion.

I also think I'm viewing the franchise more as a collection of games. I don't mind them changing the formula from AC1, because I think it's made for better games - as you do I believe, in terms of fun. You're viewing the games after AC1 as sequels of AC1, not as part of a franchise. I think your idea is noble, but unrealistic. Bluntly, in my eyes it looks like you want to stop the game becoming more fun because you value the one purpose of acting like an assassin so far above the many others the franchise has, which I think is unfair. No doubt you feel the same way about me in a way though ;)


I could keep talking... about how they drained the mystery and the conspiracies (which I consider to be a very important aspect of AC’s concept),
I agree that they are a very, very important part of AC's concept. I think you're being harsh putting the blame on the people who make the game though. It's extremely hard to get the modern day right within the timeframe they have. You can rail against those at the very top, I suppose. And also, I do think there's still plenty of mystery in game. Do you know the current significance of Eve?


As for your second question, I agree that that is one of AC’s purpose (the Creed part) but you’re missing the purpose behind the Assassin in Assassin’s Creed.
I'm not missing it - I just don't think the particular type of Middle-Eastern assassin role (not that the geography matters, I mean the style) that Altair had is going to be given a good portrayal in, for example, Rome, and so I put its purpose below the others we both agree on. I think the move away from the simulation style possible in AC1 has the change in time as a big factor.


I think your ideas about the hidden blades and robes fits with your view of the game symbolically, and I admire that. Perhaps you're being a bit overly nostalgic with the weapon, but that isn't too important. There's nothing stopping you from using them like in AC1 though, is there? You seem to dislike the fact players now have more options, is that fair? I say that because the only change that immediately comes to my mind is that they're stronger. It's been a while since I've played the first game though, so I'm sure you'll be able to correct me there.


Also, using two hidden blades instead of just one, feels too mainstream, too casual as it cheapens the hidden blades in a way.
Are you sure casual and mainstream are the words you're meaning here? As someone who enjoys having this discussion with you, I'd feel wrong if I didn't say those words make you sound too arrogant. Would "ordinary" be a fair fit?


And I encourage you to look at the games. They say everything.
It's not surprising that games give evidence of a desire to make money. That's why people make them, ultimately. The reason I told you to look at the people making the game is because you said: "All they care about is money" - the people making the game care about more than that. Do you disagree?

I've included the short quotes to give you context on what part of your argument I was trying to respond to. I'm sorry if I missed anything you wanted me to answer. Just point it out and I'll be happy to help.

AssassinHMS
12-31-2013, 02:52 PM
I more or less agree with what you said about the purpose. I don't agree that the best way to achieve it is with a simulator, though. I think the difference is this - and feel free to object if I'm being unfair. You think the main purpose of AC is to provide the player with an experience of being an assassin, and I think it is to provide us with insight on, to use your useful explanation, "different views and takes on the creed, its limitations, purposes, etc."
Itís both. Thatís ACís concept. The problem is, Ubisoft doesnít think the ďput the player in the shoes of an AssassinĒ will sell as well as ďmake the player follow the life of Hulk in historical timesĒ. But they still want to call it AC, so they keep the part you mentioned and replace the other, with mindless action, cheap violence, naval, etc. This way, they can make their casual game for their huge casual (recent and not original) audience and still get to name it AC. Only it isn't AC, since AC is the whole concept and not just part of it. So yeah, part of ACís concept is to put the player in the shoes of an Assassin. This was only removed because they think it isnít commercial enough but that doesnít mean it doesnít belong to ACís concept, it absolutely does.
Like Patrice said: ďIt asked you to have the situational awareness of a killer, to walk into a room and quietly scope the exits and entrances, lines of sight and potential choke points.Ē

This is the real AC, the one where youíre an Assassin, and let me tell you, itís much better than being Hulk.
Also, in order to understand the Creed, the player needs to feel in the shoes of an Assassin. Why keep the blade from the flesh of an innocent if the game doesnít punish me for it, if there are no actual consequences (and I do not consider a ďdesynchronizationĒ a real consequence since it doesnít teach the player anything. Itís just like saying ďDonít do it. Why? Because Iím telling you not toĒ)?
Why use stealth, why think like an Assassin, why plan, why scope a room, if I am playing as Hulk and can be done with it in mere seconds? Stealth, combat and navigation have no thrill, no tension, and no fear, theyíre no fun.
Assassinís Creed is about being an Assassin physically (gameplay) and psychologically (the Creed, the deep reflections). You canít really be one without being the other, as you can only truly understand a personís ideas and decisions if youíre in his/her shoes.
And whatís worse is that, being in the shoes of an Assassin is awesome! Itís fun, thrilling, exciting. On the other hand, being overpowered, being placed above the experience (instead of being immersed in it), not being encouraged to think like an Assassin but instead like a baby, sucks. Thatís not what AC really is, that is what the developers turned AC into.

You have to see that, the reason why you think AC is simply about providing insight on the different takes and limitations of the creed, is because that is the only thing left of AC in current ďACĒ games. But the real AC (closer to AC1) has the whole package which was only removed due to monetary interest and lack of principles. What AC is truly about, is to put the player in the shoes of an Assassin and thatís it (that also involves the part you said as well). Like I said, it was only dubbed down because they think it is the best way to appeal to a larger market, the casual market.




I also think I'm viewing the franchise more as a collection of games. I don't mind them changing the formula from AC1, because I think it's made for better games - as you do I believe, in terms of fun. You're viewing the games after AC1 as sequels of AC1, not as part of a franchise. I think your idea is noble, but unrealistic. Bluntly, in my eyes it looks like you want to stop the game becoming more fun because you value the one purpose of acting like an assassin so far above the many others the franchise has, which I think is unfair. No doubt you feel the same way about me in a way though ;)
No, it didnít make for better games, not by a long shot. Thatís exactly what I have proven many times in this forum. They may be better games, but not for that reason. AC can be fun (a lot more fun than current ACs) without requiring to forget its concept. How? By focusing on the franchiseís strengths. AC1 was only (somewhat) boring because it was hugely underdeveloped and the other titles are also immensely underdeveloped, the difference is, they donít rely on their core anymore. Take AC4ís naval and youíll see how fun it is. Donít blame the concept, donít blame investigations, blame the lack of attention they were given.
Here, take a look at some of my ideas. Theyíre nothing special, but they should show you that AC is a hell of a lot more fun than any pretender:

Iíd really like an AC where NPCs are fleshed out. For example, each NPC has a house, a job (unless theyíre beggars or something of sorts), a story and something interesting or important to say. For example, the player could follow them and find their daily routines, their secrets, etc.
I think this would be really interesting, especially considering that these people live in a completely different reality (time period and location) from ours.
Missions could be related with them like, you are told that there is a Templar that is trying to lay low and is disguised as a civilian, near your area. By investigating, talking to people who usually know the rumors around the city, by following on clues (like a puddle of blood in an alley that actually belonged to some unlucky fella who found out the Templarís true identity), etc. the player can find out who the Templar posing as a civilian is. Now, since the NPCs are fleshed out, we could find out that the Templar is, in fact, the apparently honest innkeeper that we talked to and visited so many times. This way the player could really feel a part of the city, of the society and have fun just exploring the world, meddling in private affairs and learning about the different cultures and characteristics of these societies.
Anyway, I really think AC could use something like this, after all, the assassin fights for the people so, might as well get to know them.
What is the point of having so many NPCs around if they donít feel alive or arenít actually interesting and fleshed out? Also, this could add some feel to social stealth. No more random faces that appear all the same. Investigating, spying on peopleís lives would be much more interesting and the world would feel much more alive since you could interact with any civilian and explore (if you so wish) their lives (that can vary, from simple and plain, to dark and mysterious such as of those that are into cults, radical religious groups, shady affairs etc.). This could also mean more interesting random events or side missions where you can learn about the secrets of the society around you, discover conspiracies and decide whether to join or put a stop to them, etc.


While in free-roam, by using shadow/light stealth, the player could approach a random group of NPCs, talking to each other, undetected. Then, if the player so desires, he can stick around and eavesdrop on the conversation. This would trigger a random event where, the NPCs would start talking about possessing a treasure or some valuables hidden inside their house. After completing the eavesdropping, the player could tail that NPC and discover the location of said house. In order to avoid detection, as well as a conflict with an innocent person, the player could break in (by entering through an open window or by pickpocketing the NPC's key. Once inside, the player would find his way to the valuables and steal them. In some cases, among the valuables, there could be a letter that would mention the person who gave those valuables to the NPC and the reasons behind it. It could be, for example, that the NPC was working for a Templar and the valuables were in fact a reward for some job. This would lead to an assassination mission (previously locked) where the objective is to eliminate the Templar threat.

Random NPCs roaming the streets that are in fact Templars or people who work for them (from priests to beggars). Imagine youíre wondering around, just exploring the city, when you notice a priest passing nearby. If you look carefully, you will notice a Templar cross and, if you use eagle vision, he will be marked in golden. By tailing the target through the streets, you will eventually arrive at some church. Inside you follow the priest while using crowds and shadows to remain undetected until he leads you to a secluded place and uses a lever which unveils a hidden passage. After he ďvanishesĒ, you pull the same lever and, as the secret door closes behind you, you start to hear the sound of people whispering. As you delve deeper into what appears to be a tomb, you discover that you are in a Templarís hideout. There you can eavesdrop on the meeting (if you wish), or you can deal with the threat. Those who want to simply walk right in and expose themselves can do so, but will have to face more enemies at once, while those who choose the stealth path, can take down the guards silently, leaving the Templars unprotected. Then, it would only be a matter of interrupting the meeting and make sure none of the Templars escapes.

Perhaps you could read the 47th post (page 5 in this thread) where I talk about the concept.




Are you sure casual and mainstream are the words you're meaning here? As someone who enjoys having this discussion with you, I'd feel wrong if I didn't say those words make you sound too arrogant. Would "ordinary" be a fair fit?
Ok then, ordinary it is...and tasteless as well.




It's not surprising that games give evidence of a desire to make money. That's why people make them, ultimately. The reason I told you to look at the people making the game is because you said: "All they care about is money" - the people making the game care about more than that. Do you disagree?
Sure, nothing is absoluteÖ.but what matters in this life is the result. The intentions, the problems, the situations, the justifications matter nothing. The only thing that actually counts is the result, so I wonít pretend otherwise.


Anyway, I want to thank you for this discussion, it's not every day that I get to discuss a difficult and controversial topic in a pleasant manner.

Honey-McBadger
12-31-2013, 04:45 PM
I think your feelings are totally reasonable. I think you're obviously good at the game and want a challenge. I also think you recognise the great potential of a simulator-style approach to the game, and are sad to see it go unrealised. However, I feel you're being unrealistic. I think Ubisoft are being realistic. Looking back over this before I post it, it feels like a long post, so I've included a TL;DR at the end for anyone interested.

I'd go beyond what you say when you start. Being a large company with plenty of experience and lots of market research, they know what will sell better, not just think it. In the real world, they have to make a game that will sell. The game needs to be approved. The only way a company could possibly put enough time and funding into a game of the enormous scale you're talking about and still make it worth playing would be massive sales - though the game you describe does sound fun. A simulator-style assassin's franchise of AC1's nature would not sell nearly as well as an action-adventure-style franchise, so they couldn't generate that effort. In other words, I think the game you describe is currently impossible. Let me point out some quick flaws.


For example, each NPC has a house, a job (unless they’re beggars or something of sorts), a story and something interesting or important to say. For example, the player could follow them and find their daily routines, their secrets, etc.
Ever played Skyrim? They try to do something similar to this, and even in cities that are far, far, far too small for a game like AC the place is practically deserted. How many people do you imagine a city having?


What is the point of having so many NPCs around if they don’t feel alive or aren’t actually interesting and fleshed out?
So it actually feels like you're in a city. If there were too few people it would feel too weird, and exploring a place like Rome would feel ridiculous. With enough to make Rome feel sensible it'd be impossible to give everyone the kind of attention you want without a mass of money, time and employees.


By investigating, talking to people who usually know the rumors around the city, by following on clues (like a puddle of blood in an alley that actually belonged to some unlucky fella who found out the Templar’s true identity). ...
By tailing the target through the streets, you will eventually arrive at some church. ...
This would trigger a random event where, the NPCs would start talking about possessing a treasure or some valuables hidden inside their house. ...
All 3 of these suggestions sound exactly like what can be achieved in an action-adventure game, just without markers. Didn't they add markers to AC1 at the last minute precisely because people were finding it too long and boring to find the people? Regardless, would an option to remove markers satisfy you?


Those who want to simply walk right in and expose themselves can do so, but will have to face more enemies at once, while those who choose the stealth path, can take down the guards silently, leaving the Templars unprotected.
In AC4 those who want to simply walk right in and expose themselves can do so, but will have to face more enemies at once, while those who choose the stealth path, can take down the guards silently, leaving the Templars unprotected.

How would they innovate after the second game? If a game just changes the location and not the gameplay, it's going to stop feeling fresh and get hammered in sales and reviews. That would mean they would need to scale-down. AC4 has done so well because it's offered a change in the gameplay, and managed to keep so many of the purposes we agree on (examing the Creed) as an important theme, just looked at through a different perspective. That's great work on Ubisoft's part.

They've managed to keep selling games by giving people who like more action-packed gameplay that option, but while offering stealth-loving players incentives (like full sync). Although I think you're exaggerating how crucial stealth is to AC1, I agree that it's nowadays we have a less powerful motivator. Considering the situation the developers were presented with, I think the main thing is that with AC4 they've clearly made a move to make the option of stealth more present again.


But the real AC (closer to AC1) has the whole package which was only removed due to monetary interest and lack of principles.
What you call the real AC is AC1 at heart, so no need for the "closer". You just wish it was a more developed game. It's obvious money played a part, but that's because - as I've said - they need the money to make the games.


Sure, nothing is absolute….but what matters in this life is the result. The intentions, the problems, the situations, the justifications matter nothing. The only thing that actually counts is the result, so I won’t pretend otherwise.
The result comes about because of the intentions, the problems, the situation and the justifications, so they're useful indicators. Regardless, I'm glad you agree that the people involved with the game care about more than just money.

TL;DR To sum up what I'm saying, I think your game sounds like it would be great. I just don't think any developer has the resources to make a large city with a believable amount of citizens who each have "a house, a job (unless they’re beggars or something of sorts), a story and something interesting or important to say.", a modern day story and conspiracy elements hidden in the game. The simulator-style game, in my opinion, would not continue to attract enough fans to fund a game feeling developed enough to be enjoyable, and so I congratulate Ubisoft for keeping so many purposes of the game present through the action-adventure approach, as long as they offer a stealth option for players.

I'm enjoying the discussion as well, thanks. As long as nobody gets offended it's always interesting.

Hans684
12-31-2013, 07:27 PM
The impression i gett is that you want a historic Hitman game with the combat(more or less) from THIEF. It's not a bad thing, but personly i think they should make a proper disquise system fist, then address other matters, trying to solve every problem will gett messy, look at AC3(gameplay wise). It tried so much, but ended messy. I don't want something like that to happen again. In terms of stealth look at Hitman, if we only are going to play stealthy the series would be just as rusty and would slowly die. Options are good, i always choose stealth. It dosen't matter if the combat is easy, i use it so little.

Anyway if they are going to make to combat a challenge, then i want them to go as high as possible Dark Souls combat(more or less) instead of THIEF, if i want a challenge i want it high not something between. A true challenge and "not almost died challenge" that gives to illusion of challenge. If you gett trough it totally fine it's not a full on challenge that requires you to think, it is brainless combat where you always survive.

In my opinion of course.