PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone else think that the Assassins Creed games are starting get old?



Dan77777777777
12-21-2013, 04:48 AM
I'm simply burnt out on these games after Black Flag every year. It doesn't feel like an immersive experience any more. It feels like a new layer of paint every year. The characters have become bland, the location feels the same throughout the game, the AI are the same stupid guards since the beginning, the combat feels easy yet clumsy as well as the stealth, and the story hasn't been immersive since AC2. I feel like there is no build up/suspension in the story. I'm never on the edge of my seat. Maybe I'm wrong for saying all this. I wish assassins creed could break away from this call of duty stuff and make some significant changes to the game that will revitalize the franchise. To be honest the sailing and naval combat got boring after a while. Everything in the game feels so systematic that I forget that it's even about assassins. I was hooked on the first assassins creed because it was something completely new. There were 3 distinct cities that felt different in each, and that is something I really liked. One example is if AC3 could've added London as a city instead of having 2 American cities that feel exactly the same. The guards in those cities looked different, and that helped the world feel real. AC2 had some good cities that felt slightly different, but the guards were the exact same with different colors. I thought that was a little cheap. There was Masyaf, the place full of assassins made you feel like you were really part of that order. After that game there has always been this ambiguous feeling about the assassin order. I'm summary, a new AC game that would impress me and revitalize the game for me would have an immersive story with characters you care about or hate (AC2 did a good job), combat that feels fluid yet not cheap, AI that are believable and feel like real people, distinct locations with different looking AI, and a place with other assassins that really makes you feel like you are part of the assassin order. I may be the only person that feels this way, but it's the direction that I wish the franchise would take.

ProletariatPleb
12-21-2013, 04:51 AM
Yes.

I enjoyed Black Flag thoroughly but I would say it was a one-off, I really doubt the same will happen anytime soon.

roostersrule2
12-21-2013, 05:00 AM
Are you Shobits son?

I agree though, if BF wasn't so unique and good I'd probably be done with the series.

STDlyMcStudpants
12-21-2013, 05:40 AM
No. Ac 3 and ac4 were both fresh after playing 4 pretty similar games....and I miss at feeling a bit.
Ac3 and ac4 both could've been great standalone games.
Buuuut I'd like to see them get back to their roots for the next game.

pirate1802
12-21-2013, 06:12 AM
I thought AC4 did a good job of having cities feel different and unique (except the guards, which were colour swaps of each other, as you said.. cheap) I was getting burned out after AC3, And didnt have huge expectations of Black Flag but it did surprised me. I actually agree with Sid. As good as Black Flag was, I'm not expecting the next game to be as good. Franchise fatigue is a thing Ubisoft doesn't seem to grasp.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 06:21 AM
What is this "Franchise fatigue" everyone is always spouting about?

They keep making them, we keep buying them, and then talking about them.... I personally have enjoyed them all.

So I don't understand....

Why does everyone keep talking about being "worn out" and "tired of AC" and yet we all keep buying it?

Perk89
12-21-2013, 07:17 AM
omg Ubi quit making me spend my money on your games i mean sheesh what kind of business are you running here

Perk89
12-21-2013, 07:19 AM
This is another one of those ******ed OMG AC GAMES SHOULD HAVE MORE THAN ONE YEAR OF DEV TIME I DONT WANT PEOPLE TO THINK IM LAME AND NOT A HARDCORE GAMER LIKE THOSE DURN CoD GAMES FANS isn't it?


I personally am stoked about two AC releases next year. I tear through these games so fast because I love them so much and then replay them again and hate having to wait so long for another chapter in the universe.

roostersrule2
12-21-2013, 07:35 AM
What is this "Franchise fatigue" everyone is always spouting about?

They keep making them, we keep buying them, and then talking about them.... I personally have enjoyed them all.

So I don't understand....

Why does everyone keep talking about being "worn out" and "tired of AC" and yet we all keep buying it?Franchise fatigue is where you feel overwhelmed by the amount of games getting churned out and just don't get excited for the game or series anymore. It happened to me after AC3 which is why I really didn't care for AC4 up until like September.

People keep buying them to follow the series or because Ubi has a habit of making the game sound way better then it is.

AngryRaisin
12-21-2013, 07:43 AM
Answer to the OP's original question: No. Not yet. I was a bit ambivalent about AC4 as I wasn't sure how they would make someone new and interesting, but I feel they did with AC4. The environments, naval stuff and storyline were all mostly unique.

phoenix-force411
12-21-2013, 08:11 AM
At least they put in about 2 years of development time, some games don't even get that much.

LoyalACFan
12-21-2013, 09:23 AM
At least they put in about 2 years of development time, some games don't even get that much.

With two new games possibly coming out next year, you can't really say they're each getting two full years of dev time.

killzab
12-21-2013, 10:36 AM
What is this "Franchise fatigue" everyone is always spouting about?

They keep making them, we keep buying them, and then talking about them.... I personally have enjoyed them all.

So I don't understand....

Why does everyone keep talking about being "worn out" and "tired of AC" and yet we all keep buying it?

Imagine for example you love apple pie. You think it's so good you'd want it everyday. So you decide to actually eat some everyday. By a few weeks you won't want to eat another apple pie for years. You could even feel nauseous thinking about it.

It's the same with AC if they keep going, especially two games a year ....

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 10:48 AM
With two new games possibly coming out next year, you can't really say they're each getting two full years of dev time.

If two different teams have been working on them... then yes...yes I could.

HypeR.tgL
12-21-2013, 10:48 AM
The AC franchise getting old, the uniqueness the franchise had has worn out completely, from the iconic hidden blade to the epic air assassinations, they don't have the same impact as they did once before, for me at least.

The only thing I like about the AC franchise is that they always create new cities which are fully explorable, it's something that makes me buy the game, it's probably the main reason for others to buy the games too, especially if it's a Animus version of your own city :p.

DinoSteve1
12-21-2013, 10:49 AM
Well tbh after the mess that was AC3, I was done with Assassin's Creed, but then they released AC4 and I'm now interested again, so no not tired but Ubisoft have made a mistake or two.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 10:53 AM
Imagine for example you love apple pie. You think it's so good you'd want it everyday. So you decide to actually eat some everyday. By a few weeks you won't want to eat another apple pie for years. You could even feel nauseous thinking about it.

It's the same with AC if they keep going, especially two games a year ....

Yeah but Kill....An apple pie every day? No....I can see why I'd get sick...
But an apple pie a year... yeah... I could do that no problem. Especially if I LOVE apple pie.

See thats the thing I don't understand. A year...is kind of a long time. Its not like I play AC all day every day. Usually its for about 3 or 4 weeks out of a year...and that works. By the time fall rolls around next year....I'll want to play a new AC again.

And now that I think about it.... if so many of the users here have "franchise fatigue"......why are you still here? why are you still buying the games and discussing them and being involved in the franchise?

I mean... if you don't want to play a new Assassin's Creed every year....then don't. I just don't see why that means they shouldn't make them.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 10:58 AM
Well tbh after the mess that was AC3, I was done with Assassin's Creed, but then they released AC4 and I'm now interested again, so no not tired but Ubisoft have made a mistake or two.

OK THIS! Would you mind explaining what you mean by "the mess that was AC3"?

I've really been trying to understand why so many people hated AC3....I've read a lot of opinions that boiled down to "I hated _____" and "I preferred _____" and "I wanted a whole Haytham game" ..... but none of those reasons really strike me as a "mess".

LoyalACFan
12-21-2013, 11:02 AM
If two different teams have been working on them... then yes...yes I could.

Those two "different" teams come from one larger team split up to work on two different projects, just like they did with AC3 and Ezio's spinoffs. AC3 would have been a MUCH better game if Brotherhood and Revelations had never existed. So yeah, if the two teams would have ordinarily been working together on a single project instead of dividing their resources into two smaller projects within the touted "two-year development period," saying that both games got the full two years' dev cycle is rather deceptive.

Bottom line: full team working on a single project >>>>> partial teams working on separate projects. If they axed the second AC game for next year and merged that dev team back into the main one, the single AC release is going to be way better off because of it. We don't need two AC's a year.

DinoSteve1
12-21-2013, 11:05 AM
Plot was uninteresting
Characters bar Haytham were boring
Crafting was overcomplicated to the point were is was broken
Free running was the sloppiest its ever been
Collectables, what was the point? you get nothing for collecting them
Sidequests where super uninteresting.

The only good in AC3 was the actual combat, I hated everything else.

ProletariatPleb
12-21-2013, 11:07 AM
Not to forget the game was clearly shipped wayyy before it was ready and cut content.

LoyalACFan
12-21-2013, 11:19 AM
OK THIS! Would you mind explaining what you mean by "the mess that was AC3"?

I've really been trying to understand why so many people hated AC3....I've read a lot of opinions that boiled down to "I hated _____" and "I preferred _____" and "I wanted a whole Haytham game" ..... but none of those reasons really strike me as a "mess".

In my opinion, which is evidently shared by many...

It was a disappointment that failed to live up to nearly every promise it made. It wasn't a BAD game by any means, but it was expected to be AC's magnum opus, and it just wasn't. Desmond's conclusion fell flat on its face. Seven hours of the story were prologue. Connor's story took a backseat to irrelevant Revolutionary War events. Crucial character development was hidden behind many tedious missions of the seemingly trivial Homestead gameplay track. Pointless features that were there just because they could be made the game feel unfocused and inconsistent. Bugs and glitches plagued many people's experience from start to finish. Assassinations were almost all scripted and shoved into cutscenes. And the mission structure granted essentially zero freedom to the player.

All of this combined, when compared to the massive hype campaign that surrounded it, makes "mess" an adequate term to describe AC3. Particularly in regards to the story. I'm not sure if it can be attributed to cut content, poor writing, or if they merely ran out of time, but AC3's main campaign contained some of the shoddiest storytelling I've ever seen. Connor's motivations were all over the place, and he became bewilderingly MORE naive after suffering tragedy after tragedy. The core of my disappointment lies in the sheer amount of potential AC3 showed; even now, I can see a great story at its heart, but it was told so badly it was hard to keep up with what was happening, and even harder to stay interested. That's why I'm still half-hoping for a Connor sequel; to salvage his story from the wreck of Assassin's Creed III.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 11:25 AM
Those two "different" teams come from one larger team split up to work on two different projects, just like they did with AC3 and Ezio's spinoffs. AC3 would have been a MUCH better game if Brotherhood and Revelations had never existed. So yeah, if the two teams would have ordinarily been working together on a single project instead of dividing their resources into two smaller projects within the touted "two-year development period," saying that both games got the full two years' dev cycle is rather deceptive.

Bottom line: full team working on a single project >>>>> partial teams working on separate projects. If they axed the second AC game for next year and merged that dev team back into the main one, the single AC release is going to be way better off because of it. We don't need two AC's a year.

Don't they have like 30 something studios though? Why would only 1 team be making 2 games?

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 11:28 AM
Plot was uninteresting
Characters bar Haytham were boring
Crafting was overcomplicated to the point were is was broken
Free running was the sloppiest its ever been
Collectables, what was the point? you get nothing for collecting them
Sidequests where super uninteresting.

The only good in AC3 was the actual combat, I hated everything else.


Crafting was complicated....I acknowledge this as a legit complaint. The rest is just more opinion though. I'm still trying to figure out where the animosity comes from.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 11:32 AM
In my opinion, which is evidently shared by many...

It was a disappointment that failed to live up to nearly every promise it made. It wasn't a BAD game by any means, but it was expected to be AC's magnum opus, and it just wasn't. Desmond's conclusion fell flat on its face. Seven hours of the story were prologue. Connor's story took a backseat to irrelevant Revolutionary War events. Crucial character development was hidden behind many tedious missions of the seemingly trivial Homestead gameplay track. Pointless features that were there just because they could be made the game feel unfocused and inconsistent. Bugs and glitches plagued many people's experience from start to finish. Assassinations were almost all scripted and shoved into cutscenes. And the mission structure granted essentially zero freedom to the player.

All of this combined, when compared to the massive hype campaign that surrounded it, makes "mess" an adequate term to describe AC3. Particularly in regards to the story. I'm not sure if it can be attributed to cut content, poor writing, or if they merely ran out of time, but AC3's main campaign contained some of the shoddiest storytelling I've ever seen. Connor's motivations were all over the place, and he became bewilderingly MORE naive after suffering tragedy after tragedy. The core of my disappointment lies in the sheer amount of potential AC3 showed; even now, I can see a great story at its heart, but it was told so badly it was hard to keep up with what was happening, and even harder to stay interested. That's why I'm still half-hoping for a Connor sequel; to salvage his story from the wreck of Assassin's Creed III.


See I was following you with the whole "didn't live up to the hype" complaint.... and after ME3 I can understand anger over what was promised vs what was delivered.... but then you devolved into an "I didn't like Connor" argument... which is all I see during these arguments.

LoyalACFan
12-21-2013, 11:33 AM
Don't they have like 30 something studios though? Why would only 1 team be making 2 games?

I didn't exactly mean "two teams" literally, but rather as sort of a simplified example. The point is that they'd be drawing people off of another AC project to work on the second AC project. They ain't going to be hiring an entire new team for the second 2014 game. The manpower's got to come from somewhere.

DinoSteve1
12-21-2013, 11:36 AM
See I was following you with the whole "didn't live up to the hype" complaint.... and after ME3 I can understand anger over what was promised vs what was delivered.... but then you devolved into an "I didn't like Connor" argument... which is all I see during these arguments.

Even if that was his only complaint, its still a legit complaint, afterall its supposed to be the protagonist that connects you to the story, if you can't connect to the story you won't like the game.


Crafting was complicated....I acknowledge this as a legit complaint. The rest is just more opinion though. I'm still trying to figure out where the animosity comes from.
It maybe opinion but its how I feel, AC3 is not fun game to play.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 11:41 AM
To approach the finer points you touched on:

"Desmond's conclusion fell flat on its face."
How so?

"Seven hours of the story were prologue."
This I agree on. Haytham's bit (although a nice view into the French-Indian war) should have been shorter.

"Connor's story took a backseat to irrelevant Revolutionary War events."
Irrelevant? How so? The story was about Connor's life during the events of the Revolution.

"Crucial character development was hidden behind many tedious missions of the seemingly trivial Homestead gameplay track."
The development of the Homestead is where Connor shines and grows. The problem is I find people treat it as "optional side content".

"Pointless features that were there just because they could be made the game feel unfocused and inconsistent."
If this is a reference to the shoehorned in "guilds" and delivery missions....yes...I agree.

"Bugs and glitches plagued many people's experience from start to finish."
So I've heard...and I didn't get any... but this is totally a legit point.

"Assassinations were almost all scripted and shoved into cutscenes."
A matter of preference...but I can see why some players would dislike this.

"And the mission structure granted essentially zero freedom to the player."
Is this a reference to the optional objectives?

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 11:45 AM
I didn't exactly mean "two teams" literally, but rather as sort of a simplified example. The point is that they'd be drawing people off of another AC project to work on the second AC project. They ain't going to be hiring an entire new team for the second 2014 game. The manpower's got to come from somewhere.

But what if the second 2014 game was already in development by another of their studios for the last few years?

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 11:47 AM
Even if that was his only complaint, its still a legit complaint, afterall its supposed to be the protagonist that connects you to the story, if you can't connect to the story you won't like the game.


It maybe opinion but its how I feel, AC3 is not fun game to play.

Don't get me wrong, I respect them as opinions. Its just that I see AC3 described as a horrible mess or a travesty or a black stain often enough on forums that I'm trying to really see if there are reasons that hold more weight than "I didn't like Connor!" or "I liked Haytham better!" or "Ezio was better!"

LoyalACFan
12-21-2013, 11:48 AM
See I was following you with the whole "didn't live up to the hype" complaint.... and after ME3 I can understand anger over what was promised vs what was delivered.... but then you devolved into an "I didn't like Connor" argument... which is all I see during these arguments.

Never did I even imply that I didn't like Connor. I REALLY liked him; a change of pace from the Ezio archetype, much as I love him, was refreshing. But I did say that Connor was very poorly written, and his motivations were never entirely clear. He went from "the settlers are encroaching on our land, we have to fight back" to "the colonists are my friends" with no hesitation. That mindset kind of came from Achilles (I guess?) but then again Achilles was the first one to call out the colonists for being racist bastards. Connor himself accosted Sam Adams for likening the settlers' condition to that of the slaves, which Connor acknowledges to be much worse, yet throughout the entire game he fights for the colonists' "freedom" and doesn't give a damn about actual slavery again until the very last cutscene. And he apparently forgot about his village too, because he went for like five years without doing anything for it. This is particularly distressing, because his village was the primary motivating factor for him to become an Assassin in the first place.

I loved Connor's characterization as a gentler, humbler Assassin with a kind heart despite repeated horrors he witnessed, but his dedication to the Patriots (which took up like 90% of his screen time) was incredibly out of character, and seemed to spring from a desire to shoehorn him into the war, rather than an authentic representation of what a person in his situation would do. "I'm a noble youth with a deep-seated anger at injustice, so let me ignore the plight of my people and enslaved blacks to go help out some privileged racists."

AherasSTRG
12-21-2013, 11:55 AM
To the thread creator's question:
http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130709214609/lego/images/c/c3/39215-grumpy-cat-no-Rwoe.jpeg

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 11:56 AM
Never did I even imply that I didn't like Connor. I REALLY liked him; a change of pace from the Ezio archetype, much as I love him, was refreshing. But I did say that Connor was very poorly written, and his motivations were never entirely clear. He went from "the settlers are encroaching on our land, we have to fight back" to "the colonists are my friends" with no hesitation. That mindset kind of came from Achilles (I guess?) but then again Achilles was the first one to call out the colonists for being racist bastards. Connor himself accosted Sam Adams for likening the settlers' condition to that of the slaves, which Connor acknowledges to be much worse, yet throughout the entire game he fights for the colonists' "freedom" and doesn't give a damn about actual slavery again until the very last cutscene. And he apparently forgot about his village too, because he went for like five years without doing anything for it. This is particularly distressing, because his village was the primary motivating factor for him to become an Assassin in the first place.

I loved Connor's characterization as a gentler, humbler Assassin with a kind heart despite repeated horrors he witnessed, but his dedication to the Patriots (which took up like 90% of his screen time) was incredibly out of character, and seemed to spring from a desire to shoehorn him into the war, rather than an authentic representation of what a person in his situation would do. "I'm a noble youth with a deep-seated anger at injustice, so let me ignore the plight of my people and enslaved blacks to go help out some privileged racists."


I redact my previous statement. This was a much better explanation of your views.

Do you think that a lot of Connor's "growth" is lost in the time skips? I feel that a lot more of him adapting to the colonist mindset from his hot headed native teen years may have been lost during those. Also... I think the pacing with his Homestead stuff was a bit funky. Essentially....I didn't like how you could do a mission for the pregnant lady, walk away, and BAM next day shes having the baby. The same was true of the naval missions.... they often took place in different years then the story event I was currently doing.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 12:05 PM
As to the bit about him helping the patriots while disregarding the slaves...I think it was just a matter of naivete again.
I recall a walking conversation where he chastises Adams about it and Adams state that they can't make those kinds of changes while under the boot of Britain. So Connor begrudgingly agrees and aids them hoping they would change afterwards....only to be proven foolish in the end.

DinoSteve1
12-21-2013, 12:05 PM
Don't get me wrong, I respect them as opinions. Its just that I see AC3 described as a horrible mess or a travesty or a black stain often enough on forums that I'm trying to really see if there are reasons that hold more weight than "I didn't like Connor!" or "I liked Haytham better!" or "Ezio was better!"

I don't think Conner is a good character, but not compared to anyone else, I feel he is poorly written and his motivations seem to change with the weather. But Conner is far from the only problem I have with the game.

LoyalACFan
12-21-2013, 12:14 PM
To approach the finer points you touched on:

"Desmond's conclusion fell flat on its face."
How so?

The touted transformation into the greatest Master Assassin, a culmination of Altair, Ezio, and Connor, never happened. He remained a whiny, wisecracking everyman, the only difference was that he slapped on a hood. I mean, they built him up like he was going to be this huge badass, then he got cornered by Daniel Cross and cowered behind an Animus, saved only by the random intervention of Daniel's bleeding effect psychosis. Yeah, way to go there, champ. And then he made a cliched hero sacrifice via the Eye, which in my book basically constitutes a deus ex machina.


"Seven hours of the story were prologue."
This I agree on. Haytham's bit (although a nice view into the French-Indian war) should have been shorter.

Not just that, though, there were also the two sequences of Connor's childhood and teens. I know there were some important scenes in there for character development, but on the heels of the three sequences of prologue I already churned through, it was too much. One sequence of Haytham, one sequence of young Connor would have been plenty. Instead, we don't get to the meat of his story until halfway through the game. That, to me, is unacceptable.


"Connor's story took a backseat to irrelevant Revolutionary War events."
Irrelevant? How so? The story was about Connor's life during the events of the Revolution.

More on this in the gigantic post above (our comments are overlapping as we type) but there was no need for him to be at most of them. Paul Revere's Ride? Battle of Lexington? Signing of the Declaration of Independence? Appointment of George Washington? What did any of these have to do with Connor's story? Basically nothing. He was there just because those events were famous, and many of them were groan-inducing. I mean, let's face it, did ANYONE enjoy asking Revere for directions while steering a mentally deficient horse?


"Crucial character development was hidden behind many tedious missions of the seemingly trivial Homestead gameplay track."
The development of the Homestead is where Connor shines and grows. The problem is I find people treat it as "optional side content".

People treated it this way for a reason; that's the way it was presented. After completing the first few, there was no reason to suspect there was any more to them than an accompaniment of the crafting and trading system, which you agreed was abysmal. It's not like any of them were story-heavy until you got through about half of them; mostly they're just "thanks for rescuing me, I'll craft stuff for you now!" Can't blame anyone for thinking they were trivial, and if they didn't want to partake in the useless crafting system, why would they bother recruiting more people?


"Pointless features that were there just because they could be made the game feel unfocused and inconsistent."
If this is a reference to the shoehorned in "guilds" and delivery missions....yes...I agree.

Guilds, delivery missions, courier requests, Almanac pages, "assassination contracts" of some random dude just ambling around pointlessly with no guards or backstory... yep. All of that. I wasn't a fan of liberation missions either since the contacts bewilderingly acted like they knew you if you did some missions before meeting them, but I guess I can see why people liked them, so no more on that.


"Bugs and glitches plagued many people's experience from start to finish."
So I've heard...and I didn't get any... but this is totally a legit point.

You're one of the lucky ones then. I got quite a few, and it was annoying as hell, let me tell you.


"Assassinations were almost all scripted and shoved into cutscenes."
A matter of preference...but I can see why some players would dislike this.

I disagree; open-ended assassinations are a cornerstone of the series. To see them all reduced to "Press Square" was heartbreaking.


"And the mission structure granted essentially zero freedom to the player."
Is this a reference to the optional objectives?

No, it's a reference to the crushing linearity of the missions. Every single person who played AC3's story played it in the exact same way. And that's not how a game like this should be.

Again, just my opinions, but I think a lot of people who claim to hate AC3 think along similar lines. It's not all just blind "I hate Connor" bashing; I'd actually say those people are in the minority.

itsamea-mario
12-21-2013, 12:18 PM
It's a concept with lots of potential. Potential which is being squandered.

LoyalACFan
12-21-2013, 12:20 PM
I redact my previous statement. This was a much better explanation of your views.

Do you think that a lot of Connor's "growth" is lost in the time skips? I feel that a lot more of him adapting to the colonist mindset from his hot headed native teen years may have been lost during those. Also... I think the pacing with his Homestead stuff was a bit funky. Essentially....I didn't like how you could do a mission for the pregnant lady, walk away, and BAM next day shes having the baby. The same was true of the naval missions.... they often took place in different years then the story event I was currently doing.

That's probably true. I felt like each sequence was too rigidly structured around a specific historical event, going back to one of my previous points, so a lot of Connor's development, which likely didn't all hinge on pivotal war moments, got lost in the mix. A shame.

Again, this is why I want a Connor sequel though; a game that he doesn't have to share with Haytham, Desmond, and a Revolution.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 12:36 PM
Connor being at the signing of the Declaration was a bit forced...but I can see why they put it there (since...it's kind of the big "thing".) Personally I felt they should've just made it one of the newpaper articles you could read.

But the Battles of Lexington & Concord were where the war began. It is also how they chose to set-up Pitcairn as a target. Without the threat of his army marching across the land...Pitcairn wouldn't have been a threatening target. It's one of my more favored sequences.

As for Paul Revere's Ride... I hope they put it in for the reason I like to think they did. It shows a truth about Revere that most youth don't realize...the guy was kind of an ***. He also took credit for the "Ride of Paul Revere" which is funny since there were 3 riders that night and his was the shortest. I'd like to think they put it in for the comedy.


As to the Homestead and Economic System. I'm really on the fence about it. I liked it a lot more as a base money making mechanic than the old automatic collection pot way... but the UI menu was trash...and the fact that I could only make products in singles was kinda stupid.

pacmanate
12-21-2013, 12:38 PM
AC4 was fun, but eh.

There is no quality jump anymore, everythings too much the same and it IS because its annual.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 12:44 PM
AC4 was fun, but eh.

There is no quality jump anymore, everythings too much the same and it IS because its annual.

The way I look at it is that the yearly schedule probably means it's too late for complaints about AC4 to be fixed in AC5... so we should look for changes based on our complaints in AC6 instead.

Essentially...expect changes every other game...rather than every game.

pacmanate
12-21-2013, 12:53 PM
The way I look at it is that the yearly schedule probably means it's too late for complaints about AC4 to be fixed in AC5... so we should look for changes based on our complaints in AC6 instead.

Essentially...expect changes every other game...rather than every game.

Which isn't exactly great... It means I still pay full retail to buy a game just so I get the info even though its just a reskin with a few new weapons.

ze_topazio
12-21-2013, 12:55 PM
I love Black Flag but even so i have to agree, it really feels like I'm playing the same thing over and over again, every game has some changes, some upgrades, some new side activities but the core is always the same and the missions style are always the same, things like killing a target, synchronizing with a viewpoint, arriving at a new city, climbing a historical building, nothing of that feels special anymore, the target, city and building may be different but i have already done that activity so many times over the past few years that it's starting to feel like routine, it still impresses me to see the world they create for each entry, and novelties and gimmicks like the naval battles or the Da Vinci machines keep me entertained, but the core of the series is tired.

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 12:55 PM
Which isn't exactly great... It means I still pay full retail to buy a game just so I get the info even though its just a reskin with a few new weapons.

Yeah.. I guess.... I mean.. you could just wiki it. You don't gotta buy it.

pacmanate
12-21-2013, 02:10 PM
Yeah.. I guess.... I mean.. you could just wiki it. You don't gotta buy it.

If you're a fan, you want to experience the game, not read about it.

oliacr
12-21-2013, 02:12 PM
I can only disagree with you folk, AC3 and AC4 are the best ACs yet (gameplay) they are fresh and innovative i mean in ac3 the whole free running system with wood rocks etc, and the combat system too

ProletariatPleb
12-21-2013, 02:13 PM
Yeah.. I guess.... I mean.. you could just wiki it. You don't gotta buy it.
That's not really a great solution, nor very practical.

pacmanate
12-21-2013, 02:16 PM
That's not really a great solution, nor very practical.

Yeah its a pretty crap solution...

Charles_Phipps
12-21-2013, 02:34 PM
I'm of mixed feelings.

They've done 7 games so far (not including the spin-offs) and they've all been good.

'Still, I do think people are starting to get a little supersaturated.

One a year is usually enough for me to forget what the previous game was like and start enjoying it again.

Dan77777777777
12-21-2013, 03:06 PM
I simply hope somewhere down the road there is a massive jump, who knows since they are making two versions next year. Maybe the next gen one could make the jump, but it's going to take more than visuals to do so. If they could provide a story that isn't so boring and ambiguous along with AI that make the experience more believable, then I would actually buy a game again instead of borrowing or renting it. As far as the combat goes, it feels cheap and clumsy. All you do is hit the counter button then attack, attack, attack, attack as you are being attacked one by one typically. Yes you can throw in a pistol counter or do the move with a pistol after you started a chain kill, but after a couple times it is boring again. On the officers all you do is hit the counter button, and the brutes you simply hit the disarm button. I know it really won't change because the game is being pumped out every year, but I can't complain since I'm only borrowing the games for the most part.

ze_topazio
12-21-2013, 03:11 PM
I can only disagree with you folk, AC3 and AC4 are the best ACs yet (gameplay) they are fresh and innovative i mean in ac3 the whole free running system with wood rocks etc, and the combat system too

Climbing rocks and trees is not any different than climbing buildings, it's just a 3D object to climb, there's nothing revolutionary about it, it's cool though and makes you wonder why it took so long for them to implement that, and the combat system is pretty much the same thing but with some differences to make it seem new, attack the enemy until he dies or wait, counterattack and kill.

I would also say that the free running and climbing have become worse since now the game does everything automatically and you no longer have to press any button, but that's me.

Dan77777777777
12-21-2013, 03:15 PM
Same here about the free running

LoyalACFan
12-21-2013, 03:23 PM
I would also say that the free running and climbing have become worse since now the game does everything automatically and you no longer have to press any button, but that's me.

Agreed, the one-button system is a downgrade IMO. I like the concept of "safe" freerunning by just holding R1 without X and negating the possibility of overshooting your intended landing spot and plummeting to your death, but having EVERYTHING related to movement mapped to one button kind of sucks. Not to mention I like having a speed between "stroll" and "dead sprint" that doesn't involve any wonky 'push-the-analog-stick-lightly' stuff. You can't really control how hard you're pushing the stick very well if you're also trying to steer your character with it.

RinoTheBouncer
12-21-2013, 03:50 PM
Best thread ever. I adore this franchise and been a fan since the very first game, but only until AC:Revelations did I feel so intrigued and Immersed. AC:R was perfect and ACIII was great if it wasnít for the badly directed ending. However, with this one, I feel like the story is becoming so irrelevant and itís all about making a historical GTA.

pirate1802
12-21-2013, 03:53 PM
I love Black Flag but even so i have to agree, it really feels like I'm playing the same thing over and over again, every game has some changes, some upgrades, some new side activities but the core is always the same and the missions style are always the same, things like killing a target, synchronizing with a viewpoint, arriving at a new city, climbing a historical building, nothing of that feels special anymore, the target, city and building may be different but i have already done that activity so many times over the past few years that it's starting to feel like routine, it still impresses me to see the world they create for each entry, and novelties and gimmicks like the naval battles or the Da Vinci machines keep me entertained, but the core of the series is tired.

I don't think the lack of innovation is to be blamed as much as the yearly sequels. I mean viewpoint synchronizing, assassination people, arriving at a new city are the very core of AC, which imo should never change. What is happening is we are doing it so any times that those things are losing its charm.

ze_topazio
12-21-2013, 04:39 PM
That's what i meant, the core is fine but playing the same thing every year for the past 7 years, the initial novelty and charm kind of died.

Perk89
12-21-2013, 07:07 PM
"Connor's story took a backseat to irrelevant Revolutionary War events."
Irrelevant? How so? The story was about Connor's life during the events of the Revolution.



That there is exactly what the REAL issue is, though. Most people decided they weren't going to like the game as soon as it was set in 'Murica. Anybody who was on this forum at this time can testify to it, and the kind of commentary you are responding to is a remnant of that.

ZOMG AMERICA! BUT I WANTED ANCIENT JAPAN!! TO BE A SAMURAI!!!!! THATS SO COOL!!!! SAMURAIS HAZZAHH URRGGH HATE MURICA.

Some people are so oddly emotionally invested in stuff like that they won't permit themselves to enjoy something.

Charles_Phipps
12-21-2013, 07:08 PM
Yeah, there's some definite entitlement there.

Perk89
12-21-2013, 07:11 PM
This thread, at it's core, is nothing more than another thread designed for people who don't like the idea of yearly releases because it isn't "cool."

OMG I DONT WANT TO BE LIKE THEM COD PLAYERS!!! IM A HARDCORE GAMER!!!

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 07:15 PM
If you're a fan, you want to experience the game, not read about it.

Yeah....I know.... but wasn't your complaint that you didn't want to pay money for a reskin with some minor additions?

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 07:21 PM
This thread, at it's core, is nothing more than another thread designed for people who don't like the idea of yearly releases because it isn't "cool."

OMG I DONT WANT TO BE LIKE THEM COD PLAYERS!!! IM A HARDCORE GAMER!!!

You think so? I was hoping there was something more substantial to the anti-"1 year release policy" complaints.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
12-21-2013, 07:22 PM
The core concepts are fine. Don't fix what isn't broke. What IS broken is the execution of such concepts. For instance...social stealth could be a LOT more complex without being confusing. I discussed in another thread that being able to blend in with a crowd during a chase is very finnicky in AC and will occasionally just stop working as the civilians back away. That needs to go. As long as you're between people, it should work.

An example: sometimes, after assassinating someone, the crowd you're in will disappear so you can't blend but you're still in the crowd. But because the game doesn't register this, it acts like you're plainly visible to the guards who automatically think it to be you. That needs to go. Crowds should work more like a dynamic and ever changing "stalking zone." So, you know how in stalking zones, you're crouched down and you can move freely around the bush-covered area? Same idea with crowds only while standing. So as long as the crowd exists, you'll be hidden unless the guards start pushing through the crowd and find you. During a chase sequence, you can enter a large crowd and start making your way through it while pushing people to the side. Meanwhile, the guards catch up to the crowd and begin wading through, shoving people out of the way to look for you. Now if you manage to reach the other side of the crowd and exit, the enemies won't magically home in on your position but rather the blending zones have swapped for the time being. Because the guard(s) is in the crowd and you're out of it, his vision of you is blocked by the rest of the crowd, allowing you to quietly duck into an alley and vanish. Right now...things like that are not possible because they haven't really thought about advancing social stealth almost since the second game. In AC1, you could only blend with monks or by holding A to avoid detection. This was slow but worked well enough as a proof of concept. Come AC2, they allow you to blend in with whole crowds. Great. They did not change this for the following two games. In AC3, they changed it VERY subtly by making it so you can blend with just 2 people. Other than that, AC3 introduced contextual animations but that's only visual. Helps immerse the player a bit more but at the end of the day, the actual end result is the same as if he just stood there.

Hence why I think things like a good reversal would make blending and chase sequences more dynamic. Being able to use the crowd to your advantage a lot more by slipping in, knowing the guards will head to it and start shoving through the crowd, so you can exit out the side of the crowd and duck into a side street or alley would be awesome. The reversal would be how the crowd is classically considered a hiding place but once the guard enters it, it becomes a countdown until he finds you so the safest thing to do is to actually leave the crowd and slip away. This would be harder and harder the more guards are chasing you as the AI could be amped up so as to have a few stay outside the crowd to see if you make a break for it.

Different assassination types:

High profile: generally a leaping air assassination like it's always been. Loud, plainly visible, etc. Performed by holding RT and X.
Low profile/quick: a quick and quiet assassination that won't register to civilians or guards as an assassination until the body begins to fall. If backs are turned, the sound of the body hitting the floor will alert them while the body STARTING to fall will alert people who are looking. Performed by pressing X.
Low profile/slow: A much slower assassination where the player covers the target's mouth while stabbing them and holds onto the body to gently lay it on the floor. The upside to this is that it won't alert enemies who aren't looking as they won't hear a body drop. The downside is that it's slower and so anyone passing by who looks in your direction is more likely to see you. Performed by holding X down until you've set the body down. However, if you're spotted, you wouldn't have to complete the animation, if you let go of X, you will drop the body from whatever height/point of the animation you were at so you can run or fight.

There's plenty of small things they could do to enrich the social stealth, the traditional stealth, the parkour, etc. I think parkour is mostly fine as it is in AC3/AC4 but there should be one major difference. RT should control the parkour itself. Meaning you hold RT down to move from rooftop to rooftop and to hop from beam to beam to beam, etc. But climbing shouldn't be dictated by RT alone. You should be able to hold RT down and run next to a building without the possibility of the game going "oh you want to climb? here, let's climb!" when climbing is something you DEFINITELY don't want. Instead, I think you should hold RT+A to initiate climbing. It'd be similar to classic AC's where you held RT+A to sprint/climb/free run but different in that it doesn't control pace (you control jog vs sprint by how much you squeeze the trigger or how much you push on the thumbstick). The only thing RT+A would do is tell the game that yes, you want to climb. You will then begin to climb and you can let go of A. From then on you, just push in the direction to climb and stuff. Once you're on the roof, if you want to free run and jump from roof to roof, you just hold RT, A is not needed.

Another thing is they could reintroduce the leap and grip move that was first introduced in AC2. I would make a few differences. First of all, the move still exists in AC3/AC$ but it's completely automated. While climbing, if a ledge is a bit high, Connor/Edward will leap up to it in a similar manner as Ezio but whereas we used to have to dictate this, the game will just do it. In the Ezio trilogy, the move felt clunky and broke the flow but the benefit was actually participating in the climbing. The benefit to AC3/AC4 is that the flow is a lot nicer but you lose that input. I think the way Ezio gripped the ledge with a sudden and lurching pause would need to go and I think the way to come to a happy medium is by having players press A and up to do the leap move. The difference is that you wouldn't have to press B to re-grip anymore.

So AC2/B/R = press A/up and then press B to re-grip the ledge. Clunky, breaks flow, let's players stay in control and actually participate in climbing.
AC3/4 = automatic. Flows well, looks nicer, but takes away all control.
My idea = press A/up. Flows well, looks nicer, let's players stay in control and actually participate in climbing.

I think that would be a nice middle...you no longer have to fiddle with multiple buttons and the flow wouldn't break.

Anyway...there are lots of things AC can do. One last thing is that there needs to be more things to do post-game. It sounds like AC4 has gotten better but there are no random events around the cities. AC's never been good with this while almost every other open world game is. There are no little random encounters that are never ending. Spiderman 2 had these various petty crimes around the cty that would persists even after the main game was over. Catching muggers and returning purses, ctaching a kid's balloon before it floats off, rescuing a person who's about to fall off a building, chasing after a getaway car and bashing it while dodging bullets fired into the roof of the car until it stops so you can beat up the criminals, etc. AC should have that sort of stuff for us to do that never ends. AC1 had us saving civilians from corrupt guards which was cool but once you finished a set number in a part of the city, you were done. AC2 scrapped saving civilians and instead had thieves you could tackle to get extra money -- the various actions to get down your notoriety are also a similar concept such as paying the criers or tackling the officials but it's not the same. They also had races, cheating husbands, etc. to do but again...after a set number were completed...that was it. ACB kept the thieves and reintroduced the concept of saving civilians from the first AC and adapted it into a way of recruiting Assassins. Great, but again...once you have all your slots filled...that's it. ACR kept that but changed the way thieves worked by having them attack you from behind and giving you the chance to kill them quickly and get the money OR if you're not quick enough, chase them down.

I think those are the biggest hindrances from AC that are keeping it from reaching a new height. Social stealth and things to do. Social stealth needs to be a focus and needs to have more and the game itself simply needs a never ending series of small events for the player. Not board games, not intentionally starting fights with guards, not even hunting is good enough. Hunting is better but I want to help people, fight criminals, etc. Adapt the whole "chase the thief down" and "save the civilian" concept and expand upon those so we can always do it. So we'll be running around a rooftop and a little thing will pop up on our mini-map or a waypoint will pop up on our HUD (depending on what you have opted to have for a HUD) or if you listen, you'll hear a cry for help. You can choose to ignore it and just get on with what you were doing for no penalty. If you decide to stop and help, you'll have a small little mission such as chasing a mugger or getting someone to the nearest doctor. These little jobs would pop up randomly as you move around the city and won't always be in the same spot like the little side objectives/missions in AC2.

Perk89
12-21-2013, 07:25 PM
You think so? I was hoping there was something more substantial to the anti-"1 year release policy" complaints.

Take a stroll through it and tell me it isn't.

MnemonicSyntax
12-21-2013, 07:51 PM
Agreed, the one-button system is a downgrade IMO. I like the concept of "safe" freerunning by just holding R1 without X and negating the possibility of overshooting your intended landing spot and plummeting to your death, but having EVERYTHING related to movement mapped to one button kind of sucks. Not to mention I like having a speed between "stroll" and "dead sprint" that doesn't involve any wonky 'push-the-analog-stick-lightly' stuff. You can't really control how hard you're pushing the stick very well if you're also trying to steer your character with it.

Just do a high profile drop and don't move the stick when you do it.

Not sure about the speed thing, as 360 uses the trigger and it's context sensitive for running or jogging, without changing the stick's movement.

FlamingMoh
12-21-2013, 07:53 PM
Yeah, I definitely think this franchise needs a break. I mean seriously, two games in 2014?

DarktheMagister
12-21-2013, 08:08 PM
Gotta say....a lot of Bob's ideas above make sense to me. Not to mention I like the finisher concept brought up a couple pages back.

One other thing I think would help improve the hunting aspect... (and this is a problem I've had with pretty much any of the sandbox games that have a hunting mechanic (i.e. Far Cry and Red Dead)... Would anyone else prefer to skin the animals in a way similar to how you loot or pickpocket in AC by holding down the button for a short period of time, rather than the scripted mini-cutscene that plays EVERY time? Because I would.

ddr the doc
12-21-2013, 08:53 PM
I sure don't think there getting old since black flag is much different than the others. The navy experience havin your own ship this time to upgrade. There is so much to do in AC4 it lasts as long as you want it to last. Can last over 100 hrs easy actual at the controller playing. Would you agree?

Dan77777777777
12-22-2013, 05:22 AM
Basically I'm saying that I wish the franchise would keep the idea of assassins but change the game drastically. I wish the stealth and combat felt more real and believable. I liked Bob's idea about the social stealth. I wish the combat was more dynamic in a since that enemies attack more than one at a time but you do more than just hit a counter button and watch a sequence. The combat feels like I'm simply watching a boring combat scene. The story is so ambiguous and dull, and the AI need to feel more like real people rather than meat bags or mindless spectators. I know none of this will change because they keep selling the game like it is every year. I'm sorry that I'm not brainwashed into the franchise like the Templars try to do to people in the story.

Torvaldesq
12-22-2013, 07:41 AM
In my opinion, which is evidently shared by many...

It was a disappointment that failed to live up to nearly every promise it made. It wasn't a BAD game by any means, but it was expected to be AC's magnum opus, and it just wasn't. Desmond's conclusion fell flat on its face. Seven hours of the story were prologue. Connor's story took a backseat to irrelevant Revolutionary War events. Crucial character development was hidden behind many tedious missions of the seemingly trivial Homestead gameplay track. Pointless features that were there just because they could be made the game feel unfocused and inconsistent. Bugs and glitches plagued many people's experience from start to finish. Assassinations were almost all scripted and shoved into cutscenes. And the mission structure granted essentially zero freedom to the player.

All of this combined, when compared to the massive hype campaign that surrounded it, makes "mess" an adequate term to describe AC3. Particularly in regards to the story. I'm not sure if it can be attributed to cut content, poor writing, or if they merely ran out of time, but AC3's main campaign contained some of the shoddiest storytelling I've ever seen. Connor's motivations were all over the place, and he became bewilderingly MORE naive after suffering tragedy after tragedy. The core of my disappointment lies in the sheer amount of potential AC3 showed; even now, I can see a great story at its heart, but it was told so badly it was hard to keep up with what was happening, and even harder to stay interested. That's why I'm still half-hoping for a Connor sequel; to salvage his story from the wreck of Assassin's Creed III.

This pretty much nails it as to why AC3 was so disappointing, well, except the part about the prologue being the problem. Haytham gets a lot of appreciation because his part of the story is better handled. The length of the non-modern segment of the story was fine for both him and Connor, and didn't really prevent them from having enough time to characterize Connor. The amount of time Connor got was still hours and hours and hours and hours and hours, more than enough time to create a compelling character. The writing just ended up being terrible for Connor, but no reason to cast blame on of the few bits of that game that worked well (Haytham).


Never did I even imply that I didn't like Connor. I REALLY liked him; a change of pace from the Ezio archetype, much as I love him, was refreshing. But I did say that Connor was very poorly written, and his motivations were never entirely clear. He went from "the settlers are encroaching on our land, we have to fight back" to "the colonists are my friends" with no hesitation. That mindset kind of came from Achilles (I guess?) but then again Achilles was the first one to call out the colonists for being racist bastards. Connor himself accosted Sam Adams for likening the settlers' condition to that of the slaves, which Connor acknowledges to be much worse, yet throughout the entire game he fights for the colonists' "freedom" and doesn't give a damn about actual slavery again until the very last cutscene. And he apparently forgot about his village too, because he went for like five years without doing anything for it. This is particularly distressing, because his village was the primary motivating factor for him to become an Assassin in the first place.

I loved Connor's characterization as a gentler, humbler Assassin with a kind heart despite repeated horrors he witnessed, but his dedication to the Patriots (which took up like 90% of his screen time) was incredibly out of character, and seemed to spring from a desire to shoehorn him into the war, rather than an authentic representation of what a person in his situation would do. "I'm a noble youth with a deep-seated anger at injustice, so let me ignore the plight of my people and enslaved blacks to go help out some privileged racists."

Also a good summary of why Connor was so awful. It's unfortunate that the game that was supposed to be the exciting conclusion to the arc with Desmond was anchored by such a lousy character, and it plays no small part in why AC 3 is poorly thought of by so many.

Not that Connor didn't have potential. That's what makes it so rotten. The PREMISE of Connor had tremendous potential, and they failed to meet it by a huge margin. What's funny is that Edward Kenway is a better character, but the premise of Edward Kenway had less potential. It's just that the modest potential of "character who fights for gold and glory as a pirate" was met, unlike the huge potential of, "half-native American, half-English protagonist becomes a close friend of George Washington and plays a major, but shadowy role in the American Revolution where his loyalties, principles and friendships are divided." I mean, holy crap, I was pumped for AC 3. I loved the premise of Connor. I was fine with the idea of him becoming a supporter of the Patriots, the Revolution, etc., as long as there was some natural organic progression to it. The execution was unbelievably awful though. I can, however, admit the voice actor was fine (about the only thing they didn't screw up).

I agree AC needs some updates to the core mechanics. Though at the same time, I feel it's worth mentioning that I've always felt the promise of the AC gameplay is met the most in the multiplayer, where the notion of hiding in plain sight, hunting opponents and avoiding detection really can reach drastic heights. But I doubt we'll see AI as reactive and interesting as human opponents anytime soon. In any case, the single player mechanics could definitely use updating. I feel like it is overly reliant on combat and not enough on stealth. Others have given good ideas on that front already though.

Storywise, AC 4 lived up to its modest potential. Things are not as gripping as they were, and that's partly just the natural consequence of so much mystery being gone combined with the imminent world-ending danger being dealt with. I know some dislike having a modern component to the story, I personally love having a modern component. I was disappointed with how Desmond's story ended, partly because I felt that Desmond simply did not get enough varied gameplay or live up to HIS potential of being our anchor in a more fleshed out modern setting for the Assasisns. After all, we spent ALL that time where he gained Altair's and Ezio's mastery, yet we got very little time to spend with him using that. Nevertheless, Desmond's handling was a lot more fun than the direction they're going now of "faceless employee who interacts with crazy Assassin / Templar plots." They need a better MODERN anchor again, because that's the best way to connect very divergent time period plots in a single arc, and this is a series that really needs arcs.

Hans684
12-22-2013, 10:48 AM
I think AC1 is starting to gett old, we have next-gen consoles now and it has been 6 years.

SixKeys
12-22-2013, 11:36 AM
An example: sometimes, after assassinating someone, the crowd you're in will disappear so you can't blend but you're still in the crowd. But because the game doesn't register this, it acts like you're plainly visible to the guards who automatically think it to be you. That needs to go. Crowds should work more like a dynamic and ever changing "stalking zone." So, you know how in stalking zones, you're crouched down and you can move freely around the bush-covered area? Same idea with crowds only while standing. So as long as the crowd exists, you'll be hidden unless the guards start pushing through the crowd and find you. During a chase sequence, you can enter a large crowd and start making your way through it while pushing people to the side. Meanwhile, the guards catch up to the crowd and begin wading through, shoving people out of the way to look for you. Now if you manage to reach the other side of the crowd and exit, the enemies won't magically home in on your position but rather the blending zones have swapped for the time being. Because the guard(s) is in the crowd and you're out of it, his vision of you is blocked by the rest of the crowd, allowing you to quietly duck into an alley and vanish. Right now...things like that are not possible because they haven't really thought about advancing social stealth almost since the second game. In AC1, you could only blend with monks or by holding A to avoid detection. This was slow but worked well enough as a proof of concept. Come AC2, they allow you to blend in with whole crowds. Great. They did not change this for the following two games. In AC3, they changed it VERY subtly by making it so you can blend with just 2 people. Other than that, AC3 introduced contextual animations but that's only visual. Helps immerse the player a bit more but at the end of the day, the actual end result is the same as if he just stood there.


Well said. The changes to AC's social stealth has been little more than cosmetic since AC2. We need another huge leap, but I feel like Patrice was the primary force behind driving the social aspect of the series. He was always the one to bring it up in interviews and stress its importance. When was the last time you heard current AC devs talk about the importance of the social stealth? (As opposed to just stealth.)

I really like your idea of the crowds as a sort of dynamic stalking zone, that would be awesome. Reminds me of that one Romulus mission in ACB where you infiltrate a religious mass and have to move from blend group to blend group as your target makes his rounds talking to the monks. Of course, in that mission the groups remained static and it looked really silly as Ezio was the only one dressed in glaring white robes while everyone else wore red. :rolleyes: But the idea was fun. Keep moving through the crowd and stalk your target while avoiding detection. Your suggestion also reminds me of the cinematic trailer for AC1 where the guards keep pushing through the civilians as AltaÔr casually blends in until he finds an exit. This was the original concept they were going for, but the limited technology only allowed for small groups of monks to illustrate the illusion of disappearing into the crowd. Think of how much more they could do now that AnvilNext allows for more than 2,000 NPCs on screen simultaneously. Imagine a scene like Haytham at the London Theatre but less linear. Hundreds of people doing their own thing while you move unnoticed between them.



I agree AC needs some updates to the core mechanics. Though at the same time, I feel it's worth mentioning that I've always felt the promise of the AC gameplay is met the most in the multiplayer, where the notion of hiding in plain sight, hunting opponents and avoiding detection really can reach drastic heights. But I doubt we'll see AI as reactive and interesting as human opponents anytime soon. In any case, the single player mechanics could definitely use updating. I feel like it is overly reliant on combat and not enough on stealth. Others have given good ideas on that front already though.


I agree. It's odd that the multiplayer actually takes more advantage of the whole cat-and-mouse concept than singleplayer does. There are subtle visual cues that require the player to pay attention to their surroundings in ways the SP doesn't. If you see a flock of pigeons fly up, that means there's a pursuer on a roof. See a human-shaped shadow looming above you, that's bad news. NPCs move and behave in subtly different ways than human players. A good player will pick up on these cues and learn to identify their prey. The MP has also kept a feature the SP got rid of in AC3, which is that if you're not careful, you can bump into people while running and fall down. The weapons arsenal is also more diverse: throwing firecrackers on the ground will frighten and confuse NPCs, disguise allows you to get closer to your target, body guards will stun pursuers for you, decoys that look like you will send your pursuer running in the wrong direction, etc.

All these ideas could be used in the SP campaign to great effect. When you're notorious, you could get the guards off your heels by paying someone to disguise themselves and draw the attention away from you. The body guard idea was already kind of used in AC3 as one of the assassin recruits' abilities. Disguises would be a fun addition to the series in general. Firecrackers would be a great diversion tool like the bombs in ACR or an alternative to smoke bomb. There are more possibilities than I care to name right now. The multiplayer could be a great asset to inspiring the games' approach to singleplayer instead of just being largely its own thing.

TheBearJew32
12-22-2013, 12:04 PM
-Eavesdropping and tail missions either need to go or need a total revamp (im getting near the end of IV and it's absurd how many tailing and eavesdrop missions have started to stack on top of each other)
-"puzzles" need to last longer than 10 seconds and need to involve more than just rotating the sticks...
-free running system/controls need work

Some issues (very small list) that is getting old to me

DarktheMagister
12-22-2013, 12:37 PM
Eavesdropping and Tailing a target without being seen is like.....totally social stealth though.

Its more that the level design for these missions needs to change.

I'd like to see multiple routes combined with either social stealth options, a route where you can pick off the guards one at a time, or even just dodging building to building cover to cover.

LoyalACFan
12-22-2013, 01:49 PM
That there is exactly what the REAL issue is, though. Most people decided they weren't going to like the game as soon as it was set in 'Murica. Anybody who was on this forum at this time can testify to it, and the kind of commentary you are responding to is a remnant of that.

ZOMG AMERICA! BUT I WANTED ANCIENT JAPAN!! TO BE A SAMURAI!!!!! THATS SO COOL!!!! SAMURAIS HAZZAHH URRGGH HATE MURICA.

Some people are so oddly emotionally invested in stuff like that they won't permit themselves to enjoy something.

Did you even read what I posted below that? I didn't have a problem with it being set in America. Matter of fact, I was pretty excited for it, since some of the settings were familiar to me. I DID have a problem with Connor being shoved into a bunch of events that had nothing to do with his story. The Revolution as a backdrop was fine, but it became more focused on retelling the story of the war itself rather than Connor's journey. I mean, it would have been cheesy to have a major sequence of Brotherhood revolving around Ezio defending Michelangelo from evil papal guards while he painted the Sistine Chapel, no? But that's exactly the kind of thing AC3 did, just substitute Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel with Paul Revere and the midnight ride or any other event that Connor was conveniently present at. It had nothing to do with Connor, and his presence there felt extremely forced.

dxsxhxcx
12-22-2013, 02:55 PM
IMO social stealth and these tailing/eavesdrop missions need some serious work.

I believe it would be interesting if during these missions we had 2 "detection meters", the one we currently have that is dynamic and a static one that will raise as we get seen, how this would work:


We begin a tailing/eavesdrop mission with the static meter at zero, we follow our target and once we are spotted by them, instead of be desynchronized, our static meter begin to fill in (example: yellow detection = 2~5 points, red = 10~15 points, this values may vary depending of the action we choose to hide), at a certain point they could even mention how they think they are being followed and begin to look back more often (what would increase the challenge of the mission) to add realism to the mission, IF our static meter reach a certain level (let's say 50%), they begin to run to try to make whoever they think is following them lose their track, this action would happen during a limited time (let's say 15 seconds) where we need to run after them without lose their track and at the same time keep a secure distance to don't be fully recognized, after that they would go back to the previous state and the mission continues, but now they are more suspicious than ever, what means that if your static meter reach 100% only then we'll be desynchronized...

maybe instead of run after them we could lose their track and then a green area will appear where we'll need to find them again before a limited time run out (let's say 30 seconds);


a variation of this scenario could happen with low level targets (not necessarily main targets), let's assume we are following a random person that works for the templars and have the information we need, the structure of the mission will be the same as the above but if our static meter reach 100%, the target become fully aware of our presence and a fight begins, unfortunatelly in this case we'll need to kill him because we can't allow him to tell the templars about us, but what about the info we need? (these two scenarios will be completely random) In one situation this might be on paper, which means that once we beat up our target, he says that he has a letter or a map with the info we need, we finish him off and search his body and get what we need, in other situation, we need to make the target tell us what he/she knows, then a mini game will trigger where we need to make him tell us the truth, this could happen in two ways (completely random):

1. we are "teleported" to our hideout to extract the information, being able to choose what we believe to be the most efficient method (contextual animations using the environment and some punches) to make the target spill the truth (this may vary from target to target but we need to fight the correct combination to make the target speak without kill him);
2. we beat the hell of the target on the street and get what we need;

once we get what we need the mission is finished.


ps: I think that for this to work, they need to get rid of the ability to see through walls (or make it completely manual)

adventurewomen
12-22-2013, 03:18 PM
Answer to the OP's original question: No. Not yet. I was a bit ambivalent about AC4 as I wasn't sure how they would make someone new and interesting, but I feel they did with AC4. The environments, naval stuff and storyline were all mostly unique.
Agreed! :)

MnemonicSyntax
12-22-2013, 04:15 PM
Did you even read what I posted below that? I didn't have a problem with it being set in America. Matter of fact, I was pretty excited for it, since some of the settings were familiar to me. I DID have a problem with Connor being shoved into a bunch of events that had nothing to do with his story. The Revolution as a backdrop was fine, but it became more focused on retelling the story of the war itself rather than Connor's journey. I mean, it would have been cheesy to have a major sequence of Brotherhood revolving around Ezio defending Michelangelo from evil papal guards while he painted the Sistine Chapel, no? But that's exactly the kind of thing AC3 did, just substitute Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel with Paul Revere and the midnight ride or any other event that Connor was conveniently present at. It had nothing to do with Connor, and his presence there felt extremely forced.

I have to agree with this. As much as I love AC3, Connor and the rest of it, at first I thought being at these events was pretty cool. Boston Massacre, Tea Party, Paul Revere's Ride, Lexington and Concord... and then after more events occurred my first thought was "There was no way this dude was at all these events!"

However, I just decided to play "like Connor would" and focused on Templars, not the pseudo nostalgia trip of being in a history book, and that made it better I feel.

Though it got me thinking, if it's history we know about, and the game throws us large doses of it, does it change the experience? Versus the same amount of history, but to the player itself, that history is widely unknown?

I'm from the US, so I'm not sure if that has any affect on me and 3, but I wonder how other people felt about that.

I realize that AC3 isn't historically accurate in the least, especially with Charles Lee, but besides history buffs clamoring what's accurate or not, what about the overdose of pseudo nostalgia?

pacmanate
12-22-2013, 05:39 PM
Being serious here.

Is anyone else starting to feel like AC is becoming more of a reskin in terms of everything? Because I sure as hell am.

AC1 - AC2 = Big Leap
AC2 - AC:R = No leap
AC:R - AC3 = Big Leap
AC3 - AC4 = No leap.

I hate to say it but it is becoming a CoD now. CoD and AC each year change their story/setting/character but they obviously have too, its a given, but everything else is so similar to the past.

I-Like-Pie45
12-22-2013, 05:45 PM
Vote with your wallets, not your posts.

ProletariatPleb
12-22-2013, 05:51 PM
Being serious here.

Is anyone else starting to feel like AC is becoming more of a reskin in terms of everything? Because I sure as hell am.

AC1 - AC2 = Big Leap
AC2 - AC:R = No leap
AC:R - AC3 = Big Leap
AC3 - AC4 = No leap.

I hate to say it but it is becoming a CoD now. CoD and AC each year change their story/setting/character but they obviously have too, its a given, but everything else is so similar to the past.
Not to mention all Ubi games have the same design handbook or something suddenly. AC, FC, W_D, SC for example. I'll list some below, obviously not ALL of them are present in every game there may be 2-3 exceptions.

Zone liberation, High tower/viewpoints, Outpost/Fort like things, mechanics being replaced with 1 button systems, traversing buildings, cover, cover takedowns, marking targets,"xray", whistle


Vote with your wallets, not your posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIQtlQl783M

I-Like-Pie45
12-22-2013, 05:52 PM
I assume that you were not a big fan of FC3 or Blacklist?

oliacr
12-22-2013, 05:57 PM
-Eavesdropping and tail missions either need to go or need a total revamp (im getting near the end of IV and it's absurd how many tailing and eavesdrop missions have started to stack on top of each other)
-"puzzles" need to last longer than 10 seconds and need to involve more than just rotating the sticks...
-free running system/controls need work

Some issues (very small list) that is getting old to me
yes the eavesdrop and tail mission.... The targets always take a longer route to their destination, they don't need to remove it and hell do not do it just revamp.

ProletariatPleb
12-22-2013, 06:04 PM
I assume that you were not a big fan of FC3 or Blacklist?
Doesn't really have anything to do with it. I don't have bias towards either in this context.

But since you asked...
FC3 is good with Ziggys mod, childish without it but not bad.
Blacklist no, just no. Cancer.

prince162010
12-22-2013, 07:32 PM
the series must take a rest

Assassin_M
12-22-2013, 07:39 PM
I'm getting burnt out, honestly...AC IV was the best in the series for me, but one day...i'll find myself just bored of it....they don't even try to make me miss it...I WANT to miss it.

DinoSteve1
12-22-2013, 08:00 PM
I wish ubi would rest it maybe give us another Prince of Persia instead.

Shahkulu101
12-22-2013, 08:07 PM
I'm getting burnt out, honestly...AC IV was the best in the series for me, but one day...i'll find myself just bored of it....they don't even try to make me miss it...I WANT to miss it.

This. Even our Queen is fatigued - she, who has played nearly all 100 times.

If you release two major AC titles next year I won't buy any of them. However, I may take a note out of Edward's book.

Assassin_M
12-22-2013, 08:10 PM
This. Even our Queen is fatigued - she, who has played nearly all 100 times.
I'm a walking AC encyclopedia, my son...I remember the entire script of AC II by heart

don't judge your queen

Shahkulu101
12-22-2013, 08:13 PM
I'm a walking AC encyclopedia, my son...I remember the entire script of AC II by heart

don't judge your queen

Jaysus.

TheBearJew32
12-22-2013, 08:17 PM
I'm getting burnt out, honestly...AC IV was the best in the series for me, but one day...i'll find myself just bored of it....they don't even try to make me miss it...I WANT to miss it.

I'm the same, only I haven't finished it yet and i'm already getting bored. It's a good game but i just don't see myself having any urge to go back and play it once it's done. I feel like i'm almost having to grind through and force myself to beat it..
THE PUZZLES MAN they are the exact same from AC3 (peg leg final) only there's more of them and they literally take 10 seconds. Some of my favorite parts have been hacking the computers (again puzzles way to easy) to get those pieces of lore and history of AC (excluding he fact that some of the dates are wrong and i heard an audio file seriously pronounce Altair's name as "ALL-TARE")

IWGCJoeCool
12-23-2013, 01:35 AM
I'm simply burnt out on these games after Black Flag every year. It doesn't feel like an immersive experience any more. It feels like a new layer of paint every year. The characters have become bland, the location feels the same throughout the game, the AI are the same stupid guards since the beginning, the combat feels easy yet clumsy as well as the stealth, and the story hasn't been immersive since AC2. I feel like there is no build up/suspension in the story. I'm never on the edge of my seat. Maybe I'm wrong for saying all this. I wish assassins creed could break away from this call of duty stuff and make some significant changes to the game that will revitalize the franchise. To be honest the sailing and naval combat got boring after a while. Everything in the game feels so systematic that I forget that it's even about assassins. I was hooked on the first assassins creed because it was something completely new. There were 3 distinct cities that felt different in each, and that is something I really liked. One example is if AC3 could've added London as a city instead of having 2 American cities that feel exactly the same. The guards in those cities looked different, and that helped the world feel real. AC2 had some good cities that felt slightly different, but the guards were the exact same with different colors. I thought that was a little cheap. There was Masyaf, the place full of assassins made you feel like you were really part of that order. After that game there has always been this ambiguous feeling about the assassin order. I'm summary, a new AC game that would impress me and revitalize the game for me would have an immersive story with characters you care about or hate (AC2 did a good job), combat that feels fluid yet not cheap, AI that are believable and feel like real people, distinct locations with different looking AI, and a place with other assassins that really makes you feel like you are part of the assassin order. I may be the only person that feels this way, but it's the direction that I wish the franchise would take.

no

DarktheMagister
12-23-2013, 02:12 AM
i heard an audio file seriously pronounce Altair's name as "ALL-TARE")

That was on purpose.

Assassin_M
12-23-2013, 02:21 AM
That was on purpose.
Rataun Hatenk Tun

Enzio Auditore

Roger is amazing xD

Shahkulu101
12-23-2013, 02:37 AM
Rataun Hatenk Tun

Enzio Auditore

Roger is amazing xD

Was that Roger Craig Smith doing those?

I-Like-Pie45
12-23-2013, 04:10 AM
Yes

too bad he phoned in other 2013 4th quarter pursuits such as Arkham Origins

silvermercy
12-23-2013, 12:47 PM
Well, I've just started playing AC4. It's very early still, I'm at 13% completion, story is good so far but I find myself incredibly bored by the gameplay element, mostly when it comes to naval. Sailing from one location to another bores me to death right now. >_< (at least the amazing sea shanties make it bearable...)

roostersrule2
12-23-2013, 01:19 PM
Was that Roger Craig Smith doing those?Yes, he is everything.

killzab
12-23-2013, 01:19 PM
Well, I've just started playing AC4. It's very early still, I'm at 13% completion, story is good so far but I find myself incredibly bored by the gameplay element, mostly when it comes to naval. Sailing from one location to another bores me to death right now. >_< (at least the amazing sea shanties make it bearable...)

Try plundering ships on your way to locations. Or stop to get treasure chests etc. Just to make it more varied.

ze_topazio
12-23-2013, 01:32 PM
Well, I've just started playing AC4. It's very early still, I'm at 13% completion, story is good so far but I find myself incredibly bored by the gameplay element, mostly when it comes to naval. Sailing from one location to another bores me to death right now. >_< (at least the amazing sea shanties make it bearable...)

You have no soul.

Razrback16
12-23-2013, 01:48 PM
The series isn't "getting old", but I can certainly see where some folks are starting to feel that way about the last two games -- AC3 / AC4 were both resounding "thuds" in my book. Ubisoft has lost the magic of the series. They made really bad decisions in AC3 (killing Desmond, Connor) that led to a flat, uninspiring story and AC4 is barely an Assassin's Creed game at all -- more of a Pirates of the Caribbean game where the main character is wearing an Assassin-esque outfit. Their storytelling is also very disjointed when compared with the Ezio trilogy. They try to jam too much junk into the games that doesn't have anything to do with the main story. Hopefully they will recall the crew who did AC2 / ACB and let them develop AC5. Jesper Kyd also needs to be recalled for the music.

dxsxhxcx
12-23-2013, 02:12 PM
You have no soul.

it can become a boring exercise if you don't engage in battle against other ships and go straight to the point..

maybe they should've added a feature where you can set a course to your destination and the quartermaster will take the command of the ship if you decide to do other activities that could be implemented in your ship (play cards, solve puzzles, etc)...

pirate1802
12-23-2013, 07:52 PM
Hopefully they will recall the crew who did AC2 / ACB and let them develop AC5.

Hopefully not. Dat cheesy storytelling... I'd die of diabetes then.