PDA

View Full Version : I'm gonna miss naval



Sushiglutton
02-15-2014, 02:33 PM
I replayed AC4:BF a week ago or so and I still think it's a big step up from AC3. It also striked me just how much naval brings to the experience. It's such a great compliment to stealth. After patiently and slowly infiltrating a compound it's so refreshing to just sail to sea and broadside a man of war. You may think that two so wildly different styles of gameplay would feel disjoint, but it's the opposite. The fact that you can switch between the two make them both more enjoyable.

I also think the parkour really shines on the sea. That you can freely climb around the rigging of these epic ships is just awesome. The parkour is more interesting here than in the cities because the geometry is so complex. It's amazing how smooth it still feels.

AC4 is the first AC ever that had some cool bossbattles. On my second playthrough I upgraded the Jackdaw as little as possible which lead to some epic fights with Benjamin and the the Princess. You need to posittion the ship to avoid broadsides while at the same time being able to do as much damage as you can yourself. The legendary ships (haven't taken on them the second time yet, feel like you must upgrade substantially before you do) are also cool with their unique AI behaviour. They show that there's still a lot of untapped potential in terms of enemy design.

Naval also makes upgrading meaningful, which in turn helps all the open world content. On land gameplay is so simplistic that upgrading has never felt like something you need to worry about.


I'm starting to think that an AC without naval will feel like half a game. At the same time there are so many interesting eras left to explore in which naval would make little sense. It's a dilemma for Ubisoft for sure. What can they add to the game that could top naval? I really hope they decide to make a pirate spin-off, because I think in a second attempt they could improve some things that would elevate the experience further (melee combat, underwater and so on).

ze_topazio
02-15-2014, 04:15 PM
They don't need to center the experience around naval like in AC4, but, depending on the time period and location, they can keep naval as side missions like in AC3.

frodrigues55
02-15-2014, 04:35 PM
They don't need to center the experience around naval like in AC4, but, depending on the time period and location, they can keep naval as side missions like in AC3.

Yeah, I agree with this. It's obviously too big of a feature to be scrapped now, unless UBI build it to be a new IP. Plus, it was fun, innovative and a good break from the regular AC. So I wouldn't mind if there are side missions and one or 2 story missions with naval. Just don't let it be the focus of the game again and I'm fine with it.

NatureboyMT
02-16-2014, 01:41 AM
They could do definitely continue to include Naval engagements. Imagine doing the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars and taking part in the battle of Trafalgar.

Fatal-Feit
02-16-2014, 01:58 AM
Honestly, unless they do one more 17th-18th century AC, I wouldn't want it to return. I'm not tired of naval, but I don't want it to be necessary during development either. If the developers are forced to add naval to each sequel, then they'll be eliminating a lot of potential settings and hold back a lot of features. AC:IV was a special case for the developers. Edward was a pirate for the majority of the game so they could allow him to free-roam, pillage ships, attack forts, and do all kinds of other notorious things. If they brought naval back, it'll have to be like AC:3, and I'm sure a lot of people didn't enjoy AC:3's naval as much.

Kagurra
02-16-2014, 02:56 AM
Scrap it.

I want something new and fresh.

AdamPearce
02-16-2014, 02:56 AM
What can they add to the game that could top naval?

A good land gameplay.

I-Like-Pie45
02-16-2014, 03:36 AM
What can they add to the game that could top naval? .

http://madmikesamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Art-sp29-RidingDinosauruses-Brontosaurus-Triceratops.jpg

Consus_E
02-16-2014, 04:01 AM
Perhaps they could just make the navel part of the multiplayer?

Otherwise hold onto it and use it for appropriate settings...

Yshnu
02-16-2014, 05:50 AM
If they went back and used a 13th century Japan setting, they could use the Mongol invasions of Japan as a historical backdrop and retain some interesting naval elements. Imagine being a Japanese assassin who has to help turn back the horde of Mongol naval vessels that are closing on your homeland. That would be a fantastic story with a lot of compelling swordplay as well. Considering that Even the Persian invasions of Greece had naval conflict, I have to think that Ubisoft will find a way to always incorporate naval conflict into future games.

poptartz20
02-16-2014, 07:18 PM
As much as I got annoyed with naval in the end I came to enjoy it at least in AC4 (after a replay of AC3 it's still not to bad.) I must say while it was a great addition to the series and was a "next level" step at the end of the day it doesn't fit into every era and shouldn't be in every game. Once again this is something we must learn to appreciate enough to let go. (or at least play in other games)

Naval shouldn't become the "focal" point of AC games as never has been and shouldn't be now. I mean take a look at AC2 that seems to be the pinnacle of the AC series as a whole for a large majority, yet there was no naval gp in that. It was everything else in the game that made it what it was.

I would love to see something new now take the place of naval. That can bring players in just like naval but still leaving us wanting for more. I wonder what that would be though... controlling armies? or perhaps, a new feature in combat? or new weapons?

Shahkulu101
02-16-2014, 07:29 PM
Er Poptartz...you just praised AC2. Surely you have broken the Tumblr code, or my eyes are deceiving me.

poptartz20
02-16-2014, 07:40 PM
Er Poptartz...you just praised AC2. Surely you have broken the Tumblr code, or my eyes are deceiving me.

Bwahaha!


Did I?


Or Did I

Just make a

general statement

about how others feel

about the best game of our time. . .?


MYSTERIES.



Hahah.. No really I didn't exactly praise AC2 I mean a lot of people love it. I enjoyed playing it myself. Ezio is annoying in (I realized this after playing it a second time here recently) it. but I liked his character for what he was and for the time the game took place in. I mean he was pretty cookie cutter but not the worst character ever. :D I mean the person on my sig has my support FOREVAR!

ze_topazio
02-16-2014, 07:41 PM
...controlling armies?...

We already experienced that in AC3 and most people didn't like it.

Farlander1991
02-16-2014, 07:49 PM
The thing about AC2, is that while nothing would take away from the beauty of the Renaissance, had it been released today (presuming ACB/ACR/AC3/AC4 existed in one form or another, though not sure about how ACB/ACR would go, but let's say we had an Altair trilogy :D ), even with things like updated graphics and engine I'm not sure it would've been praised as much.

A lot of hype in AC2 came in the from of "OH MY GOD LOOK AT ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS THEY'VE DONE!!!!", but at this point it still would've been 'Yeah, we've seen most of it before' just as a lot of people think about pure city parts of AC4., which kinda shows that not a lot of things in regards to city gameplay has been changed over the years since AC2.

I actually haven't replayed AC2 in a while, so I'm not sure what I would think of most of it (I still remember all the reasons I consider the Carnival and Arsenal sequences to be bad, over all these years :p ), and its mission design, but my opinion over AC1 (my number 1 AC game prior to AC4) has certainly changed in different ways.

Shahkulu101
02-16-2014, 07:49 PM
Bwahaha!


Did I?


Or Did I

Just make a

general statement

about how others feel

about the best game of our time. . .?


MYSTERIES.



Hahah.. No really I didn't exactly praise AC2 I mean a lot of people love it. I enjoyed playing it myself. Ezio is annoying in (I realized this after playing it a second time here recently) it. but I liked his character for what he was and for the time the game took place in. I mean he was pretty cookie cutter but not the worst character ever. :D I mean the person on my sig has my support FOREVAR!

Cookie cutter? That's an insult. He starts out like that yeah, but look at Revelations and Embers and his final words addressed on paper to Sofia and tell me he's nothing more than an unoriginal, stereotyped crowdpleaser. Darby improved his character considerably come to think of it - I mean he's awesome in AC2 but in Brotherhood he's actually a complete and utter bore who remains stagnant the whole time. Revelations was fantastic in terms of fleshing out his character - the old guy found purpose and meaning, outwith the Creed. He had played his part. He had the humility to say: "I have seen enough for one life". *shivers*

poptartz20
02-16-2014, 08:04 PM
We already experienced that in AC3 and most people didn't like it.

I'm talking about in a different way perhaps. v. riding a horse from point A to B and hitting x To signal an attack. Now that... wasn't that much fun. I'm thinking of in a way that is more involved.



Cookie cutter? That's an insult. He starts out like that yeah, but look at Revelations and Embers and his final words addressed on paper to Sofia and tell me he's nothing more than an unoriginal, stereotyped crowdpleaser. Darby improved his character considerably come to think of it - I mean he's awesome in AC2 but in Brotherhood he's actually a complete and utter bore who remains stagnant the whole time. Revelations was fantastic in terms of fleshing out his character - the old guy found purpose and meaning, outwith the Creed. He had played his part. He had the humility to say: "I have seen enough for one life". *shivers*

OH! I'm strictly talking about AC2 and him being cookie cutter! :) I honestly and thoroughly loved Ezio's character in Revelations. I loved how he questions his whole life and thought about what he was even doing all this far, and that it started out as revenge and then became a call of duty/action. He had just completely changed! This is where I connected with him the most for the first time! Even though I didn't care revelations, I loved the ending! It was one of the best ones to date. AC4 is right there with it in my opinion.


The thing about AC2, is that while nothing would take away from the beauty of the Renaissance, had it been released today (presuming ACB/ACR/AC3/AC4 existed in one form or another, though not sure about how ACB/ACR would go, but let's say we had an Altair trilogy :D ), even with things like updated graphics and engine I'm not sure it would've been praised as much.

A lot of hype in AC2 came in the from of "OH MY GOD LOOK AT ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS THEY'VE DONE!!!!", but at this point it still would've been 'Yeah, we've seen most of it before' just as a lot of people think about pure city parts of AC4., which kinda shows that not a lot of things in regards to city gameplay has been changed over the years since AC2.

I actually haven't replayed AC2 in a while, so I'm not sure what I would think of most of it (I still remember all the reasons I consider the Carnival and Arsenal sequences to be bad, over all these years :p ), and its mission design, but my opinion over AC1 (my number 1 AC game prior to AC4) has certainly changed in different ways.

Haha.. Honestly I think you're right in ways. But for the fun of it. You should try replaying some parts of the older games in a jumble.

I did. with the exception of AC1 because I don't have that game anymore.

I played bits from AC2, Then AC3 went back to Revelations and then AC4 it's funny how there are subtle differences yet nothing "AMAZING" yet at the same time you can see and feel the changes and compare combat. which AC3 was honestly the best to me. Also noticed how simplistic the HUD is in that game too.

Sushiglutton
02-16-2014, 10:51 PM
It's amusing how all kinds of threads end up being about Ezio's/Connor's character :D!

Anyway I also feel it's kind of time for AC to let naval go and so something else (preferably go back at least a few hundredyears in time). But at the same time navalk is great imo. And there's still a lot of potential. I'm curious to see how Ubi will play it.

Tyrant70INC
02-16-2014, 11:26 PM
Do we know that naval won't be back? I for one would love to see the next AC game spin off with Edward in the Caribbean again, as the Carribean map was barely half of what it really was in 18th century.

I really, really enjoyed the naval aspect as it was many more times interesting than horse riding and provided a dynamic to the game that could almost stand on its own. Remember Sid Mieyer's Pirates!? As I see it, Edward was just getting started and the next one could continue his story as an initiated assassin of the Brotherhood with pirating as his cover. So much more could still be done with this fascinating time period. Edward was dangerous without the focus of conviction, imagine what he could be with it!

Loved this game.....

Sushiglutton
02-16-2014, 11:32 PM
Do we know that naval won't be back? I for one would love to see the next AC game spin off with Edward in the Caribbean again, as the Carribean map was barely half of what it really was in 18th century.

I really, really enjoyed the naval aspect as it was many more times interesting than horse riding and provided a dynamic to the game that could almost stand on its own. Remember Sid Mieyer's Pirates!? As I see it, Edward was just getting started and the next one could continue his story as an initiated assassin of the Brotherhood with pirating as his cover. So much more could still be done with this fascinating time period. Edward was dangerous without the focus of conviction, imagine what he could be with it!

Loved this game.....

I don't think we know anything really (except they have said that Connor won't be the lead). So there's still a posibility naval will be in the next game. I too enjoyed the naval aspect a lot. But maybe it would better to do a spin-off that wasn't AC related? Maybe a bit super natural elements (seamonsters)? What do you think?

I-Like-Pie45
02-17-2014, 12:32 AM
I don't think we know anything really (except they have said that Connor won't be the lead). So there's still a posibility naval will be in the next game. I too enjoyed the naval aspect a lot. But maybe it would better to do a spin-off that wasn't AC related? Maybe a bit super natural elements (seamonsters)? What do you think?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9C6DxagIcI

STDlyMcStudpants
02-17-2014, 06:29 AM
They don't need to center the experience around naval like in AC4, but, depending on the time period and location, they can keep naval as side missions like in AC3.

I have to disagree....
I think it would be much better to leave naval as an open world tool/a means to an end. (to make money with)
I hate naval missions (including the ones in AC IV), but I love to battle and sail at my own will.
The Naval in AC4 for me was the best part, but in AC3 it was the worst part.
It will feel quite odd not having it in AC after such a huge role it played in ACIV..it feels like a staple now...
I really hope Ubi does a pirate spin off with the AC engine.

Farlander1991
02-17-2014, 08:56 AM
Oh yeah, Armada of the Damned... I'm not sure how much the AC3 devs were inspired by it, because they were in development at approximately the same time range, but the AC3 naval system looks very similar (at least navigation wise). I was so sad when it got cancelled and then there was AC3 with its naval system and yaaaaay!

http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/2282/1244136051.jpg

ACLexter
02-17-2014, 09:02 AM
one thing I like from AC3 naval is the huge waves are obstacle. if you fire your cannons and it hits the waves, no damage to your target.

wherein in AC4 it will still hit enemies, wtf???:nonchalance:

Farlander1991
02-17-2014, 09:24 AM
one thing I like from AC3 naval is the huge waves are obstacle. if you fire your cannons and it hits the waves, no damage to your target.

wherein in AC4 it will still hit enemies, wtf???:nonchalance:

There were plenty of times when I didn't hit enemies because of the waves, with the swivel gun shots being an exception.

Fatal-Feit
02-17-2014, 09:26 AM
one thing I like from AC3 naval is the huge waves are obstacle. if you fire your cannons and it hits the waves, no damage to your target.

wherein in AC4 it will still hit enemies, wtf???:nonchalance:

Technically speaking, like most of AC:IV, they didn't actually improve anything other than mainstreaming it. AC:3 is still the most Next-Generation of the series.

ACLexter
02-17-2014, 09:50 AM
There were plenty of times when I didn't hit enemies because of the waves, with the swivel gun shots being an exception.

oops, sorry, swivel gun I mean.

RinoTheBouncer
02-17-2014, 11:05 AM
I honestly am happy that Naval might not be present in the next game. We’ve over done it, really. ACIII main and side missions, TOKW DLC, and ACIV entirely. It was fun while it lasted (and sometimes annoying). Lets move on to another chapter and style. I think we can still use water vehicles, just not the way we did in ACIV and ACIII. Perhaps a modern day hovercraft or a japanese or sumerian boat.

dxsxhxcx
02-17-2014, 12:09 PM
while I enjoyed the experience it provided in AC3 and specially AC4, IMO it's a feature that doesn't belong to this franchise (as a core mechanic) and put more focus on it would only make the land gameplay suffer more, it must go for the sake of land gameplay..

RinoTheBouncer
02-17-2014, 01:56 PM
while I enjoyed the experience it provided in AC3 and specially AC4, IMO it's a feature that doesn't belong to this franchise (as a core mechanic) and put more focus on it would only make the land gameplay suffer more, it must go for the sake of land gameplay..

Exactly. Even though I’m not a big fan of a gameplay routine of Synch View Points > Find the “!” > Tail > Eavesdrop > Kill but I think the big maps of ACIV only wasted time rather than filled it with interesting stuff. All the island looked the same, especially the optional and minor ones and the time it took to sail from one point to the other offered no changes like going through mountains to rivers to snow areas to rainy ones. The weather did changes but it all looked similar and the idea of forcing Naval on a game specialized with sneaking, stealth and ground-based gameplay won’t go very far before it gets really boring.

I’ll be totally cool with using Japanese or Chinese boats or those in Sumerian times to move optionally from one area to another like ACII, AC:B and AC:R but to make 60% of a game based on being on waters even sneaking behind a ship is not really fun to me anymore.

Dome500
02-17-2014, 03:43 PM
I don't mind Naval not being in the next game.

Of course I wouldn't mind some Naval Missions a la AC3, but in the end idk if it's worth the effort.
We had a very naval focused AC now and I have seen enough of it to be satisfied.

Agreed on the waves being obstacles, a shame that didn't work as good in AC4.

I think they could very well make a Pirate spin off, though I would probably not be interested that much.
What I imagined is that they might be able to make a Spin Off including Assassins.

You know, with the main focus on naval, with good additions like being able to change ships (smaller, bigger, all with advantages/disadvantages), more (and new kinds of) side missions (of course also the old ones). The main character could be part of the Brotherhood in AC4 and then have his own story to tell with main focus on Piracy and Naval battles of course.

A rather non-essential story like Liberation (but better than Liberation hopefully (didn't like it that much)), in order to make sure you do not HAVE to play the game to continue in the story of the main AC games, but a story which has the Assassin theme as well.

That way they would ensure the big AC fans buy this one as well, AND they ensure the pirate fans buy it. And they ensure that you do not necessarily HAVE to buy it if you just want to follow the storyline of the big main AC games.

Megas_Doux
02-17-2014, 03:44 PM
I’ll be totally cool with using Japanese or Chinese boats or those in Sumerian times to move optionally from one area to another like ACII, AC:B and AC:R but to make 60% of a game based on being on waters even sneaking behind a ship is not really fun to me anymore.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that for exploration purposes naval is a great addition that should not be dismissed, however forcing the setting into fit the naval combat and general gameplay is a mistake. I would be more than pleased on sailing the northern seas in a viking game or going through the Yangtze, Nile, Tigris and Euphrates so to speak.

And do not get wrong, I loved AC IV´s naval stuff, but not for an entire game again.

If China is not used in a AC game, please make a pirate game there, please :P

AssassinHMS
02-17-2014, 03:45 PM
Yeah, waste time and resources with naval while the core mechanics are in a miserable state.

Smart…

unbelievabletr
02-17-2014, 03:59 PM
I must admit, i didn t liked all that ship missions in AC3 and 4, i ll be happy, if AC5 would be without it. It was borring for me to sail, to sink a ship, to sail, to sink a ship. The underwater missions weren t bad, i hope, that in the next game, i ll be able to dive in, wherever i want, like by Far Cry 3 or GTA5,

Dome500
02-17-2014, 04:40 PM
Yeah, waste time and resources with naval while the core mechanics are in a miserable state.

Smart…

Good point.

And I agree to a degree.

Next time around, assuming there is probably no or only a little bit naval stuff, I think that the focus should be on improving the gameplay.

Old running controls (a la. ACI - ACR) would be cool, a more demanding combat system, a better stealth system. I already liked the improvements in AC4, but I want a valid stealth system, smarter A.I. and I want to have the OPTION (not forced, optional) to play stealthy 90% of the game. Add some additional Stealth tools as well, including a distraction tool.
ACR has those distraction bombs. While I though all the bombs were redundant and not needed, in the end there is 1 type I found useful. The distraction bombs. Could be ANY other distraction tool as well, though, as long as one is included. Also, crouching manually would be cool as well.


Side Missions were really variable this time around, best variability of all the games I think. I hope they continue this variability in terms of Side Missions even without naval stuff.
I'm sure they can come up with stuff.

Also equipping or taking down the hood and several other things which were already mentioned.

AssassinHMS
02-17-2014, 08:11 PM
Good point.

And I agree to a degree.

Next time around, assuming there is probably no or only a little bit naval stuff, I think that the focus should be on improving the gameplay.

Old running controls (a la. ACI - ACR) would be cool, a more demanding combat system, a better stealth system. I already liked the improvements in AC4, but I want a valid stealth system, smarter A.I. and I want to have the OPTION (not forced, optional) to play stealthy 90% of the game. Add some additional Stealth tools as well, including a distraction tool.
ACR has those distraction bombs. While I though all the bombs were redundant and not needed, in the end there is 1 type I found useful. The distraction bombs. Could be ANY other distraction tool as well, though, as long as one is included. Also, crouching manually would be cool as well.


Side Missions were really variable this time around, best variability of all the games I think. I hope they continue this variability in terms of Side Missions even without naval stuff.
I'm sure they can come up with stuff.

Also equipping or taking down the hood and several other things which were already mentioned.

Completely agree. But you see, Ubisoft cares more about selling AC to the big market than to actually improve the game. In the eyes of a casual gamer, our complaints (a hood toggle, an option to remove weapons and armor) are nothing but “small details”. We aren’t Ubisoft’s targets, the people who don’t give two cents for AC are. As long as they have their explosions, their ships and their tiny egos boosted by a “combat” system made for newborns, Ubisoft will have their money and that’s what matters.
If they don’t care about AC enough to give two flying ****s about its core (stealth, combat and navigation), I don’t see why they would care about these small details of ours.

Anyway, sorry to be a downer, it’s just that I really despise what Ubisoft has done to AC.

Dome500
02-18-2014, 12:19 AM
Completely agree. But you see, Ubisoft cares more about selling AC to the big market than to actually improve the game. In the eyes of a casual gamer, our complaints (a hood toggle, an option to remove weapons and armor) are nothing but “small details”. We aren’t Ubisoft’s targets, the people who don’t give two cents for AC are. As long as they have their explosions, their ships and their tiny egos boosted by a “combat” system made for newborns, Ubisoft will have their money and that’s what matters.
If they don’t care about AC enough to give two flying ****s about its core (stealth, combat and navigation), I don’t see why they would care about these small details of ours.

Anyway, sorry to be a downer, it’s just that I really despise what Ubisoft has done to AC.


In terms of combat and challenge, I think it might not be bad to have a difficulty setting in one of the next games (Even if it is just 2 difficulties).

JumpInTheFire13
02-18-2014, 11:28 AM
Completely agree. But you see, Ubisoft cares more about selling AC to the big market than to actually improve the game. In the eyes of a casual gamer, our complaints (a hood toggle, an option to remove weapons and armor) are nothing but “small details”. We aren’t Ubisoft’s targets, the people who don’t give two cents for AC are. As long as they have their explosions, their ships and their tiny egos boosted by a “combat” system made for newborns, Ubisoft will have their money and that’s what matters.
If they don’t care about AC enough to give two flying ****s about its core (stealth, combat and navigation), I don’t see why they would care about these small details of ours.

Anyway, sorry to be a downer, it’s just that I really despise what Ubisoft has done to AC.

Precisely. And this is also why the modern day story has turned to complete crap.

Sushiglutton
02-18-2014, 02:56 PM
Yeah, waste time and resources with naval while the core mechanics are in a miserable state.

Smart…

Wanting them to use a unique type of gameplay that I enjoy very much in some form (aka spin-off, or in AC) in the future is very smart indeed :)!




Good point.

And I agree to a degree.

Next time around, assuming there is probably no or only a little bit naval stuff, I think that the focus should be on improving the gameplay.

Old running controls (a la. ACI - ACR) would be cool, a more demanding combat system, a better stealth system. I already liked the improvements in AC4, but I want a valid stealth system, smarter A.I. and I want to have the OPTION (not forced, optional) to play stealthy 90% of the game. Add some additional Stealth tools as well, including a distraction tool.
ACR has those distraction bombs. While I though all the bombs were redundant and not needed, in the end there is 1 type I found useful. The distraction bombs. Could be ANY other distraction tool as well, though, as long as one is included. Also, crouching manually would be cool as well.


Side Missions were really variable this time around, best variability of all the games I think. I hope they continue this variability in terms of Side Missions even without naval stuff.
I'm sure they can come up with stuff.

Also equipping or taking down the hood and several other things which were already mentioned.



Freedom Cry had firecrackers. Anyway I also want them to renovate the three old core pillars, which I have been very vocal about for a loooong time :).

Dome500
02-18-2014, 05:19 PM
Freedom Cry had firecrackers.

Didn't play FC yet (I'm always skeptical and hesitant with DLC's)

Cool that they added this.


Anyway I also want them to renovate the three old core pillars, which I have been very vocal about for a loooong time .

Yep.

The general idea of AC has to stay, but improvements at the core are long due.
Especially in a time where "freedom of play" becomes kind of a symbol for all things next-gen.

Hans684
02-18-2014, 09:34 PM
Can blame Patrice for the underdeveloped core, he made AC1 but when the storm came he didn't make a deeper core. He simply built upon it in AC2/ACB like every other game franchise something everyone loved back then. Ever since his rise and fall Ubisoft has been using his method of developing.

Dome500
02-19-2014, 02:53 AM
Can blame Patrice for the underdeveloped core, he made AC1 but when the storm came he didn't make a deeper core. He simply built upon it in AC2/ACB like every other game franchise something everyone loved back then. Ever since his rise and fall Ubisoft has been using his method of developing.

No one said to blame him.

We just think that some core pillars should be adjusted.
That's all.

No blame here. Just suggestion.

Hans684
02-19-2014, 01:35 PM
No one said to blame him.

That's right, people blame entire Ubisoft instead.


We just think that some core pillars should be adjusted.
That's all.

Before asking fans shoud make a grounding. An idea that does that, something Ubisoft can use. How would you adjust the cores then?


No blame here. Just suggestion.

They always blame someone, suggestion or not.

dxsxhxcx
02-19-2014, 02:47 PM
Before asking fans shoud make a grounding. An idea that does that, something Ubisoft can use. How would you adjust the cores then?

lack of proper feedback certainly isn't the reason why the core isn't being improved, example, for how many years people will need to ask (and also give proper feedback) for the guards AI on combat be improved before they do something about it? Look at what the guards used to do in AC1 for example, why half (if not all) those moves they had were removed? Why their reaction time (the time they take to do something against us) is the SAME (or got worse) since AC1? Why in hell the counter "window" that was perfectly fine in AC1 was turned into a "door"?

Things like this were adressed many times already and unless they are expecting to receive the code with the problem fixed, I don't know why little or nothing was done on this department yet, "oh, but they added jaggers and janissaries", jaggers and janissaries that still take years to attack us and that don't appear often enough to represent a challenge to the player with their set of skills (that if I'm not wrong are less than what some common guards in AC1 could do), and they aren't even the problem, we don't need new archetypes that require a different approach to be defeated (it's always good to have them, but this isn't the solution to the problem), the main problem isn't there, the problem is in the guards we see in every corner, the ones that get more helpless and dumb each new game they release.

Hans684
02-19-2014, 04:36 PM
lack of proper feedback certainly isn't the reason why the core isn't being improved, example, for how many years people will need to ask (and also give proper feedback) for the guards AI on combat be improved before they do something about it?

Not The reason but a reason non the less. Never said we only had to ask, they obviously has to do most of it themselves. Batman: Arkham series has a good AI that always attacks.


Look at what the guards used to do in AC1 for example, why half (if not all) those moves they had were removed? Why their reaction time (the time they take to do something against us) is the SAME (or got worse) since AC1? Why in hell the counter "window" that was perfectly fine in AC1 was turned into a "door"?

That's something Patrice(and his team) changed in AC2/ACB. I agree guards shoud do more, have more moves and all that. Why it all changed is something you have to ask the creator of.


Things like this were adressed many times already and unless they are expecting to receive the code with the problem fixed, I don't know why little or nothing was done on this department yet, "oh, but they added jaggers and janissaries", jaggers and janissaries that still take years to attack us and that don't appear often enough to represent a challenge to the player with their set of skills (that if I'm not wrong are less than what some common guards in AC1 could do), and they aren't even the problem, we don't need new archetypes that require a different approach to be defeated (it's always good to have them, but this isn't the solution to the problem), the main problem isn't there, the problem is in the guards we see in every corner, the ones that get more helpless and dumber each new game they release.

They properly have the old AC codes, add that on the existing guards and the new games will be a bit better in terms of combat.

I-Like-Pie45
02-19-2014, 05:05 PM
or they could take some inspiration from shadow of mordor

c/p some Arkham code, maybe toss in a little TLoU, Thief, Hitman, Day of Sex, Metal Gear, etc. no one will notice

AssassinHMS
02-19-2014, 06:12 PM
Precisely. And this is also why the modern day story has turned to complete crap.
Indeed.



Wanting them to use a unique type of gameplay that I enjoy very much in some form (aka spin-off, or in AC) in the future is very smart indeed :)!
I wouldn’t consider it smart, more like….normal. Usually, when I like something, I want more of it. In this case however, I don’t think it will be beneficial to AC. I like naval too, but I like AC even more. The core, the land gameplay, the whole experience is incredibly weak compared to what it can be. Right now, naval is in the way. Once they make a proper, if not even good, use of the game they had since the beginning (the one they have been giving fresh paint coats every year), then they can venture and try something bigger and more demanding. Like I say, quality before quantity and the core comes first, never naval.

Sushiglutton
02-19-2014, 06:30 PM
Before asking fans shoud make a grounding. An idea that does that, something Ubisoft can use. How would you adjust the cores then.

This has been said many times and I'm getting a bit tired of repeating those points. In short the criticism has to do with the core mechanics being too automatic, not giving the player enough control and chance to excel. There are also some fundamental flaws that persists, like weak AI, basic inventory management, camera, unresponsive controls, poorly implemented freeaiming and so on.

If you compare AC to other action adventure games I think these shortcomings should be fairly obvious.



I wouldn’t consider it smart, more like….normal. Usually, when I like something, I want more of it. In this case however, I don’t think it will be beneficial to AC. I like naval too, but I like AC even more. The core, the land gameplay, the whole experience is incredibly weak compared to what it can be. Right now, naval is in the way. Once they make a proper, if not even good, use of the game they had since the beginning (the one they have been giving fresh paint coats every year), then they can venture and try something bigger and more demanding. Like I say, quality before quantity and the core comes first, never naval.

Ah I missunderstood you then. I thought that when you called my OP "smart" in your previous post you were being sarcastic. But you actually thought it was a perfectly reasonable (normal) thing to want.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 07:24 PM
Unfortunately, because of the release schedule, the developers are forced to work on more substantial additions. Leonardo War-machines, Den Defense, Naval Combat. I'm not saying I disliked any of those, I thought they greatly added to each game and made them enjoyable, but that's the price for yearly releases (other than delayed feedback implementation and subjective decline in quality) they HAVE to make superficial additions. refining will not be enough anymore...the game feels too familiar. heck, even with all of these awesome systems, some fans still think it's the same old Assassins Creed.
Don't anyone try and convince me that if they refined the core, people will be happy, no they wont...it's a big BIG fanbase now...they KNOW what the hardcore fan wants, but they CAN'T do it..

As long as we have yearly releases, expect gimmicky (albeit well done and fun) systems like Naval combat, Den defense and the Leo War machines.

Sushiglutton
02-19-2014, 07:37 PM
Unfortunately, because of the release schedule, the developers are forced to work on more substantial additions. Leonardo War-machines, Den Defense, Naval Combat. I'm not saying I disliked any of those, I thought they greatly added to each game and made them enjoyable, but that's the price for yearly releases (other than delayed feedback implementation and subjective decline in quality) they HAVE to make superficial additions. refining will not be enough anymore...the game feels too familiar. heck, even with all of these awesome systems, some fans still think it's the same old Assassins Creed.
Don't anyone try and convince me that if they refined the core, people will be happy, no they wont...it's a big BIG fanbase now...they KNOW what the hardcore fan wants, but they CAN'T do it..

As long as we have yearly releases, expect gimmicky (albeit well done and fun) systems like Naval combat, Den defense and the Leo War machines.


I'm not sure if that is necessarily true. They made substantial changes to the core of the francise in AC3. The way they scheduled it was to work in parallell to the other titles. I think Jonathan Cooper said he started reinventing the animations while others were finishing up Brotherhood. In others words there is a possibility to run longer projects to reinvent the core despite the yearly releases.

The problem was (in my opinion ofc) that they had the wrong creative direction for the various systems in AC3 which resulted in flat gameplay (aka they streamlined user input too much and instead focused on making it look good). I don't believe the yearly release schedule was the main issue.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 07:45 PM
I'm not sure if that is necessarily true. They made substantial changes to the core of the francise in AC3. The way they scheduled it was to work in parallell to the other titles. I think Jonathan Cooper said he started reinventing the animations while others were finishing up Brotherhood. In others words there is a possibility to run longer projects to reinvent the core despite the yearly releases.

The problem was (in my opinion ofc) that they had the wrong creative direction for the various systems in AC3 which resulted in flat gameplay (aka they streamlined user input too much and instead focused on making it look good). I don't believe the yearly release schedule was the main issue.

I'm not referring to the amount of time, due to yearly releases, I'm referring to the fact that BECAUSE they have yearly releases, they MUST make more apparent additions.
Look at a game series like GTA. GTA IV offered a lot less than its predecessor and it still sold like crazy. It refined some systems here and there, the shooting mechanics, the driving physics, the visuals, AI..etc, but it removed A LOT of things that made its predecessor what it was. Customization was cut down by a heap, the world was smaller and there were less missions. of course, i'm not saying there wasn't hard work on that game, i'm just speaking from a generic fans' point of view of what's apparent of the game.

Now, why did GTA IV have so much success?? because there was 4 years between it and San Andreas. 4 years of waiting...Rockstar starves the fans...it KNOWS it doesn't have to add anything grand like ship battles to make the game successful...it just needs to refine the existing systems and people will come grubbing. This can't be the case with AC because of the familiarity the yearly releases are creating. Every game needs to have something VASTLY different...a whole new system and/or mechanic...it may or may not involve (sometimes improves) the core elements of AC, but they're enough to warrant the $60 you're paying every YEAR, not every 4/5 years...

Fatal-Feit
02-19-2014, 07:47 PM
I'm starting to despise the words ''hardcore'' and ''fans''. Or basically anything that relates to a person's integrity towards a franchise.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 07:49 PM
I'm starting to despise the words ''hardcore'' and ''fans''. Or basically anything that relates to a person's integrity towards a franchise.

JUST starting to?

by the way, about 80% of video game fans are most likely what I referred to as "generic fan" if that's what you're referring to. It's not an insult or label, just that most fans are not familiar with how a game was made. an average fan.

ze_topazio
02-19-2014, 07:52 PM
I just want a crouch and maybe crawling option already, I'm tired of entering enemy territory standing tall like an idiot who fears nothing, well, that's badass in a way.

Fatal-Feit
02-19-2014, 08:08 PM
JUST starting to?

by the way, about 80% of video game fans are most likely what I referred to as "generic fan" if that's what you're referring to. It's not an insult or label, just that most fans are not familiar with how a game was made. an average fan.

I have no problem with labels, it's something we all live with. But with this particular forum, the whole ''hardcore fan'' concept is getting annoying and often very offensive.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 08:09 PM
I have no problem with labels, it's something we all live with. But with this particular forum, the whole ''hardcore fan'' concept is getting annoying and often very offensive.

I agree with you, trust me..

Sushiglutton
02-19-2014, 08:13 PM
I'm not referring to the amount of time, due to yearly releases, I'm referring to the fact that BECAUSE they have yearly releases, they MUST make more apparent additions.
Look at a game series like GTA. GTA IV offered a lot less than its predecessor and it still sold like crazy. It refined some systems here and there, the shooting mechanics, the driving physics, the visuals, AI..etc, but it removed A LOT of things that made its predecessor what it was. Customization was cut down by a heap, the world was smaller and there were less missions. of course, i'm not saying there wasn't hard work on that game, i'm just speaking from a generic fans' point of view of what's apparent of the game.

Now, why did GTA IV have so much success?? because there was 4 years between it and San Andreas. 4 years of waiting...Rockstar starves the fans...it KNOWS it doesn't have to add anything grand like ship battles to make the game successful...it just needs to refine the existing systems and people will come grubbing. This can't be the case with AC because of the familiarity the yearly releases are creating. Every game needs to have something VASTLY different...a whole new system and/or mechanic...it may or may not involve (sometimes improves) the core elements of AC, but they're enough to warrant the $60 you're paying every YEAR, not every 4/5 years...


I see what you mean now and that is a fair point. But as AC3 shows these new systems don't have to mean that the core gets stale. Since they can be worked on by entirely different team on the other side of the world I don't think they have to interfer much at all.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 08:23 PM
I see what you mean now and that is a fair point. But as AC3 shows these new systems don't have to mean that the core gets stale. Since they can be worked on by entirely different team on the other side of the world I don't think they have to interfer much at all.

But I'm not saying that it's not possible for the developers to refine the existing core mechanics, in fact it'd be so much easier for them to do that, but they cannot do it, not due to inability or a lack of resources and/or time, but because the yearly schedule demands it...the familiarity that the yearly schedule creates demands more work, new systems and gimmicky mechanics to warrant the money you're paying every single year.

Systems like Ship battles, Leo Machines and Den defense will warrant less "same ol' Assassins Creed" complaints than Refined guard AI, Improved social stealth and Combat...granted, it might alienate older fans who'll say "it's not AC anymore", but those complaints are of little importance, since they're overshadowed by the "it's the same ol' AC" complaint
it's about priorities, really..

Fatal-Feit
02-19-2014, 08:29 PM
This franchise will undoubtedly become another CoD in terms of the hate. It's only a matter of time before we're labeled as fake gamers. Brace yourselves.

Sushiglutton
02-19-2014, 08:31 PM
But I'm not saying that it's not possible for the developers to refine the existing core mechanics, in fact it'd be so much easier for them to do that, but they cannot do it, not due to inability or a lack of resources and/or time, but because the yearly schedule demands it...the familiarity that the yearly schedule creates demands more work, new systems and gimmicky mechanics to warrant the money you're paying every single year.

Systems like Ship battles, Leo Machines and Den defense will warrant less "same ol' Assassins Creed" complaints than Refined guard AI, Improved social stealth and Combat...granted, it might alienate older fans who'll say "it's not AC anymore", but those complaints are of little importance, since they're overshadowed by the "it's the same ol' AC" complaint
it's about priorities, really..

Not sure what you mean by "but they cannot do it" because it's exactly what they have done. For AC3 they rebuilt most of the mechanics from scratch and for AC4 they made significant changes to stealth.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 08:33 PM
This franchise will undoubtedly become another CoD in terms of the hate. It's only a matter of time before we're labeled as fake gamers. Brace yourselves.

Nah, I don't think so. CoD gets a lot of hate, because Activision does not care. the game sells like gold, so why would they need others' approval?? AC on the other hand is not a shooter...a first person shooter. Arguably the most addictive genre currently. Ubisoft will find ground or kill it...if the reception for AC becomes similar to CoD, AC will stop selling...we're not there yet...

Sushiglutton
02-19-2014, 08:37 PM
This franchise will undoubtedly become another CoD in terms of the hate. It's only a matter of time before we're labeled as fake gamers. Brace yourselves.

After AC3 there was a massive amount of hate on article comments on various gaming sites. But after AC4 I felt they bounced back a bit and now AC is kosher again. I think AC is a much broader and flexible franchise than COD, it's easier to vary and create different experiences.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 08:39 PM
Not sure what you mean by "but they cannot do it" because it's exactly what they have done. For AC3 they rebuilt most of the mechanics from scratch and for AC4 they made significant changes to stealth.

You've just said what I've been saying, they rebuilt from scratch. They wouldn't need to rebuild from scratch if it wasn't yearly, they'd only need to refine. They added Naval combat for AC III, is what i'm saying...they HAD to add Naval combat and redo everything from scratch, else the game would've felt too familiar to most people.

AC IV didn't do significant changes to stealth, they just changed their focus when designing missions. Their priority wasn't a cinematic experience anymore, as was the case in AC III. They simply made their utmost priority to gameplay and interactivity. better environments designed specifically to give freedom to the player in the shape of numerous routes and refined presentation of challenges for the player to tackle differently from the linear mindset that was designing most of AC III's missions. They spiced that up by going back to AC II's dumb as bricks guard detection system, as opposed to AC III's psychic detection, and they made gold...that's all it took to make AC IV's levels much MUCH more enjoyable..

Sushiglutton
02-19-2014, 08:47 PM
You've just said what I've been saying, they rebuilt from scratch. They wouldn't need to rebuild from scratch if it wasn't yearly, they'd only need to refine. They added Naval combat for AC III, is what i'm saying...they HAD to add Naval combat and redo everything from scratch, else the game would've felt too familiar to most people.

AC IV didn't do significant changes to stealth, they just changed their focus when designing missions. Their priority wasn't a cinematic experience anymore, as was the case in AC III. They simply made their utmost priority to gameplay and interactivity. better environments designed specifically to give freedom to the player in the shape of numerous routes and to present the challenges the player can tackle differently from the linear mindset that was designing most of AC III's missions. They spiced that up by going back to AC II's dumb as bricks guard detection system and they made gold...that's all it took to make AC IV's levels much MUCH more enjoyable..

Ah ok I think we are saying the same thing hten, but in different ways.

I can agree that AC4 more tweaked the stealth from AC3 rather than reinvineting it. However stealth went from agggrevating to enjoyable, which was significant to me :). But yeah in principal you are correct though.

Fatal-Feit
02-19-2014, 08:54 PM
Nah, I don't think so. CoD gets a lot of hate, because Activision does not care. the game sells like gold, so why would they need others' approval?? AC on the other hand is not a shooter...a first person shooter. Arguably the most addictive genre currently. Ubisoft will find ground or kill it...if the reception for AC becomes similar to CoD, AC will stop selling...we're not there yet...

I definitely agree that AC is much more flexible than CoD, but I don't believe hate affects the sales by all that much. In AC:3's case, the hate was more targeted with the game itself, and Connor. AC:IV however, which was exceptionally better, or at least for the majority of the mass, has criticisms for series as a whole. Such as milking, not being AC, losing its roots, etc, etc. And with every new video or trailer, these criticisms have became more and more prominent. We all know that people will complain about anything, even if it's not true.

If the next sequel dishes out another successful & possibly a mind blowing installment, there are certainly going to still be a growing group of relentless degenerates spouting the same thing, getting dozens of likes. It's just how things works.

The only way to fix this would be to cease annualization. But we all know that's not happening.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 09:21 PM
Ah ok I think we are saying the same thing hten, but in different ways.

I can agree that AC4 more tweaked the stealth from AC3 rather than reinvineting it. However stealth went from agggrevating to enjoyable, which was significant to me :). But yeah in principal you are correct though.

Yes, I guess we just got kinda confused somewhere in the middle of it...

oh of course, it was significant for me too. It made AC IV my current favorite ;)


I definitely agree that AC is much more flexible than CoD, but I don't believe hate affects the sales by all that much. In AC:3's case, the hate was more targeted with the game itself, and Connor. AC:IV however, which was exceptionally better, or at least for the majority of the mass, has criticisms for series as a whole. Such as milking, not being AC, losing its roots, etc, etc. And with every new video or trailer, these criticisms have became more and more prominent. We all know that people will complain about anything, even if it's not true.

If the next sequel dishes out another successful & possibly a mind blowing installment, there are certainly going to still be a growing group of relentless degenerates spouting the same thing, getting dozens of likes. It's just how things works.

The only way to fix this would be to cease annualization. But we all know that's not happening.
We'll always have degenerates, though, but I don't think we'll reach CoD level anytime soon xP

I-Like-Pie45
02-19-2014, 09:26 PM
I think AC3 deserves a director's cut treatment to bring it up to par with the liked games in the series since other games that were flawed but showed potential got them

if it were up to me:


add in a few things that were cut out like random events, frozen lakes, ambient music, naval free-roam, etc.
massive mission design overhaul to allow for freedom and a bigger emphasis on the series' mechanics over linear cinematic crap, along with funner side content such as actual side assassinations instead of find a random guard with no backstory and kill him
extermination of psychics so stealth and escape can actually be viable/fun
speaking of, horse are no longer broken as well
a few new story missions that have more Connor x Washington, Connor x Haytham, Connor x Best Friend Guy, etc. scenes to further develop their relationships so that a few plot revelations have more impact, as well as a few to remove all those "a few months later" monologues. Fix a couple of weird plot quirks as well
connor gets a cat who he plays board games with, for some reason.... cuz kitty cats are so fuzzy and cute and huggy
a lot more optional conversations with key characters + homestead residents because character development or something
a scene where poor Ben finally gets his almanac pages returned. The older woman conversation can also be experienced with Connor, who unlike his father, is horrified by what Ben has to say
overall, since the tutorial was like what five or six sequences the remaining sequences will be lengthened so that we actually get to spend more time with Connor as an Assassin and the story hopefully feels less disjointed jumping all over as a result
Stephane Champeau dies in his first appearance and instead multiplayer assassins becomes Connor's first recruit later on
expanded modern day. give vidic and cross satisfying deaths along with other stuff. Desmond will finally become a character you care about and people will actually miss him.
however, there still will be no usage of "nothing is true, everything is permitted" because I prefer that NISEIP be expressed through actions and character rather than words
trailer for the AC movie with lots of fassboning action
NON-CANON KENWAY FAMILY TEAM-UP SEQUENCE WHERE THEY RIDE ON SUPER RAINBOW DINOSAURS AND FIGHT ALIEN RENAISSANCE ZOMBIES
man, eff this director's cut. this is final cut level **** here


as for ToKW, it gets a complete overhaul, such as the addition of Paul Revere, Stephane Champeau and Justin Bieber's ancestors as assassination targets because people wanted that. Actual side missions, voice actors from AC3 actually reprising their roles, a single unified experience instead of those silly episodes, non repetitive random events, etc.


I think it could redeem AC3 in the public eye, especially if the update is free unlike the director's cut for Day of Sex: Herpes Revolution, but knowing how much development costs and takes, plus release schedules and annualization the chance of this happening is zero outside of my dream world

Hans684
02-19-2014, 09:38 PM
The only way to fix this would be to cease annualization. But we all know that's not happening.

That can happen, Ubisoft said they are willing to break the annualisation if the game is not good enough.

Shahkulu101
02-19-2014, 09:45 PM
That can happen, Ubisoft said they is willing to break the annualisation if the game is not good enough.

Yes, but what on Earth is 'not good enough' in Ubisoft's eyes. :nonchalance:

The game would need to be monumentally bad for that to happen - they released AC3 after all, when the A.I was broken and the game choc-full of bugs.

Assassin_M
02-19-2014, 09:45 PM
That can happen, Ubisoft said they is willing to break the annualisation if the game is not good enough.

That's so vague, though...When is it not good enough? Sales? Reception? Quality? but quality's subjective...not everyone faces the same glitches, so what then? just their opinion of what's not good enough?? and I wonder I wonder, who decides that then? and, what is the criteria for good enough and thus full circle

Hans684
02-19-2014, 10:07 PM
That's so vague, though...When is it not good enough? Sales? Reception? Quality? but quality's subjective...not everyone faces the same glitches, so what then? just their opinion of what's not good enough?? and I wonder I wonder, who decides that then? and, what is the criteria for good enough and thus full circle

I'm but a simple fan and such questions are beyond me. Maybe you shall ask Ubisoft? It might bring clarity then.



Yes, but what on Earth is 'not good enough' in Ubisoft's eyes. :nonchalance:

The game would need to be monumentally bad for that to happen - they released AC3 after all, when the A.I was broken and the game choc-full of bugs.

Did they relsease AC3 :eek:

Anyway, I don't know the standards at Ubisoft.