PDA

View Full Version : How Disappointing are you Expecting Unity to be?



LieutenantRex
06-03-2014, 09:16 PM
After AC3 and AC4, I was left with a hollow feeling in my gut as I anticipated the future Assassin's Creed title. I knew it'd come, being as the franchise has turned into an annual one, but I prepared myself to be sorely underwhelmed. AC3 was a disappointment to pretty much 95% of every person who bought the hype and played it. AC4 was barely an improvement. After a while of running/sailing around, doing fetch quests, tailing, having a few (good) scripted platforming missions, and exploring the dull world, I got bored. Don't get me wrong, I got bored after a full week. But a week was all that it was. Disappointing.

But hey, maybe when you get bored with a game after a week, it's a sign of life telling you to move on. The thing is, there were a lot of promises that were never delivered in both AC3 and AC4, and no one ever updated us about the changes, and so when we played the game we kept waiting for stuff that'd never be in it. I understand that developers make E3 demos to show off the game and build up excitement, but in EVERY Assassin's Creed E3 demo since ACR, we've seen demos scores above the actual game. Why do gamers have to settle with false advertising from developers and publishers when no other entertainment industry is allowed to do that? Or at least get away with it?

So, since the last two games were utter failures, what do you think Unity will do to your hype?

Jexx21
06-03-2014, 09:18 PM
if you expect to be disappointed then you really aren't disappointed since you expected it to be unsatisfactory.

I was disappointed in AC3 but it provided a satisfactory experience, so thus I defend it.

Oh and AC4's E3 demo was actually really close to what we actually got. They just didn't include Edward talking while blending (actually in some cases I did hear Edward talk while blending in the game so this isn't entirely true), or the crouching after coming out of a bush, but those don't really matter as they don't change much in terms of gameplay experience.

DinoSteve1
06-03-2014, 09:34 PM
why would you expect to be disappointed, you should be hopeful that it will be good.

king-hailz
06-03-2014, 09:45 PM
Well AC3 was so dissappinting that i just dont know what to tell you... but the truth is that it actually isnt that bad but my hype was so high that the game we got was ****... however in AC4 i was kind of was excited but i controlled myself to a point that i enjoyed the game... but the stroy was a bit dissapoiting since nothing really happened... for the next game i am thinking in my head...

The game will have graphics just slightly better than AC4 it will have the same annoying combat system, and a free running system that wont work... i am expecting the same first person modern day and nothing to happen in the story to progress the story... instead i will need to go to initiates to feel satisfied. I expect the main story to be so full of history and politics that it takes away from the main caharacter and it will take away from the feeling of the city... i expect paris to be the only city with no naval and the city to be kinda boring on the content side... hopefully it will be better than my expectations... im still buying it though... in fact i am buying a ps4 just for it!!!

SixKeys
06-03-2014, 09:54 PM
AC4 was a good game. It offered more freedom in missions than we've had since AC2, maybe even AC1. The world had a ton of fun things to do. I think it's down to personal tastes whether you get bored of them fast. I don't think they were any different from all the fetch quests and other side activities in AC2-ACR. AC3 promised a lot of things that were ultimately not delivered, but AC4 delivered almost everything that was promised. I think only crouching and interactive blending were changed.

GunnerGalactico
06-03-2014, 10:09 PM
I didn't feel let down by AC4. For the most part, I enjoyed the game from beginning to end. It hit all the right notes for me. From a gameplay perspective, it was a massive improvement from AC3... So, I'm remaining positive and optimistic about Unity.

Zafar1981
06-03-2014, 10:11 PM
Well AC3 was so dissappinting that i just dont know what to tell you... but the truth is that it actually isnt that bad but my hype was so high that the game we got was ****... however in AC4 i was kind of was excited but i controlled myself to a point that i enjoyed the game... but the stroy was a bit dissapoiting since nothing really happened... for the next game i am thinking in my head...

The game will have graphics just slightly better than AC4 it will have the same annoying combat system, and a free running system that wont work... i am expecting the same first person modern day and nothing to happen in the story to progress the story... instead i will need to go to initiates to feel satisfied. I expect the main story to be so full of history and politics that it takes away from the main caharacter and it will take away from the feeling of the city... i expect paris to be the only city with no naval and the city to be kinda boring on the content side... hopefully it will be better than my expectations... im still buying it though... in fact i am buying a ps4 just for it!!!

Totally agree with you and I am also buying PS4 or X1 for this game. I am always against the guns in this game and they are making third game in row where guns have huge part. Including the guns in the combat makes it boring and stale.
Hay Ubisoft we know lots of games where you can use guns, we start playing Assassin's Creed game due to its uniqueness. When I first saw Assassin's Creed Demo at E3 2006 I said wow, what a cool game, prince of persia style game without monsters and jinns. I love the sword fighting animations in AC but instead of devolving and upgrade the sword fighting style we are seeing guns, blow pipes, dart rope and mini crossbow. I never like GTA because there are lots of games like GTA but I love RDR because there are few games like it. I didn't buy WD because its a copycat GTA.
I am going to buy ACU but don't know if things are going this way the future of AC is dark.

phoenix-force411
06-03-2014, 10:34 PM
ACIII's main story missions were just disappointing and that was even so with the optional objectives that were so easy to fail and so hard to live up to. Other than that, ACIII's experience was really good. I like staying in the Frontier a lot.

ACIV improved upon the free-roaming of the game and the missions, but the combat and parkour elements were kinda of dulled. Edward couldn't climb cliffs and the combat was overly simplified and sometimes to the point where things would get very frustrating.

I really hope AC: Unity does very well, and they promise everything they do show. Every mission that is refined for an E3 demo then seen in the real version has always been a dull. ACIV and ACIII's being a great example of it, but ACIII's was non-canon'd. But yes, the most watered down game would have to be Assassin's Creed III.

If you're someone who's hoping that the game would go bad, you should just stop paying attention to AC.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-03-2014, 10:39 PM
I didn't feel let down by AC4. For the most part, I enjoyed the game from beginning to end. It hit all the right notes for me. From a gameplay perspective, it was a massive improvement from AC3... So, I'm remaining positive and optimistic about Unity.

Same. Just hoping they don't oversell like AC3. AC3 had its good and bad times, but the hype was ridiculous.

pacmanate
06-03-2014, 11:06 PM
Theres only one thing I think AC games lack, a GOOD story that actually has substantial character development and a good plot.

Wolfmeister1010
06-03-2014, 11:50 PM
Why are people so ****ing bent on thinking that Unity will be only slightly better than AC4 graphically? There was a bit of a downgrade in FC3, and a PC version downgrade in WD, but other than that Ubi has had a completely clear track when it comes to delivering what they show graphically. Especially on the AC department.

Shahkulu101
06-03-2014, 11:54 PM
Even Watch Dogs still looks better than the majority of LINEAR games never mind Open-world games, of which W_D is one of the best I've ever seen.

Unity will look stunning, for sure. As always, cautiously optimistic about the overall game.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-04-2014, 12:06 AM
If you actually go into video games expecting to be disappointed.. i feel so sorry for you -_-
I have never been disappointed with an AC game..
Annoyed at design choices - yes. But never disappointed..

Sushiglutton
06-04-2014, 12:24 AM
Well it's kind of early to tell yet lol. I'm hoping for a step in the right direction. If Unity can deliver that I'll be pleased!

Locopells
06-04-2014, 12:30 AM
So, since the last two games were utter failures...

That depends on who you ask, mate.


...what do you think Unity will do to your hype?

Who knows at this stage?!

DinoSteve1
06-04-2014, 12:57 AM
If you actually go into video games expecting to be disappointed.. i feel so sorry for you -_-
I have never been disappointed with an AC game..
Annoyed at design choices - yes. But never disappointed..
I was disappointed by AC3 but before I played it, I was hoping it would be good, being disappointed before you even play a game is a bit silly imo.

prince162010
06-04-2014, 01:33 AM
Sorry but still too early on this matter ! not now

Wolfmeister1010
06-04-2014, 01:43 AM
We got a very trustworthy insider saying that Unity will be/feel very fresh. He said "AC4 was fine. Unity will be fresh."

Ureh
06-04-2014, 02:28 AM
Loved AC3/4 for different reasons. They satisfied me. I wasn't super duper ultra hyped for them. But for Unity, I'm pumped and ready to go. Almost as excited as I was for AC2. Funny thing is I don't know what to expect, other than better graphics and a new story. :p

SolidSage
06-04-2014, 04:16 AM
AC3 lived up to the hype. I did miss long beautiful roofscapes like Venice and Jerusalem though. Some mechanics took a hit, some were improved.
AC4 was good but I had enough ships in 3 and the islands felt very repetetive. Combat was weaker. Tbh, I expected 4 to be what it was.

The ONLY genuine disappointment I have ever felt with an AC game is that there isn't more to do in free roam after campaign completion. I get sad towards the end of Icon clean up because I know the purpose is almost over.
I want more infinite random events.

If Unity has genuine free roam coop? Yeah, "disappointing"? More like excitomoto mode engaged! :)

JustPlainQuirky
06-04-2014, 04:22 AM
AC games def need more engaging after-story activities.

SolidSage
06-04-2014, 04:33 AM
If they could throw in coop mini games and missions kind of like GTAO, that would be great.

- Contract competitions
- Flag races
- VS fisticuffs
- Parkour & tower climb races
- Coop contracts
- Bacci ball, poker, etc.

Seriously, Player agency games like tag, hide & seek and follow the leader (into massive PvE combat scenarios :D) would add tons of longevity. There is SO much good that can come out of a real AC coop.

AssassinHMS
06-04-2014, 04:40 AM
AC games def need more engaging after-story activities.

Not really. Because then you would still be enjoying the game instead of spending your time dreaming and building hype for the next instalment.*
This is how AC is meant to work: you play it, you throw it away, you buy the next one.


It's like a very expensive chewing gum.

Wolfmeister1010
06-04-2014, 04:44 AM
I don't know about you guys..but I feel like each AC is a better open world than the last one. AC2 I put in like 20+ hours, ACB like 30, AC3 like 45-50, and AC4 like 70 lol.

JustPlainQuirky
06-04-2014, 04:45 AM
I once got chewing gum for like 5 bucks. it's insanely expensive for a single pack of gum.

AssassinHMS
06-04-2014, 04:53 AM
I once got chewing gum for like 5 bucks. it's insanely expensive for a single pack of gum.

You know I only meant fresh gum. And, let me guess, that was the first time you experienced this particular brand, am I right?

JustPlainQuirky
06-04-2014, 05:00 AM
yeeeeeeeeep.

but then i kept buying it.

then i realized with the same amount of money i could get like a million steam games.

AssassinHMS
06-04-2014, 05:24 AM
then i realized with the same amount of money i could get like a million steam games.

Have you, perhaps, considered quitting gum?

zkorejo
06-04-2014, 06:10 AM
Im here to discuss AC Unity and chew gum... and im alllllll out of gum.

OT, I am actually very excited for AC Unity. Im expecting a good game, my expectations are not too high, but I believe this will be THE game to play this year (unless they delay it). Speaking of delays, with Witcher 3, Batman AK, The Order being delayed... this is my most anticipated title this year. I hope Ubi delivers.

Jexx21
06-04-2014, 06:15 AM
i'm here to be a **** and read posts, and I'm all out of posts

HercRembrandt
06-04-2014, 06:24 AM
Dunno... Can you expect a disappointment? And if you do, are you disappointed if the disappointment doesn't arrive? It's all too deep, man...

king-hailz
06-04-2014, 07:14 AM
Dunno... Can you expect a disappointment? And if you do, are you disappointed if the disappointment doesn't arrive? It's all too deep, man...

Well i am not expecting to be dissappinted... i am expecting the game to be ok... but not as amazing as i hope it is... this way i wont be dissapointed since i didnt expect it to be amazing but if it is i will be pleasantly suprised... i just dont want to get my hopes up...

GunnerGalactico
06-04-2014, 08:15 AM
Same. Just hoping they don't oversell like AC3. AC3 had its good and bad times, but the hype was ridiculous.

I felt that the hype was pretty good because it was the only game at the time to feature a new setting and protagonist since Ezio. AC3 did have it's fare share of good and bad moments, but overall I understood the gist of the story and where they were trying to go with it. The trailers did very well to contribute to the hype of the game but sadly fell flat when it came to final product. I felt disappointed in the sense that a lot of things were missing in the actual game, when it came to the Battle of Bunker Hill... I'm sure a lot of people out there ( especially me, guilty :p ) tried to replicate the E3 trailer and that didn't go very well.


AC3 lived up to the hype. I did miss long beautiful roofscapes like Venice and Jerusalem though. Some mechanics took a hit, some were improved.
AC4 was good but I had enough ships in 3 and the islands felt very repetetive. Combat was weaker. Tbh, I expected 4 to be what it was.

I also did miss the lush, picturesque views and landscapes from the previous titles before AC3, but the Frontier kind of made up for it. It also had to do with the fact that I embraced the change of a new setting, story, protagonist etc, but the game didn't quite deliver everything in the final product. I felt that the combat system was better in AC3 than in AC4.


Loved AC3/4 for different reasons. They satisfied me. I wasn't super duper ultra hyped for them. But for Unity, I'm pumped and ready to go. Almost as excited as I was for AC2. Funny thing is I don't know what to expect, other than better graphics and a new story. :p

Well said and I agree with everything :)

AherasSTRG
06-04-2014, 02:54 PM
I expect to spend over 150 hours on my first playthrough alone, loving every single bit of the game and praising the people that made it - just like every other AC game...

DinoSteve1
06-04-2014, 03:16 PM
I dunno I looked forward to AC3 but hated it and I didn't give a **** about AC4 and loved it, but then AC4 is the better game imo.

oliacr
06-04-2014, 03:38 PM
I don't think it will be disappointing. I haven't been disappointed by any ac games yet.

Hans684
06-04-2014, 04:05 PM
We know to little, don't know what to expect. But I expect the fan reaction(and of course the non-fans) to consider it more or less like AC3 when out.

VoXngola
06-04-2014, 04:47 PM
I loved every AC, especially AC2 and AC4, except for AC3. But AC3 taught me a very good, valuable lesson. It taught me not to buy into hype so massively. I will remain pessimistic until the end, that way I will be greatly surprised (like with AC4 in my case) or I won't be disappointed. It's a win-win for me.

jayjay275
06-04-2014, 05:12 PM
I think Unity good potentially be one of the best AC games, as it is FINALLY not limited by last gen.

Ureh
06-04-2014, 05:25 PM
I think it's good to be neutral. Shouldn't be too cynical or too optimistic. Cause either could lead to disappointment much quicker or love the game more than you would've if you were as neutral as possible. You'd start the game with a certain predisposition. Of course this is an annual franchise now it's pretty hard not to already have some biases before the next game comes out. Eh...

Jexx21
06-04-2014, 05:26 PM
I loved every AC, especially AC2 and AC4, except for AC3. But AC3 taught me a very good, valuable lesson. It taught me not to buy into hype so massively. I will remain pessimistic until the end, that way I will be greatly surprised (like with AC4 in my case) or I won't be disappointed. It's a win-win for me.
being a pessimist decreases overall joy in life

so that's a bad decision

Mr_Shade
06-04-2014, 06:59 PM
Even Watch Dogs still looks better than the majority of LINEAR games never mind Open-world games, of which W_D is one of the best I've ever seen.

Unity will look stunning, for sure. As always, cautiously optimistic about the overall game.

It will look as good as it can - since no more PS3 /Xbox 360 'holding it back ' ;)

m4r-k7
06-04-2014, 07:05 PM
I am going to be cautiously optimistic, but I know I will end up buying it even if it looks crap. I just love AC games, even AC 3. I just hope Unity has more elements of AC 1 and AC 2 with the freedom of AC 4

DinoSteve1
06-04-2014, 07:08 PM
I think Unity good potentially be one of the best AC games, as it is FINALLY not limited by last gen.

lol finally, we are barely 1/2 a year in to the new gen.

jayjay275
06-04-2014, 07:10 PM
lol finally, we are barely 1/2 a year in to the new gen.
Yup.

pacmanate
06-04-2014, 07:16 PM
Even though Unity might look good, as always as time progresses, games will look better and better.

JustPlainQuirky
06-04-2014, 07:18 PM
AC unity will still be limited by Ps4 and Xbone :rolleyes:

Shahkulu101
06-04-2014, 07:19 PM
Even though Unity might look good, as always as time progresses, games will look better and better.

I cried.

pacmanate
06-04-2014, 07:27 PM
I try to write deep, meaningful posts full of soul. I am glad you were touched by me. I touched you.

DinoSteve1
06-04-2014, 07:46 PM
I try to write deep, meaningful posts full of soul. I am glad you were touched by me. I touched you.

and not in the bad way, hopefully.

Shahkulu101
06-04-2014, 08:03 PM
I hope everyone enjoys Unity and you find it crushingly disappointing, you miserable codger.

DinoSteve1
06-04-2014, 08:19 PM
me? :(

Shahkulu101
06-04-2014, 08:22 PM
No the OP, steveeire.

pacmanate
06-04-2014, 08:23 PM
me? :(

Especially you

ArabianFrost
06-04-2014, 10:21 PM
We can't really say anything at the moment. For me, it really is all about how they approach combat, social stealth, difficulty and mission structure. These three things are pretty much the series' only weak points (which is pretty much the entire game). Hell, even if they leave the combat ****ty, the mission structure is in dire need of a change, rather than kill classic investigation missions which actually make the series damn unique, they need to make it more complex and engaging, which in itself means better social stealth...or you know, since ACU may use a new engine, it can also eat from development time and we'll have another AC3. In the case, I'll go cry in the corner. I'm very concerned about the development time making the engine. It's all about how the new team views AC, let's hope they aim to preserve the game's pillars like last team.

SixKeys
06-04-2014, 10:25 PM
We can't really say anything at the moment. For me, it really is all about how they approach combat, social stealth, difficulty and mission structure. These three things are pretty much the series' only weak points (which is pretty much the entire game). Hell, even if they leave the combat ****ty, the mission structure is in dire need of a change, rather than kill classic investigation missions which actually make the series damn unique, they need to make it more complex and engaging, which in itself means better social stealth...or you know, since ACU uses a new engine, it can also eat from development time and we'll have another AC3. In the case, I'll go cry in the corner. I'm very concerned about the development time making the engine. It's all about how the new team views AC, let's hope they aim to preserve the game's pillars like last team.

Are they actually using a new engine? They already created AnvilNext two years ago, I doubt they'd make a new one so soon. They're probably just able to better utilize AN's capacity on next-gen consoles.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
06-04-2014, 10:26 PM
Honestly? This post is VERY negative, though not entirely without reason.

I was significantly underwhelmed with the cities of AC3, the gameplay, and the modern day story and how they butchered Desmond's story. It was so bad that when they announced the next game would ALSO be set in the 1700s and be about PIRATES... I immediately lost any potential interest I might have had. Having seen gameplay of it, it does look a lot better than AC3 but the setting just doesn't interest me. The sailing in particular... it looks a LOT better than AC3 since it became an actual mechanic and they treated the ocean as a sandbox instead of as closed linear missions... but at the end of the day.. sailing around on the ocean is not what I want to do in AC.

So now that brings me to Unity... yet ANOTHER game set in the 1700s. That already dampens my hype...HOWEVER. There's a caveat.

It's during the French Revolution. While I think having another 1700's revolution-based game after two other 1700s games, one of which was also a revolution, is silly... it does give me some hOpe. Maybe not hYpe...but hope.

See, it's France. Which is Europe. Europe had denser cities with taller buildings and monuments than colonial America or the Caribbean. That's the sole thing that can save ACU... a sandbox worth exploring like AC2 (dense, really fun cities as opposed to the boring cities of AC3) and hopefully more replayability by adding in a lot more random events such as muggers/thieves, gang ambushes, thugs attacking civilians, etc. I shall see during E3 whether ACU piques my curiousity or not. I hope it will... but I'm not really hyped for much. Hopefully that makes sense and more importantly, hopefully Unity will knock my socks off.

ArabianFrost
06-04-2014, 10:48 PM
Are they actually using a new engine? They already created AnvilNext two years ago, I doubt they'd make a new one so soon. They're probably just able to better utilize AN's capacity on next-gen consoles.
I stand corrected. I thought I'd seen the name of a new engine in one of the trailers, but that's not the case. Still, the game could be so big, there's a chance they'd leave the mechanics and mission structure shallow again.

Jexx21
06-04-2014, 11:02 PM
You do realize that the AC3 team wanted to improve each pillar as well, Frost?

It's not like the developers set out to make a game that doesn't improve upon the last one. AC3 just didn't have enough development time. They should have just had AC3 release in 2013 even if it went past the 2012 date.

Locopells
06-05-2014, 12:34 AM
AC unity will still be limited by PS4 and Xbone :rolleyes:

Sad but true...

Hey, Frost! Long time, no see!

ArabianFrost
06-05-2014, 01:43 AM
You do realize that the AC3 team wanted to improve each pillar as well, Frost?

It's not like the developers set out to make a game that doesn't improve upon the last one. AC3 just didn't have enough development time. They should have just had AC3 release in 2013 even if it went past the 2012 date.

That and the team also seemed like they wanted to tell a story more than they wanted to make a game, which was proved by AC3's AMA. They did exert effort, but at the end, they wanted to tell a story more than make an AC game.


Sad but true...

Hey, Frost! Long time, no see!

Great to see you too guys! Summer's finally here, so I'll hopefully be around more oftenly.

Jarek23
06-05-2014, 04:43 AM
A lot of people comparing the potential outcome of this game with AC3. That game failed because of Alex Hutchinson, the creative director for this game did Revelations, which was the worst in the Ezio trilogy but better than AC3.

By the way, I really liked AC3 and think people were a lot harder on it than they should have been. I really disliked the pacing and the lack of ambient music, but it was still a very fun game. Better than 4, tail simulator.

JustPlainQuirky
06-05-2014, 04:45 AM
Not just Alex Hutchinson. Whoever came up with the idea that Charles randomly choke connor and William shoot natives is at fault too.Turned possibly well developed characters to 1 dimensional villains.

Jexx21
06-05-2014, 04:45 AM
Lol, the game didn't fail because of Alex Hutchinson.

and ACR was easily worse than AC3.

Jarek23
06-05-2014, 04:49 AM
Lol, the game didn't fail because of Alex Hutchinson.

and ACR was easily worse than AC3.

Opinions man.

Also, what was the most common issue with AC3? The pacing, the fact that it took half the game to become and assassin and the first six hours were a tutorial. That's up to the creative director, Alex Hutchinson.

At least ACR let you play the game off the bat, and the Altier sequences were greater than anything in AC3.

Read this, see how people reacted to AH being the creative director of FC4.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=820267

AssassinHMS
06-05-2014, 05:41 AM
You do realize that the AC3 team wanted to improve each pillar as well, Frost?

It's not like the developers set out to make a game that doesn't improve upon the last one. AC3 just didn't have enough development time. They should have just had AC3 release in 2013 even if it went past the 2012 date.

Do not blame it on the development time...so many people make that mistake.

Everyone wants to be good at everything, priorities are what defines us. That is what AC3 is. Priorities:
- Action and explosions before assassinations or investigations;
- Focused, scripted and linear levels instead of open-ended, dynamic missions;
- Extra mechanics/features (naval, hunting, crafting and minigames) before the core mechanics;
- QUANTITY before Quality (should be the title of the game)

They could have made a focused, strong and simple AC game in that time. But no, they decided to go BIG and LARGE. That only shows one thing. They wanted to get EVERYONE to buy the game. The problem isn't time, the problem are their priotities, the fact AC means nothing but profit to them.
AC1 was the only one that escaped this reality, but AC3 was the limit. They even messed up the assassinations, to the point that it's considered a blessing to have open ended assassinations these days

pacmanate
06-05-2014, 12:33 PM
What was wrong with AC3:

Took too long to play as Connor
Took too long to get Assassin toys
Boston and New York had too much empty space
Frontier was too big for the amount of content
Side content had no value
The "Boston/New York/Fronteir Items" side content was just dumb, you spent more creating the items than you got money for them once finished.
The mission design was the worst in the franchises' history imo
The 100% sync objectives were also the worst in the franchises' history
The crafting system for a lot of people, including myself, was complicated at first due to no tutorials
The viewpoint system was just stupid. They didn't end up revealing the whole map so you had to run around like a fool trying to uncover it (not fun for people with OCD's)
Very glitchy at launch
A lot of trophies and in game collectible counters were broken.
Connor as a character was too bland. He just seemed angry all the time, never had a laugh (excluding homestead missions), never cracked a joke. Some people argue its cause of his past, whatever. Doesn't make for an interesting character

Wolfmeister1010
06-05-2014, 12:39 PM
@Pac

"never had a laugh (excluding homestead missions), never cracked a joke."

I can not believe you just went that route lol. Don't tell me you're one of THOSE people..

Gladiaattori1500
06-05-2014, 12:43 PM
I've never been disappointed by an AC game and I don't expect to be this time either

btw if you're expecting it to be disappointing, it isn't actually disappointing because disappointing means that it's inferior than your initial expectations if you get me

pacmanate
06-05-2014, 12:43 PM
@Pac

"never had a laugh (excluding homestead missions), never cracked a joke."

I can not believe you just went that route lol. Don't tell me you're one of THOSE people..

Depends what you mean by "one of those people". Having to play as someone who is constantly angry is not fun.

Wolfmeister1010
06-05-2014, 12:58 PM
Depends what you mean by "one of those people". Having to play as someone who is constantly angry is not fun.

One of those people who don't think Connor "Joked" enough.

pacmanate
06-05-2014, 01:08 PM
One of those people who don't think Connor "Joked" enough.

Well yeah... he was always uptight, I get why, but its not fun to play as IMO.

AssassinHMS
06-05-2014, 01:15 PM
Since this chain of events has already been set in motion, I might as well join in.

I don't like Connor because he is the symbol of what is wrong with AC's gameplay:


He's bulky - combat is more important than wits. Sometimes I wonder if Connor could have acomplished anything if it wasn't for his superhuman strengh or without violence. One man army...lame.

He doesn't think, he doesn't plan, he just goes head on like a tank, that's his thing. If it weren't for his super powers, the DUMB enemies or for the story to save his ***, his stupidity would have killed him over and over again.

He is naive, he has the hero complex, etc. I know these are more personal but I am annoyed to be forced to play as someone with such traits.
Although some of these aspects are shared by other assassins, Connor takes them to the extreme.

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 02:11 PM
More importantly though he as a protagonist is boring.


Thats me I'm finished with the conversation at this point, I have no desire to get into further discussion about Conor.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-05-2014, 02:22 PM
And here we go again......

And then all the Connor haters take a stab to the jugular... (http://sigma.co.vu/post/87256801856/ratonhnhake-ton-and-how-relevant-he-is-to-mass-media)

RinoTheBouncer
06-05-2014, 03:16 PM
More disappointing than ACIV.

pacmanate
06-05-2014, 04:12 PM
And here we go again......

And then all the Connor haters take a stab to the jugular... (http://sigma.co.vu/post/87256801856/ratonhnhake-ton-and-how-relevant-he-is-to-mass-media)

Not really... I said I understand why hes like that. But its annoying for me as a player to have this constantly aggressive person. There is no fun factor behind it.

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 04:27 PM
Not really... I said I understand why hes like that. But its annoying for me as a player to have this constantly aggressive person. There is no fun factor behind it.

Games are art, not toys.

MUMMY DIS GAME NO FUN WA WAAAA!

m4r-k7
06-05-2014, 04:49 PM
Im so hoping for this game to be good but I just watched the AC 3 story trailer that made the game look absolutely epic, but it was kind of a let down. Remind yourself of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcVyNS1jZro

When I first saw it I was so excited for AC 3. I still enjoyed it, just not as much as the others. Hope AC Unity is good!

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-05-2014, 04:51 PM
I dont know, I LOVE playing Kratos, and that is a really angry bastard. My problem with Connor is the voice acting, many time I ended up not convinced by Watts.

I'll admit the voice acting was very weird at times, but not every voice actor is perfect and they all have their moments.

JustPlainQuirky
06-05-2014, 04:53 PM
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

That basically summarized the entire plot in 2 minutes. Like, I know it's a story trailer but dang.

SixKeys
06-05-2014, 05:07 PM
I never saw anything special in that trailer. I don't know why people praise it so much.

Does anyone know if the version of the AC3 theme song used in that trailer is available anywhere? It's higher-pitched and has more native vocals.

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 05:08 PM
Of course you didn't.

It's an AC3 trailer.

m4r-k7
06-05-2014, 05:11 PM
It was epic before we found out the game was ****. If you imagine watching it before the game came out you would think its going to turn out great, especially as it was the first game with the new Anvil engine, although I don't like it as much as the old engine.

Megas_Doux
06-05-2014, 05:13 PM
I never saw anything special in that trailer. I don't know why people praise it so much.

Does anyone know if the version of the AC3 theme song used in that trailer is available anywhere? It's higher-pitched and has more native vocals.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzEFYVxq2cM

That one?

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 05:15 PM
Oh come on the engine is objectively better than the old one. That's one thing AC3 detractors can't argue.

More advanced weather, fantastic animations, proper movement on uneven surfaces, NAVAL. Anvil Next is better - come on...

m4r-k7
06-05-2014, 05:20 PM
Oh come on the engine is objectively better than the old one. That's one thing AC3 detractors can't argue.

More advanced weather, fantastic animations, proper movement on uneven surfaces, NAVAL. Anvil Next is better - come on...

The graphics it produces is much better. I am refering to the combat and free running. The combat is glitchy and buggy and looks stupid sometimes (especially when you kick someone into a wall) and the free running looks ridiculous sometimes. I agree that the engine is better on the graphical side, but I hate the new gameplay it provided. I preferred it in AC 1 - AC R where you had more control over combat rather than just pressing B to counter and then attack and then kill everyone in around 5 seconds. I want more combat variety and a more emphasis on stealth (AC 4 I will admit used the engine much better with reduced bugs and more stealth) I much prefered the combat and free running in the previous games.

poptartz20
06-05-2014, 06:06 PM
Im so hoping for this game to be good but I just watched the AC 3 story trailer that made the game look absolutely epic, but it was kind of a let down. Remind yourself of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcVyNS1jZro

When I first saw it I was so excited for AC 3. I still enjoyed it, just not as much as the others. Hope AC Unity is good!

Oddly enough several of these clips came from the Naval Play when you try to search for the items from captain Kidd. or searching for Nathan Biddle. Which struck me as odd during my first play through that I saw his picture on the wall yet never encountered him. haha. You would think it would have been included as part of the main missions but it never was, maybe they weren't trying to force naval on people at the time.

AC3 isn't without many flaws but still one of my faves in the series. I didn't get to see a lot of the hype outside of E3 and Commercials I saw on tv later that year. So I can't really relate on being as disappointed as the others. #stillabetterstorythanACR but dat ending doe. (best one to date)

Tenvern
06-05-2014, 06:46 PM
Well, with that attitude you'll be dissapointed regardless of how the game actually is.

pacmanate
06-05-2014, 07:21 PM
Actually the AC3 trailers imo were good :| but the game was overhyped with its new engine, next gen like graphics, winter, rain thing.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
06-05-2014, 07:52 PM
Oddly enough several of these clips came from the Naval Play when you try to search for the items from captain Kidd. or searching for Nathan Biddle. Which struck me as odd during my first play through that I saw his picture on the wall yet never encountered him. haha. You would think it would have been included as part of the main missions but it never was, maybe they weren't trying to force naval on people at the time.

AC3 isn't without many flaws but still one of my faves in the series. I didn't get to see a lot of the hype outside of E3 and Commercials I saw on tv later that year. So I can't really relate on being as disappointed as the others. #stillabetterstorythanACR but dat ending doe. (best one to date)

ACR's story wasn't terrible, it just wasn't memorable. Except for the end which was hauntingly surreal where you walk in as Altair and then when it asks you to "sit and rest for awhile" I was like... "Oh no....no no no no. I refuse to do this..."

And then Ezio talking to Desmond because he remembers the name Minerva spoke... That was so cool.

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 07:56 PM
#stillabetterstorythanACR but dat ending doe. (best one to date)

AC3 had a story? that must have happened after Conor bored me to sleep.

poptartz20
06-05-2014, 08:01 PM
ACR's story wasn't terrible, it just wasn't memorable. Except for the end which was hauntingly surreal where you walk in as Altair and then when it asks you to "sit and rest for awhile" I was like... "Oh no....no no no no. I refuse to do this..."

And then Ezio talking to Desmond because he remembers the name Minerva spoke... That was so cool.


I can see where you are coming from for sure. ACR wasn't memorable for me outside of the things I couldn't stand like Den Defense, the Hookblade, and those really random people trying to kill you from behind when the music changed. haha. It was honestly hard for me to play ACR because I just thought it was going to be more, and I was tired of Ezio by then. Suliman (sp?) was an interesting character and there were some fun moments like when you escape the fire-y ships and being drug by the carriage.

But yes I do agree with you those were some of the best parts for sure!

poptartz20
06-05-2014, 08:05 PM
AC3 had a story, that must have happened after Conor bored me to sleep.

or you just have a really short attention span or perhaps you are narcoleptic? lol.

SixKeys
06-05-2014, 08:12 PM
It was epic before we found out the game was ****. If you imagine watching it before the game came out you would think its going to turn out great, especially as it was the first game with the new Anvil engine, although I don't like it as much as the old engine.

I did watch the trailer before the game came out. I wanted to get into the hype like everyone else, but I never fully could. Even from the trailers the Frontier looked empty and boring, and Connor's disinterested voice in the trailer didn't bode well for his performance in the game.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzEFYVxq2cM

That one?

Yes, thank you. :)

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 08:14 PM
or you just have a really short attention span or perhaps you are narcoleptic? lol.

Funny none of the rest of the protagonists put me to sleep.

poptartz20
06-05-2014, 08:19 PM
Funny none of the rest of the protagonists put me to sleep.

Maybe you should get that checked out?

then again it could have been an isolated incident! either way. Good Luck with that! :D

To each their own!

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 08:23 PM
Maybe I should, you believe in that statement so much you posted twice.

poptartz20
06-05-2014, 08:25 PM
Very true! an apple a day does keep the doctor away.. or so they say.

pacmanate
06-05-2014, 08:27 PM
Maybe you should get that checked out?

then again it could have been an isolated incident! either way. Good Luck with that! :D

To each their own!

No need to be a ****... He is stating his opinion

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 08:31 PM
No need to be a ****... He is stating his opinion

Oh yeah because plastering 'Conner iz boring' 'uh I hate Connor' all over the forums when it's not even relevant totally isn't trying to aggravate anyone. And it's hilarious you post that replying to a post that says 'to each their own'.

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 08:35 PM
Oh yeah because plastering 'Conner iz boring' 'uh I hate Connor' all over the forums when it's not even relevant totally isn't trying to aggravate anyone. And it's hilarious you post that replying to a post that says 'to each their own'.

Its as relevant as the myraid of posts stating Conor and AC3 are AWESOME.

Besides that poptartz20 (http://forums.ubi.com/member.php/1380219-poptartz20) post didn't even bother me, so there is no reason to start an argument about it.

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 08:38 PM
Its as relevant as the myraid of posts stating Conor is AWESOME.

Besides that poptartz20 (http://forums.ubi.com/member.php/1380219-poptartz20) post didn't even bother me, so there is no reason to start an argument about it.

Mate, you've clearly been trying to annoy Connor fangirls ever since you returned to the forums, just drop it already...

Any chance you get you say something derogatory about Connor and that serves no purpose other than to irritate and get a reaction.

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 08:42 PM
So no criticism of Conor allowed, got it. Not being allowed to offer one's opinion, got it.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-05-2014, 08:43 PM
Mate, you've clearly been trying to annoy Connor fangirls ever since you returned to the forums, just drop it already...

Any chance you get you say something derogatory about Connor and that serves no purpose other than to irritate and get a reaction.

THANK YOU! *shyly stands behind you* I've noticed that too....

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 08:44 PM
So no criticism of Conor allowed, got it.

Criticise him constructively and at times that are relevant, don't just intentionally try and piss people off. Where the hell did you see that in my statement - can you read?

pacmanate
06-05-2014, 08:44 PM
Oh yeah because plastering 'Conner iz boring' 'uh I hate Connor' all over the forums when it's not even relevant totally isn't trying to aggravate anyone. And it's hilarious you post that replying to a post that says 'to each their own'.

Maybe you should learn to read... I didn't start those conversations, and on one of them I made a list backing up my point.

And yeah, hilarious. Hope you're rolling around in hysterics.

Radman500
06-05-2014, 08:50 PM
I'll say it again.... Connor was a great character, he was just outshined by Haytham so when we got to Connor everyone was kind of like "ehh"

i think if you didn't have the haytham tutorial part of ac3 or at least made it really short, connor would of been much better recieved

poptartz20
06-05-2014, 08:50 PM
No need to be a ****... He is stating his opinion

Oh! no pac! not at all! lol! He's more than welcome to his opinion! Just as I can state mine as well. or better yet he can go back to playing AC3 so he can just go back to sleep again since he re plays it so much for the story oh wait the narrative right?

I'm not about "internet drama" haha it's silly! so either way I have nothing against you Stevie. You're welcome to say what you want as am I as long as we are respectful! :) You didn't bother me at all thanks for actually tagging me in your post!? *fist bump*

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 08:53 PM
Criticise him constructively and at times that are relevant, don't just intentionally try and piss people off. Where the hell did you see that in my statement - can you read?

I can read, can you? Here is the original post

Oddly enough several of these clips came from the Naval Play when you try to search for the items from captain Kidd. or searching for Nathan Biddle. Which struck me as odd during my first play through that I saw his picture on the wall yet never encountered him. haha. You would think it would have been included as part of the main missions but it never was, maybe they weren't trying to force naval on people at the time.

AC3 isn't without many flaws but still one of my faves in the series. I didn't get to see a lot of the hype outside of E3 and Commercials I saw on tv later that year. So I can't really relate on being as disappointed as the others. #stillabetterstorythanACR but dat ending doe. (best one to date)

You notice at the bottom its states "#stillabetterstorythanACR but dat ending doe" I don't agree that a story with Conor at its core can be better, then well anything, could I have written a better post yes, but everyone already knows what I would say, so as long as everyone has the right, to write posts about how awesome Conor is, I have the right to say how awesome he is not. My posts are but a tear drop in the ocean of fangirl posts about him, and I don't post to aggravate, I post to express my views. So in a story about an asassin named Conor I ask you, how is a post that Conor is boring character not relevant?

GunnerGalactico
06-05-2014, 08:57 PM
Mate, you've clearly been trying to annoy Connor fangirls ever since you returned to the forums, just drop it already...

Any chance you get you say something derogatory about Connor and that serves no purpose other than to irritate and get a reaction.

Thank you for being so thoughtful. :)

Don't worry, I don't place any emphasis or importance to anything that is irrelevant to me.

pacmanate
06-05-2014, 09:00 PM
I'll say it again.... Connor was a great character, he was just outshined by Haytham so when we got to Connor everyone was kind of like "ehh"

i think if you didn't have the haytham tutorial part of ac3 or at least made it really short, connor would of been much better recieved

Opinion. I found Haytham a right ball ache. Then I read forsaken, and only then was Haytham the star of AC3 for me.


Oh! no pac! not at all! lol! He's more than welcome to his opinion! Just as I can state mine as well. or better yet he can go back to playing AC3 so he can just go back to sleep again since he re plays it so much for the story oh wait the narrative right?

I'm not about "internet drama" haha it's silly! so either way I have nothing against you Stevie. You're welcome to say what you want as am I as long as we are respectful! :) You didn't bother me at all thanks for actually tagging me in your post!? *fist bump*

*slaps* okay :p

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 09:00 PM
Alright, maybe it's relevant but you post all these blunt, insulting statements directly to Connor fangirls - all the damn time.

It's annoying a hell. Anyway, I'm done here. No hard feeling and all, my button just got pushed.

poptartz20
06-05-2014, 09:05 PM
LOL :D Are you rolling in hysterics Pac! HUH! ARE YOU ROLLING YET!? Hahah. thanks mate! I understand where you were coming from! and it's appreciated!

I'm not gonna lie.. it feels weird to say mate. I'm American D#m* It! lol! is there a word girls call friend guys other than mate? (just out of curiosity)

and what exactly does Bullocks mean? ( this is random I know)

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 09:07 PM
LOL :D Are you rolling in hysterics Pac! HUH! ARE YOU ROLLING YET!? Hahah. thanks mate! I understand where you were coming from! and it's appreciated!

I'm not gonna lie.. it feels weird to say mate. I'm American D#m* It! lol! is there a word girls call friend guys other than mate? (just out of curiosity)

and what exactly does Bullocks mean? ( this is random I know)

I wonder the testicle what bullocks means.

EDIT: @Gunner and Humble - Cheers, but just to let you know I wasn't just defending the plight of the Connor fangirl. It annoyed me too.

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 09:09 PM
Alright, maybe it's relevant but you post all these blunt, insulting statements directly to Connor fangirls - all the damn time.

It's annoying a hell. Anyway, I'm done here. No hard feeling and all, my button just got pushed.

Well my personaility is blunt, but there is no vindictiveness in it, it just the way I am, and it gets tiring after a while to have to repeatedly type out detailed criticisms of AC3, specially when ye already know how feel. I sorry ye think I do it just to annoy, but look at from my pov on these forums there is a serious amount of fangirl love for Conor, more then anywhere else, but there is very little criticism of him or AC3.

poptartz20
06-05-2014, 09:10 PM
Hahah! Shaku (can I call you this?) A tip of the hat to you too my friend!

but, really haven't you heard of that term before? I know I can't be the only one! ;_; LOL.

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 09:11 PM
Well my personaility is blunt, but there is no vindictiveness in it, it just the way I am, and it gets tiring after a while to have to repeatedly type out detailed criticisms of AC3, specially when ye already know how feel. I sorry ye think I do it just to annoy, but look at from my pov on these forums there is a serious amount of fangirl love for Conor, more then anywhere else, but there is very little criticism of him or AC3.

Trust me, there has been an absolute Tsunami of Connor criticism here. And everywhere else on the internet for that matter.

EDIT: @Poptartz - Call me whatever you please. And I have heard the term before, it means testicle in cockney. That's what I was getting at. :p

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-05-2014, 09:13 PM
LOL :D Are you rolling in hysterics Pac! HUH! ARE YOU ROLLING YET!? Hahah. thanks mate! I understand where you were coming from! and it's appreciated!

I'm not gonna lie.. it feels weird to say mate. I'm American D#m* It! lol! is there a word girls call friend guys other than mate? (just out of curiosity)

and what exactly does Bullocks mean? ( this is random I know)

Bullocks is like the present day equivalent of saying "damn it"... I looked it up before and got that ^_^ Hope that helps.

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 09:14 PM
I'd agree everywhere else, but not here.

Bullocks is like the present day equivalent of saying "damn it"... I looked it up before and got that ^_^ Hope that helps.

are you serious? while bollocks can mean that, it mostly means testicles. Or if you from Ireland you could be calling you friend that in a greeting or in banter.

Shahkulu101
06-05-2014, 09:16 PM
I'd agree everywhere else, but not here.

There was at a time my friend. Before you roamed these lands.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-05-2014, 09:19 PM
I'd agree everywhere else, but not here.


are you serious? while bollocks can mean that, it mostly means testicles. Or if you from Ireland you could be calling you friend that in a greeting or in banter.

I didn't know that! I just did a quick search when I was roaming the internet. I had no intention of offending anything or anyone :)

interjection: exclamation to denote general sorrow, despair, or disappointment; or lies. Hickey: What a bunch of bollocks!

pacmanate
06-05-2014, 09:20 PM
LOL :D Are you rolling in hysterics Pac! HUH! ARE YOU ROLLING YET!? Hahah. thanks mate! I understand where you were coming from! and it's appreciated!

I'm not gonna lie.. it feels weird to say mate. I'm American D#m* It! lol! is there a word girls call friend guys other than mate? (just out of curiosity)

and what exactly does Bullocks mean? ( this is random I know)

So stop saying "mate" then you weirdo!

GunnerGalactico
06-05-2014, 09:20 PM
There was at a time my friend. Before you roamed these lands.

To be fair, he was not the only one who was trying to annoy Connor fans.

DinoSteve1
06-05-2014, 09:22 PM
I've always roamed, just never really posted.

I didn't know that! I just did a quick search when I was roaming the internet. I had no intention of offending anything or anyone :)

Have you never heard the phrase "the dogs Bollocks"?

poptartz20
06-05-2014, 09:25 PM
Ahhh! Thanks for the answers everyone! I would have searched it but I wanted to hear from real Europeans! :D

@Shaku. . Yeah I totally missed that completely. :eek: haha. but well played now that I do get it!

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-05-2014, 09:27 PM
I've always roamed, just never really posted.


Have you never heard the phrase "the dogs Bollocks"?

Nope.

AssassinHMS
06-05-2014, 09:42 PM
Well my personaility is blunt, but there is no vindictiveness in it, it just the way I am, and it gets tiring after a while to have to repeatedly type out detailed criticisms of AC3, specially when ye already know how feel. I sorry ye think I do it just to annoy, but look at from my pov on these forums there is a serious amount of fangirl love for Conor, more then anywhere else, but there is very little criticism of him or AC3.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The fangirling over Connor was nothing but the reaction to the huge criticism towards him. Just like the "Ezio sucks" movement is a response to the Ezio euforia. These wars never end until one side drops it, forcing the other to do the same.

That's another reason why I like Altair. There are no strong feelings either way. But peace ended with Ezio and Connor...even the Assassins were forced to realize that peace could never exist, so they moved on to a more subjective goal, "Freedom".



Anyway, I won't be disappointed by ACU because I expect nothing and I'm not foolish enough to buy the hype or whatever Ubisoft shows/promises/says. I guess it only took me 4 games to understand this lesson.

SixKeys
06-05-2014, 09:50 PM
Here's "the dog's bollocks" explained for all you Yanks:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rYT0YvQ3hs

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-05-2014, 09:55 PM
Here's "the dog's bollocks" explained for all you Yanks:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rYT0YvQ3hs

Lolz

Locopells
06-06-2014, 01:29 AM
If we're done talking about Unity, I can lock this...

I-Like-Pie45
06-06-2014, 01:35 AM
Yes... do it!

MiguelSanch2014
06-06-2014, 06:54 AM
How hilarious is it that, we're so spoilt these days by games, that it's no longer an opinion of how awesome or 'good' something will be. But of how least 'bad' it will be?

Mildly disappointing = satisfied?

RinoTheBouncer
06-06-2014, 10:51 AM
How hilarious is it that, we're so spoilt these days by games, that it's no longer an opinion of how awesome or 'good' something will be. But of how least 'bad' it will be?

Mildly disappointing = satisfied?

I think it’s a mixture of reductive game quality, lack of originality and gamers getting their standards very high. Back in the days of PS1, the graphics were simplistic, the stories weren’t very complex or detailed and the dialogue wasn’t so detailed yet everything was new and original and every upgrade was major. PS1 introduced Survival Horror like Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Dino Crisis and Parasite Eve and Action/Adventures like Tomb Raider, Stealth/Action like Metal Gear Solid and RPG like Final Fantasy..etc. PS2 took gaming to a whole new level with graphics, new interesting IPs like Onimusha and Devil May Cry and the franchises from the past generation getting bigger sequels. The PS3 improved graphics greatly, introduced HDD instead of memory cards, online gaming, updates for system firmware and video game softwares, downloadable contents..etc.

However, video games were becoming less challenging and less original. While Tomb Raider and Resident Evil levels from the PS1 and PS2 were and are still very challenging, and you’re basically thrown in a city or temple and expected to find out what you need to do and find out how you do it, now games hold your hand and guide you from point A to point B and breast-feeding us every detail, not to mention the whole focus on on FPS and online shooters that proved to be more profitable than story-focused, exploration/survival games, studios began to release more games like the formers and less like that latter so gaming became more of a Gaming Center activity where people just wanna shoot some bad guys and leave instead of sitting for hours trying to figure out that Silent Hill puzzle or how to beat that Tomb Raider or where to find the key in that Resident Evil game...etc.

So all serious gamers who still love that style, like myself, still want games with stories and serious challenge in gameplay, not just frustratingly difficult enemies when triggering Hard Mode, but instead something challenging in a smart way, rather than just plain difficult. We got amazing franchises with PS3 like Assassin’s Creed, Mass Effect, but even those games and the old franchises that were evolving have completely revamped their style to suit the majority who like shooters and fast-paced games by focusing less on the story and more on the open-world style and random killings and easy, repetitive and unoriginal missions.

Developers know what sells well so they’re making games to suit those taste and they seldom spend money to develop something completely new or original. It’s all just repackaging old successes or revamping them to be easier to play and more generic and mainstream. So those gamers who actually bother joining forums and discussing these games will for sure have a negative feedback or a lack of trust towards developers since all they expect from them is to disappoint them again. On the other hand, a lot of gamers now focus more on what will sell and what will fail rather than what is actually fun to play. I’m glad I’m not one of those.

I’ve enjoyed games that sold 1 to 3 million copies a lot more than others that sold 15 million copies. I never played Call of Duty but I greatly enjoyed BEYOND: Two Souls and Heavy Rain because I found the developers bringing something new to the table, something entertaining and original. They told a story and though the gameplay was not very big or elaborate, there were a lot of choices and the story was interesting enough to make you want to play more so that more can unfold about it.

And about Assassin’s Creed games. AC1 was perfect in terms of story yet a bit repetitive with gameplay while AC2, AC:B and AC:R were completely perfect. I loved how the story was connected and how the modern day part mattered and how the whole universe in modern day and history was alive and moving while with ACIV, for example. It felt like the whole point of it was to show some pirates, some notable historical figures and to sink some ships. I didn’t see much story value in it so that was a disappointment to me and based on certain remarks from writers, it feels like the next game will walk on the same path of self-contained stories and minimal, reductive FPS modern day, and in that case, I will certainly be disappointed in it.

So in conclusion, I do agree that some gamers are spoiled and demanding and whatever the developers will do, they will still criticize it, but I also believe that most developers are motivated by greed and only aim to make games that are more profitable rather than something original and true to the franchise.

AssassinHMS
06-06-2014, 04:31 PM
RinoTheBouncer, I agree with everything except with the following statement:

And about Assassinís Creed games. AC1 was perfect in terms of story yet a bit repetitive with gameplay while AC2, AC:B and AC:R were completely perfect.

My point isn't to prove that AC2, ACB and ACR aren't perfect but to explain why they are responsible for the games we have today.

AC1 was original. It portrayed why Assassin's Creed was special. AC was an Assassin Simulator. That was the whole point. Sure, there were the animus, the pieces of Eden...but the main idea was to allow the player to relive the life of an Assassin. That meant:
- understanding the Creed and its relevance;
- learning the duties of an Assassin;
- thinking and acting like an Assassin (investigating, planing beforehand, blending with the crowd, etc.)

This is what made AC unique. AC2 and the others KILLED all of this. AC2 paved the way for AC4.
Let's take a look at AC2:
- no more investigations or planing (no more need to think like an Assassin);
- no more emphasis on open ended assassinations
- the main concept of blending with the crowd was thrown to the trash and replaced with an inferior notion.
- the good combat system of AC1 (objectively the best, in terms of balance and skill, in the franchise) was cut in half and became, not only unbalanced, but stupid;
- the missions were filled with action and the game marked the end of the slow-paced gameplay characteristic of AC;

In short, they dropped the Assassin simulator concept (which was AC) and replaced it with Uncharted-like gameplay. The only aspect that still resembled AC1 (barely) was the story with the mysteries, conspiracies and the supernatural element which were made mostly irrelevant in AC3.
But the point is that the originality, the essence of AC ended with AC1. The rest of the games were made exclusively with the purpose of selling, proved by the fact that Ubisoft ditched the formula and replaced it with bits of other popular games' formulas. Didn't you hear Ubisoft's recurring question: "Do you like Uncharted?"

Anyway, like I said, I agree with the core of your post but I thought it was important to say this.

m4r-k7
06-06-2014, 05:02 PM
RinoTheBouncer, I agree with everything except with the following statement:


My point isn't to prove that AC2, ACB and ACR aren't perfect but to explain why they are responsible for the games we have today.

AC1 was original. It portrayed why Assassin's Creed was special. AC was an Assassin Simulator. That was the whole point. Sure, there were the animus, the pieces of Eden...but the main idea was to allow the player to relive the life of an Assassin. That meant:
- understanding the Creed and its relevance;
- learning the duties of an Assassin;
- thinking and acting like an Assassin (investigating, planing beforehand, blending with the crowd, etc.)

I think that AC 1 was incredible. I still play it now. I hope AC Unity shares similarities with AC 1 in terms of the Assassin simulator feel. However, I loved AC 2 more. Nevertheless, AC 1 and AC 2 are my favourite in the series, then AC 4 following it.

Megas_Doux
06-06-2014, 05:16 PM
I

However, video games were becoming less challenging and less original. While Tomb Raider and Resident Evil levels from the PS1 and PS2 were and are still very challenging, and you’re basically thrown in a city or temple and expected to find out what you need to do and find out how you do it, now games hold your hand and guide you from point A to point B and breast-feeding us every detail, not to mention the whole focus on on FPS and online shooters that proved to be more profitable than story-focused, exploration/survival games, studios began to release more games like the formers and less like that latter so gaming became more of a Gaming Center activity where people just wanna shoot some bad guys and leave instead of sitting for hours trying to figure out that Silent Hill puzzle or how to beat that Tomb Raider or where to find the key in that Resident Evil game...etc.

.

So, so.

Letīs see. I am huge tomb Raider fan since 1999, and those games were pretty easy!!!!! No difficulty levels, you could save whenever you wanted to and pistols ammo was infinite. For example after I killed the dragon in TR2, I had spared to "use" like 40 medipacks and even more grenade rounds. And in terms of Resident evil, I was able complete Resident evil one on my second playthrough within 4 hours!!!!!, Yes, FFFFFFFFFFFFFOUUUR HOURS and I was 10 years old in 2000 when I played it.

Where am I heading to?????

Thing is, today there are more, MANY MORE gamers, the whole industry has grown immensely for bad and for god...... Youtube has "helped" to make more accessible the interaction between customer and company, and thus nowadays standards and expectations are SO MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH higher than way back when.

Any given AAA game, mandatory has to, naming a few:

Pretty good graphics, to begin with.

Multiplayer.
Great replay value.
Great story, if it applies.
Being challenging, but not that much, cough, cough Dark Souls 2, cough, cough
Original, and think about being so gets harder as the years pass....

All of that while selling tons of copies and having great scores and the less glitches possible.


I am NOT gonna defend practices such as beta testing for broken games ala Battlefield 4 or greedy DLC, just like all the companies and believe me, I HATE that. But the industry is way fiercer than before.

AssassinHMS
06-06-2014, 05:19 PM
I think that AC 1 was incredible. I still play it now. I hope AC Unity shares similarities with AC 1 in terms of the Assassin simulator feel. However, I loved AC 2 more. Nevertheless, AC 1 and AC 2 are my favourite in the series, then AC 4 following it.

Of course. AC1 had its share of flaws too. It was repetitive, VERY underdeveloped (the investigations in particular) and the simulator aspect was very weak.
All I'm saying is that AC1 was the first and last game that followed the formula. The rest were nothing but attempts to make money by ditching AC's concept and replacing it with more popular ones. Had they improved the core and the simulator approach, the franchise would be a lot more solid and last longer than GTA and other old franchises. But yearly releases plus ditching AC's concept destroyed any chance they had. The only reason why AC still exists is because there is no other open world historical game.

DinoSteve1
06-06-2014, 05:20 PM
RinoTheBouncer, I agree with everything except with the following statement:


My point isn't to prove that AC2, ACB and ACR aren't perfect but to explain why they are responsible for the games we have today.

AC1 was original. It portrayed why Assassin's Creed was special. AC was an Assassin Simulator. That was the whole point. Sure, there were the animus, the pieces of Eden...but the main idea was to allow the player to relive the life of an Assassin. That meant:
- understanding the Creed and its relevance;
- learning the duties of an Assassin;
- thinking and acting like an Assassin (investigating, planing beforehand, blending with the crowd, etc.)

This is what made AC unique. AC2 and the others KILLED all of this. AC2 paved the way for AC4.
Let's take a look at AC2:
- no more investigations or planing (no more need to think like an Assassin);
- no more emphasis on open ended assassinations
- the main concept of blending with the crowd was thrown to the trash and replaced with an inferior notion.
- the good combat system of AC1 (objectively the best, in terms of balance and skill, in the franchise) was cut in half and became, not only unbalanced, but stupid;
- the missions were filled with action and the game marked the end of the slow-paced gameplay characteristic of AC;

In short, they dropped the Assassin simulator concept (which was AC) and replaced it with Uncharted-like gameplay. The only aspect that still resembled AC1 (barely) was the story with the mysteries, conspiracies and the supernatural element which were made mostly irrelevant in AC3.
But the point is that the originality, the essence of AC ended with AC1. The rest of the games were made exclusively with the purpose of selling, proved by the fact that Ubisoft ditched the formula and replaced it with bits of other popular games' formulas. Didn't you hear Ubisoft's recurring question: "Do you like Uncharted?"

Anyway, like I said, I agree with the core of your post but I thought it was important to say this.

While I some what agree with you, I have to say AC1 could get monotonous at times, I'm playing it right now and the combat is repetitive, and while investigations are a good idea, they become also become repetitive very fast there is just to many of them. AC2 and ACB improved on many things that need improving upon, from AC1 but it also got rid of things that if they had of improved would have made AC2 a far better game.

Megas_Doux
06-06-2014, 05:30 PM
AssassinHMS has interesting ideas, some of which I would like to see in the game!

My problem is that every time I read some of those and the fact he/she would not include/ disse platforming levels, naval, "action" and almost every bit of "diversity", makes me think of Hitman!!!! And even though I acknowledge how much of a good game is, a 100% stealth experience, I found it to be an acquired taste, one I do NOT possess.

AssassinHMS
06-06-2014, 05:49 PM
While I some what agree with you, I have to say AC1 could get monotonous at times, I'm playing it right now and the combat is repetitive, and while investigations are a good idea, they become also become repetitive very fast there is just to many of them. AC2 and ACB improved on many things that need improving upon, from AC1 but it also got rid of things that if they had of improved would have made AC2 a far better game.

Yes, I answered the same thing in my previous post.

AC1 got the concept right but it was extremely underdeveloped (the investigations were miserable, the stealth wasn't good enough even for the time, combat wasn't that great, and the side activities were almost non-existent).
The rest of the games weren't nearly as underdeveloped (with the exception of the core mechanics) but the concept was gone, AC was gone. Only the barebone skeleton was left (the core) but the Assassin Simulator (the essence of AC) was nowhere to be found. And it only got worse. Until AC4, that brought back open ended assassinations which was considered a big deal. No wonder that it was considered a blessing. When a person is deprived of food for a weak, even a candy bar seems like the savior of the human kind.

Had AC kept the concept intact and improved it, the games would be way more successful and Ubisoft would be able to do what Rockstar does with GTA.

AssassinHMS
06-06-2014, 06:04 PM
AssassinHMS has interesting ideas, some of which I would like to see in the game!

My problem is that every time I read some of those and the fact he/she would not include/ disse platforming levels, naval, "action" and almost every bit of "diversity", makes me think of Hitman!!!! And even though I acknowledge how much of a good game is, a 100% stealth experience, I found it to be an acquired taste, one I do NOT possess.

I agree, I focus almost exclusively on the Assassin simulator aspect. But that doesn't mean I don't like naval or platforming levels or action (as long as it isn't over-the-top as that would ruin the immersion and the illusion of being an Assassin). The reason why I don't mention them is because I think Ubisoft already knows how to make them properly. It's the core and the concept that worries me. I wouldn't mind if Ubisoft made one AC game that focused on these two things (a simple game without the scope or the size and vatiety of AC4) just so they could get those right and bring back the essence. Then, after they mastered them, they could return to the more ambitious ideas but without forgetting what they learned. Of course this is an ideal situation that could not exist, especially with the yearly releases that demand bigger and larger games that aren't necessarily better.

Megas_Doux
06-06-2014, 06:05 PM
Yes, I answered the same thing in my previous post.


Had AC kept the concept intact and improved it, the games would be way more successful and Ubisoft would be able to do what Rockstar does with GTA.

Hmmmm NO!!!!

There is contradiction here, you ALWAYS say AC went the "casual way", with the current gameplay in order to gain more fans, how it would be "more successful" then if it goes the other way around?

As I wrote above, that formula would be similar to that of Thief and Hitman , and the latter is known to be an acquired taste many DO NOT have. Even its developers claim is hard for them to meet "financial expectations" giving how complicated, and thus, expensive is to make a game like that.

GTA is THAT huge because is pretty well done, but mostly because how much FREEDOM and random stuff you could do IN A MODERN CITY, which is the exact opposite of what you propose.

And as I said, I like to see some of your ideas, I would like to have a more challenging combat, I would like to have a mechanic in which the outfit the assassin wears at the moment affects social stealth and detection, just to name a few.

DinoSteve1
06-06-2014, 06:33 PM
Yes, I answered the same thing in my previous post.

AC1 got the concept right but it was extremely underdeveloped (the investigations were miserable, the stealth wasn't good enough even for the time, combat wasn't that great, and the side activities were almost non-existent).
The rest of the games weren't nearly as underdeveloped (with the exception of the core mechanics) but the concept was gone, AC was gone. Only the barebone skeleton was left (the core) but the Assassin Simulator (the essence of AC) was nowhere to be found. And it only got worse. Until AC4, that brought back open ended assassinations which was considered a big deal. No wonder that it was considered a blessing. When a person is deprived of food for a weak, even a candy bar seems like the savior of the human kind.

Had AC kept the concept intact and improved it, the games would be way more successful and Ubisoft would be able to do what Rockstar does with GTA.

lol I wouldn't have posted if I had read your previous post, I must have just posted mine a couple of second after you.

AssassinHMS
06-06-2014, 06:42 PM
Hmmmm NO!!!!

There is contradiction here, you ALWAYS say AC went the "casual way", with the current gameplay in order to gain more fans, how it would be "more successful" then if it goes the other way around?

As I wrote above, that formula would be similar to that of Thief and Hitman , and the latter is known to be a acquired taste many DO NOT have.
GTA is THAT huge because is pretty well done, but mostly because how much FREEDOM and random stuff you could do IN A MODERN CITY, which is the exact opposite of what you propose.

And as I said, I like to see some of your ideas, I would like to have a more challenging combat, I would have a mechanic in which the outfit the assassin wars at the moment affects social stealth and detection, just to name a few.


AC has something GTA doesn't, the historical component. Now, imagine the following:

This is a smaller game, the world is smaller and the overall game is smaller (less weapon variety, less mission variety, less mechanics, etc.) but, you can explore every building and every single NPC has an actual "life" (or, at least, most of them).
The game is set in a very interesting time period (before 1400), in a very interesting location (as usual). The way people lived in that place back then, is completely different than the one we know. Instead of adding a bunch of historical characters and throwing them at the screen, the NPCs would act according to the time period and location. The simple act of observing them provides historical insight. The player can interact with them in many different ways. They all have a life, a name, a routine and something to say. But, they aren't copies of each other. Some may take monotonous lives while others may hide secrets.
The objective is to prevent the NPCs from being faceless. The player will know them when he uses them to blend in, when the Assassins believe there are Templars posing as civilians (the friendly barkeeper that you usually visit when feeling like having a drink, may be a Templar spy or belong to a real religious cult that may have some connection to the Templars). This way, the player will feel like part of the world, of a world that actually existed a long time ago. The NPCs would provide random events (triggered simply by eavesdropping on their conversations or tailing a suspicious civilian) and side activites.

This right here is an experience that only AC can possibly provide because it brings together everything AC's unique concept has to offer.



And I don't want a 100% stealth game. I want a strong Assassin Simulator. There is plenty of room for action and whatnot in there too. All I want is to be encouraged to think and act like an Assassin. Planning the mission my own way, choosing how to strike, where and when to strike, the infiltration route and how to escape.

This is why I think AC has as much potential as GTA.

Hans684
06-06-2014, 06:58 PM
^ Going to regret it but bored today anyway.

One the strong AC simulator is made(with your vision etc...) and you're going to make a sequal. How would you keep it "fresh" without "additions" without damaging the core and staying true to the era while keeping the concept?

AssassinHMS
06-06-2014, 07:35 PM
^ Going to regret it but bored today anyway.

One the strong AC simulator is made(with your vision etc...) and you going to make a sequal. How would you keep it "fresh" without "additions" without damaging the core and staying true to the era while keeping the concept?

Good question. Here's how:

1 - No annual releases. I would make fans wait and miss the concept. This way I wouldn't be forced to spend all the time working on features to make the next game feel or appear fresh/different while being forced to neglect the core. This may not seem like much but it makes a BIG difference. The sooner the next game comes, the more different it needs to feel.

2 - Improve the formula or work around it. There is never a real limit. I've had countless ideas since I joined the forums and I know I will keep having them. Besides, there is no real "better" here. The ideas work differently and can be applied in different ways adding different flavours to the game. Even if I reach a point where I feel like I can't improve navigation, stealth or combat anymore, I can still shake things up, work around them. The objective would be to add a new flavor to them. That can be achieved with new gadjets/weapons/architecture, by adding a new environment with new ways to use stealth, to fight or to navigate in. I don't need to make signifficant improvements forever (as that would be impossible), I just need to make sure they are well developed and change the context.

3 - With every new instalment there would be a new protagonist, a new time period and/or location. That changes the "feel" of the game and may impact the way in which the core mechanics are used.
Add this to the simulator approach and you get a different experience. The life of an Assassin depends on the time period and on the location. Different customs, different technology, different realities. This leads to different missions, different brotherhoods and interpretations of the Creed, different types of random events and different side missions.

4 - Backup mechanics/features. Naval could appear in one game and disappear in the next. The difference is that, these secondary mechanics would actually be treated as SECONDARY. They would never steal the spotlight from the core (since the core is already well developed) and they would never be "forced" into the game. Since the games aren't released yearly, I could add them progressively and in smaller doses. The core would always be the star of the show.





Edit: Just noticed that you excluded "additions". Additional features are fundamental, especially if they are directly related to the formula. However, additions such as naval and hunting should never be used to mask the core (hide the fact that it is underdeveloped) but used, instead, with the purpose of complementing it and adding some variety.

MasterAssasin84
06-06-2014, 11:15 PM
I am expecting big things from Unity !

Aside the fact that i have been waiting for the French Revolution to be featured in the Assassins Creed Series I'm looking forward to experiencing the detailed environments of Paris and not forgetting I've heard the Creative director of Revelations is involved with production its safe to say I'm very excited .

Syler99
06-07-2014, 06:11 AM
Well if its any worse then AC3 I'll be surprised.

pacmanate
06-07-2014, 06:55 AM
Well if its any worse then AC3 I'll be surprised.

The only thing I'm worried about is Arno. I'm being heavily prejudice but he looks like a ****

AherasSTRG
06-07-2014, 06:58 AM
Well, I liked GTA when I was 15, but I only find the series tedious and stupid now.

m4r-k7
06-07-2014, 08:40 AM
The only thing I'm worried about is Arno. I'm being heavily prejudice but he looks like a ****

Haha how can you say that, all we have is pictures which tell us absolutely nothing :)

Hans684
06-07-2014, 09:13 AM
Good question. Here's how:

1 - No annual releases. I would make fans wait and miss the concept. This way I wouldn't be forced to spend all the time working on features to make the next game feel or appear fresh/different while being forced to neglect the core. This may not seem like much but it makes a BIG difference. The sooner the next game comes, the more different it needs to feel.

I'd love that, never been a fan of annual releases.


2 - Improve the formula or work around it. There is never a real limit. I've had countless ideas since I joined the forums and I know I will keep having them. Besides, there is no real "better" here. The ideas work differently and can be applied in different ways adding different flavours to the game. Even if I reach a point where I feel like I can't improve navigation, stealth or combat anymore, I can still shake things up, work around them. The objective would be to add a new flavor to them. That can be achieved with new gadjets/weapons/architecture, by adding a new environment with new ways to use stealth, to fight or to navigate in. I don't need to make signifficant improvements forever (as that would be impossible), I just need to make sure they are well developed and change the context.

There is always improvement, large or small. "There is never a real limit" <---- going to remember that. Here is another good question; If there is never a real limit, isn't then Naval(Stealth, Combat and Navigation) etc...just as much part of the core as anything else?. If I've gotten it right Ubisoft(it started with Patrice) work around the core now. Now one you can't improve the core anymore and have to expand with "additions", how would you stop it from being the same game with just a few updates?


3 - With every new instalment there would be a new protagonist, a new time period and/or location. That changes the "feel" of the game and may impact the way in which the core mechanics are used.
Add this to the simulator approach and you get a different experience. The life of an Assassin depends on the time period and on the location. Different customs, different technology, different realities. This leads to different missions, different brotherhoods and interpretations of the Creed, different types of random events and different side missions.

So more or less how it is now but with assassins only and a simulator approtch.


4 - Backup mechanics/features. Naval could appear in one game and disappear in the next. The difference is that, these secondary mechanics would actually be treated as SECONDARY. They would never steal the spotlight from the core (since the core is already well developed) and they would never be "forced" into the game. Since the games aren't released yearly, I could add them progressively and in smaller doses. The core would always be the star of the show.

Why is it just a feature and not core improvement since it uses the core just like everything else? Why limit yourself? Doesn't it make the games the same but not released yearly and with just "additions"?



Edit: Just noticed that you excluded "additions". Additional features are fundamental, especially if they are directly related to the formula. However, additions such as naval and hunting should never be used to mask the core (hide the fact that it is underdeveloped) but used, instead, with the purpose of complementing it and adding some variety.

Can't Naval and Hunting be part of the improvement of the core(basically making them part of the core)? Hunting can be investigation if done perfect and Naval basically is a second main character since Naval and a protagonist use all three cores at the same time. Truth be told my intention was never to argue(don't won't now either), since we disagree so much on the concepts and their limits. Well, I just want to understand your point of view without having the wars we had before. So I go to questions.

RinoTheBouncer
06-07-2014, 09:59 AM
So, so.

Letīs see. I am huge tomb Raider fan since 1999, and those games were pretty easy!!!!! No difficulty levels, you could save whenever you wanted to and pistols ammo was infinite. For example after I killed the dragon in TR2, I had spared to "use" like 40 medipacks and even more grenade rounds. And in terms of Resident evil, I was able complete Resident evil one on my second playthrough within 4 hours!!!!!, Yes, FFFFFFFFFFFFFOUUUR HOURS and I was 10 years old in 2000 when I played it.

Where am I heading to?????

Thing is, today there are more, MANY MORE gamers, the whole industry has grown immensely for bad and for god...... Youtube has "helped" to make more accessible the interaction between customer and company, and thus nowadays standards and expectations are SO MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH higher than way back when.

Any given AAA game, mandatory has to, naming a few:

Pretty good graphics, to begin with.

Multiplayer.
Great replay value.
Great story, if it applies.
Being challenging, but not that much, cough, cough Dark Souls 2, cough, cough
Original, and think about being so gets harder as the years pass....

All of that while selling tons of copies and having great scores and the less glitches possible.


I am NOT gonna defend practices such as beta testing for broken games ala Battlefield 4 or greedy DLC, just like all the companies and believe me, I HATE that. But the industry is way fiercer than before.

Like you, I could finish those games in 4 hours on my second play through and even less with further attempts. They didnít have a long play time of 15 hours or 9 hours. Many of them could be finished in 2-3 hours but the point is we had smart type of gameplay, not full guidance throughout the adventure. I was 8 when I first played Resident Evil and I could finish it fast on my second play through, yes but I used to get stuck on the first one, and keep looking and investigating. There was an element of challenge not just a long road that we go through linearly like todayís games.

Even open world games feel linear these days. Itís like one road you go through and finish and they give you all these side missions and theyíre all low quality or uninteresting just to call it replay value, while I personally found more replay value replaying RE3 to unlock new outfits for Jill. Maybe itís a personal taste but we can both agree that beta testing, youtube reviews, too much exposure of games these days have ruined the experience, not to mention how youíre guided from point A to point B all the way that there isnít any room for challenge and they tell you that you have multiple ways of finishing the mission but in fact, itís the very same thing.

I feel like itís a mixture of the change in style, the extreme exposure and the lack of originality, that made gamers complain these days. When youíve only seen Mario and you get to play Resident Evil, you feel the jump forward but when every new game is similar to a PS1 game or itís an FPS shooter, then for sure weíll feel the repetitiveness and lack of originality.

I agree with you about DLC. Though I personally have enjoyed a lot of DLCs, story based ones in AC, Mass Effect and others but most developers these days pre-plan DLC and most of them are already made for the games before the release and only get released later to make more money from gamers, especially with story based ones.


RinoTheBouncer, I agree with everything except with the following statement:


My point isn't to prove that AC2, ACB and ACR aren't perfect but to explain why they are responsible for the games we have today.

AC1 was original. It portrayed why Assassin's Creed was special. AC was an Assassin Simulator. That was the whole point. Sure, there were the animus, the pieces of Eden...but the main idea was to allow the player to relive the life of an Assassin. That meant:
- understanding the Creed and its relevance;
- learning the duties of an Assassin;
- thinking and acting like an Assassin (investigating, planing beforehand, blending with the crowd, etc.)

This is what made AC unique. AC2 and the others KILLED all of this. AC2 paved the way for AC4.
Let's take a look at AC2:
- no more investigations or planing (no more need to think like an Assassin);
- no more emphasis on open ended assassinations
- the main concept of blending with the crowd was thrown to the trash and replaced with an inferior notion.
- the good combat system of AC1 (objectively the best, in terms of balance and skill, in the franchise) was cut in half and became, not only unbalanced, but stupid;
- the missions were filled with action and the game marked the end of the slow-paced gameplay characteristic of AC;

In short, they dropped the Assassin simulator concept (which was AC) and replaced it with Uncharted-like gameplay. The only aspect that still resembled AC1 (barely) was the story with the mysteries, conspiracies and the supernatural element which were made mostly irrelevant in AC3.
But the point is that the originality, the essence of AC ended with AC1. The rest of the games were made exclusively with the purpose of selling, proved by the fact that Ubisoft ditched the formula and replaced it with bits of other popular games' formulas. Didn't you hear Ubisoft's recurring question: "Do you like Uncharted?"

Anyway, like I said, I agree with the core of your post but I thought it was important to say this.

I agree with you, my friend. I agree that AC1 had a different way of showing the Assassins and their Creed and the gameplay was different. We needed to synch view points to see new missions, we needed to investigate..etc. and it did feel like a simulator while the games that followed dropped that aspect and made it more of a fully historical game with portions modern day to keep the story going and like I said about games becoming less challenging, the ACs that came after AC1 all sought a less challenging gameplay.

Iím sure youíve noticed how games focus less on challenge and more on difficulty or open-world style. How many games require you to solve puzzles these days, really? 1? 0? all games are either a piece of cake or just have frustratingly hard fights when you set the difficulty to ďHardĒ mode but no real thinking. I think thatís the main reason why AC1 style was dropped after AC1. I personally loved AC for the modern day story and for the whole First Civilization thing thatís why I embraced AC2, AC:B, AC:R and ACIII a lot because they showed both sides. However, since ACIII and AC started losing itís style. Now itís neither the simulator it used to be nor the story-teller we eagerly waited for each year.

When they had an on-going story instead of a self-contained one, the annual releases were justified cause it felt like a TV series, continuing the story with each annual episode, but now that theyíre trying to create self contained stories, making modern day so reductive and cheap and choosing mainstream historical settings with the Assassins and Templars taking the back seat, I doubt that itís gonna be as exciting as it used to be.

AssassinHMS
06-07-2014, 07:50 PM
I'd love that, never been a fan of annual releases.



There is always improvement, large or small. "There is never a real limit" <---- going to remember that. Here is another good question; If there is never a real limit, isn't then Naval(Stealth, Combat and Navigation) etc...just as much part of the core as anything else?. If I've gotten it right Ubisoft(it started with Patrice) work around the core now. Now one you can't improve the core anymore and have to expand with "additions", how would you stop it from being the same game with just a few updates?



So more or less how it is now but with assassins only and a simulator approtch.



Why is it just a feature and not core improvement since it uses the core just like everything else? Why limit yourself? Doesn't it make the games the same but not released yearly and with just "additions"?




Can't Naval and Hunting be part of the improvement of the core(basically making them part of the core)? Hunting can be investigation if done perfect and Naval basically is a second main character since Naval and a protagonist use all three cores at the same time. Truth be told my intention was never to argue(don't won't now either), since we disagree so much on the concepts and their limits. Well, I just want to understand your point of view without having the wars we had before. So I go to questions.



You don't seem to understand the difference between a core mechanic and a secondary mechanic...so I guess I'll have to explain that...

- the core mechanics are the nucleus of the game. The secondary mechanics form layers around the core.
- the smaller and stronger the core, the more effective the game and the easier to innovate and expanding upon it becomes.
- you can't remove and add core mechanics deliberately. They are there for better or worse because they define the game, they define the franchise.


Naval is just another layer around the core. Get it? It can be added or removed anytime I want. AC's problem is that the core is so weak that it isn't strong enough to hold all the layers (especially naval). Making naval a core mechanic would be a HUGE mistake, more so in AC's current condition.


The innovation doesn't come simply from improving the core. Innovation comes from having different layer combinations. Understand the difference?

The core is the core. It can only be improved. The layers, however, can be mixed, changed, rearranged, etc. You need to have a strong core before anything else. But, after you do, you can add more layers or change them. That will give a new flavor, that is innovation.





On the other hand, AC never had a strong core. They should have made it stronger right after AC2. They didn't. Due to the yearly releases that demand "new blood" as fast as possible and because they lost their faith in AC's formula, the core was neglected. They added tons of layers. They made some layers even stronger. The core stayed neglected and, therefore, weak(even weaker in some aspects). Now the core is so weak in comparison, that AC no longer has a core. It is everything, it tries to be everything but it ends up being NOTHING, faceless.

pacmanate
06-07-2014, 07:57 PM
Haha how can you say that, all we have is pictures which tell us absolutely nothing :)

I know, hence why I said im heavily prejudice against him. But he looks like an upper class snob

Lynda-C.88
06-07-2014, 08:10 PM
I HAVE HOLLOW FEELINGS AS WELL. AC3 I am still stuck in stockpile room somewhere and can not get out, do I even bother replaying, will I even bother getting AC4. Here in AC3 I do not want to keep climbing the same type of crap building, I do not want to keep trying to to climb a tree and I certainly will not kill animals ad hoc to get money nor will I carry on killing Brits. I am getting so cold running around in snow and climbing impossible rocks and trees when ever a the smallest of cracks open yet I plunge into a tree to be wiped out. The dialogue and historical so called updates suck. I do not know why I bothered updating my computer to play this junk of push any key so many times and you will win a battle. I have tended to stick to pre-2010 games as they are far more inwardly rewarding and recently have just run out, hence thought go AC3, now think I will just replay AC1 and 2 in a couple of years real classic stuff. I will continue to view comments for upcoming AC and anyone that can convince me after Lieutenant Rex's review that AC4 is worth purchasing. Thanks




After AC3 and AC4, I was left with a hollow feeling in my gut as I anticipated the future Assassin's Creed title. I knew it'd come, being as the franchise has turned into an annual one, but I prepared myself to be sorely underwhelmed. AC3 was a disappointment to pretty much 95% of every person who bought the hype and played it. AC4 was barely an improvement. After a while of running/sailing around, doing fetch quests, tailing, having a few (good) scripted platforming missions, and exploring the dull world, I got bored. Don't get me wrong, I got bored after a full week. But a week was all that it was. Disappointing.

But hey, maybe when you get bored with a game after a week, it's a sign of life telling you to move on. The thing is, there were a lot of promises that were never delivered in both AC3 and AC4, and no one ever updated us about the changes, and so when we played the game we kept waiting for stuff that'd never be in it. I understand that developers make E3 demos to show off the game and build up excitement, but in EVERY Assassin's Creed E3 demo since ACR, we've seen demos scores above the actual game. Why do gamers have to settle with false advertising from developers and publishers when no other entertainment industry is allowed to do that? Or at least get away with it?

So, since the last two games were utter failures, what do you think Unity will do to your hype?

m4r-k7
06-07-2014, 08:11 PM
I know, hence why I said im heavily prejudice against him. But he looks like an upper class snob

How does he look like a snob? Ezio was an upper class guy and he wasn't a snob and in some poses Ezio looks like a right snob.

AssassinHMS
06-07-2014, 08:14 PM
I agree with you, my friend. I agree that AC1 had a different way of showing the Assassins and their Creed and the gameplay was different. We needed to synch view points to see new missions, we needed to investigate..etc. and it did feel like a simulator while the games that followed dropped that aspect and made it more of a fully historical game with portions modern day to keep the story going and like I said about games becoming less challenging, the ACs that came after AC1 all sought a less challenging gameplay.

Iím sure youíve noticed how games focus less on challenge and more on difficulty or open-world style. How many games require you to solve puzzles these days, really? 1? 0? all games are either a piece of cake or just have frustratingly hard fights when you set the difficulty to ďHardĒ mode but no real thinking. I think thatís the main reason why AC1 style was dropped after AC1. I personally loved AC for the modern day story and for the whole First Civilization thing thatís why I embraced AC2, AC:B, AC:R and ACIII a lot because they showed both sides. However, since ACIII and AC started losing itís style. Now itís neither the simulator it used to be nor the story-teller we eagerly waited for each year.

When they had an on-going story instead of a self-contained one, the annual releases were justified cause it felt like a TV series, continuing the story with each annual episode, but now that theyíre trying to create self contained stories, making modern day so reductive and cheap and choosing mainstream historical settings with the Assassins and Templars taking the back seat, I doubt that itís gonna be as exciting as it used to be.

Once again I agree completely. If anything, AC may get a difficulty mode. Although that is not what I want, it is still better than nothing.

I think it's all related. AC was only an Assassin simulator until AC1. Then it became a "forced" historical tour. And the same happened with the story. It's a long yearly tour where you can be a "one-man-army", befriend historical characters and do a bunch of random stuff.


But who knows? Maybe ACU will be better.

pacmanate
06-07-2014, 08:21 PM
How does he look like a snob? Ezio was an upper class guy and he wasn't a snob and in some poses Ezio looks like a right snob.

Theres a few things I don't like.

Upper Class, looks like a snob
His concept of him pouting also makes him seem like a snob
The figure and the way he holds his sword just looks snobby too
His clothes look bland, like no design thought was put into them

I know im being prejudice but I'm not getting a good feeling from him. As soon as I saw Edward I loved him, same with Altair, Ezio. Connor on the other hand looked cool but then wasn't.

lothario-da-be
06-07-2014, 08:25 PM
I thought ac3 would be the best game ever...
I thought ac4 would be the worst ac game ever...
I am not going to judge this game before I played it, maybe its the best ac game maybe the worst. Ashraf really surprised me, maybe Alex can too.

Megas_Doux
06-07-2014, 08:27 PM
nor will I carry on killing Brits. I

Geez, NOT THIS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So killing Italians, Ottomans, saracens, germans -teutonic knights- , greeks is fine, but not british.....By the way, in AC I you kill english guards, FACT!




I think it's all related. AC was only an Assassin simulator until AC1. Then it became a "forced" historical tour. And the same happened with the story. It's a long yearly tour where you can be a "one-man-army", befriend historical characters and do a bunch of random stuff.



Altair, whether you want to accept it or not was a ONE MAN ARMY TOO!!!!!! And did bunch of random stuff such as "destroying market stalls" and collecting flags :P

pacmanate
06-07-2014, 08:30 PM
How was Altair a OMA? AC1's combat was the hardest out of all of the combat system. Not saying AC1 combat is hard, but it is harder than the rest.

Megas_Doux
06-07-2014, 08:34 PM
How was Altair a OMA? AC1's combat was the hardest out of all of the combat system. Not saying AC1 combat is hard, but it is harder than the rest.

I can slaughter dozens of guards without any problems, plus you have to take into consideration when the traverses through Arsuf, killing hordes of saracens and crusaders alike only to have a final duel against at least eight high ranking templars soldiers, AT THE SAME TIME, an then even their master himself.

AssassinHMS
06-07-2014, 08:36 PM
Altair, whether you want to accept it or not was a ONE MAN ARMY TOO!!!!!! And did bunch of random stuff such as "destroying market stalls" and collecting flags :P

I know, right? And yet, it doesn't really go against my statement.

And, like Pacmanate said, AC1 was easily the harderst AC when it comes to the combat system(which also doesn't actually negate your post).

DinoSteve1
06-07-2014, 09:21 PM
I know, right? And yet, it doesn't really go against my statement.

And, like Pacmanate said, AC1 was easily the harderst AC when it comes to the combat system(which also doesn't actually negate your post).

Hardest Combat system? I'm sorry I can't agree with that, in my opinion it was the simplest all it required you to do was counter and break grab, I got into a fight while playing it earlier and I must have killed like 50 dudes without ever being hit.

Hans684
06-07-2014, 09:38 PM
I should not have done that, what mess I've made.

pacmanate
06-07-2014, 09:46 PM
Hardest Combat system? I'm sorry I can't agree with that, in my opinion it was the simplest all it required you to do was counter and break grab, I got into a fight while playing it earlier and I must have killed like 50 dudes without ever being hit.

You can do that easier in every other instalment. Especially AC3 and AC4

DinoSteve1
06-07-2014, 09:49 PM
You can do that easier in every other instalment. Especially AC3 and AC4

Yea but at least chaining kills together takes a little more skill, then standing there and waiting to be attacked so you can counter or break grab.

Megas_Doux
06-07-2014, 09:52 PM
You can do that easier in every other instalment. Especially AC3 and AC4

ACB is even easier.

pacmanate
06-07-2014, 09:54 PM
Yea but at least chaining kills together takes a little more skill, then standing there and waiting to be attacked so you can counter or break grab.

More skill? Counter Attack worked for nearly everyone. Break defense then attack nearly worked for everyone. No skill.

DinoSteve1
06-07-2014, 10:01 PM
More skill? Counter Attack worked for nearly everyone. Break defense then attack nearly worked for everyone. No skill.
I said a little more skill than what we have in AC1, AC1 takes no skill at all.

Hans684
06-07-2014, 10:16 PM
You don't seem to understand the difference between a core mechanic and a secondary mechanic...so I guess I'll have to explain that...

- the core mechanics are the nucleus of the game. The secondary mechanics form layers around the core.
- the smaller and stronger the core, the more effective the game and the easier to innovate and expanding upon it becomes.
- you can't remove and add core mechanics deliberately. They are there for better or worse because they define the game, they define the franchise.


Naval is just another layer around the core. Get it? It can be added or removed anytime I want. AC's problem is that the core is so weak that it isn't strong enough to hold all the layers (especially naval). Making naval a core mechanic would be a HUGE mistake, more so in AC's current condition.


The innovation doesn't come simply from improving the core. Innovation comes from having different layer combinations. Understand the difference?

The core is the core. It can only be improved. The layers, however, can be mixed, changed, rearranged, etc. You need to have a strong core before anything else. But, after you do, you can add more layers or change them. That will give a new flavor, that is innovation.





On the other hand, AC never had a strong core. They should have made it stronger right after AC2. They didn't. Due to the yearly releases that demand "new blood" as fast as possible and because they lost their faith in AC's formula, the core was neglected. They added tons of layers. They made some layers even stronger. The core stayed neglected and, therefore, weak(even weaker in some aspects). Now the core is so weak in comparison, that AC no longer has a core. It is everything, it tries to be everything but it ends up being NOTHING, faceless.

And we're back at the same level as before, pointless to continue. It's a lost couse.

RinoTheBouncer
06-08-2014, 11:22 AM
Once again I agree completely. If anything, AC may get a difficulty mode. Although that is not what I want, it is still better than nothing.

I think it's all related. AC was only an Assassin simulator until AC1. Then it became a "forced" historical tour. And the same happened with the story. It's a long yearly tour where you can be a "one-man-army", befriend historical characters and do a bunch of random stuff.


But who knows? Maybe ACU will be better.

Yeah, I totally agree, and that kept exacerbating till ACIV, thatís when the game became nothing more than a tour. First it was a simulator and a story, then it because a story and a tour and now itís nothing more than a tour. Just a reason to see well-known historical figure. We both know why they chose pirates or French and American Revolutions, itís because everybody knows these and the whole point of the game will be exploring that era and meeting some well-known characters. The sense of interconnectivity and storytelling died with ACIII. AC1 did have a well-known setting but it was a background and even though the missions were repetitive, the story was gripping enough to keep you wanting more. Now there story is nonexistent.

SolidSage
06-10-2014, 03:52 AM
Yeeeaahhhh, now I expect to be even less disappointed than I did before....which was not at all :)

BoBwUzHeRe1138
06-10-2014, 08:25 AM
After seeing the demos... I'm super excited. I don't expect the game to look quite so pretty and I don't expect every aspect of the demo to be in play but the environments, the seamless transition into and out of buildings, crouch mechanics, etc.

I just hope the random events are plenty, the outfit customization is better than ever, the crowds remain as large and dense as shown, and that it lives up to what it's promising. Hopefully this marks a rebirth for AC... but we shall see.