PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed retrospective and my hopes for Unity



Farlander1991
06-12-2014, 09:05 AM
I'm a fan of the series since AC1, but people here may know me for my fairly vocal criticism of many of the AC series aspects. Some find that contradicting, I personally see no such thing. There's no contradiction in loving a work of art and analyzing its flaws (and good sides as well). Despite my love for the series (and AC1 and AC4 especially), it has never moved in a direction I'd like it to after AC1.

Instead of fixing AC1's combat flaws (the biggest being counter-attack), they tried to hide them with new stuff that made things even worse (*cough*kill streaks*cough*) and at most achieved 'basic, fun at least for a while, but not too deep' status (that being AC3 and AC4 combats).

Instead of advancing social stealth in a more... behavioral way (i.e. what AC1 was trying to do), they just transformed crowds into hiding spots.

Instead of providing more control to parkour (while still keeping it relatively simple), they removed the amount of control there was to a more basic form.

Instead of adding alternate scenarios to missions, they've added optional restrictions.

Instead of keeping mechanics a little bit more basic but more meaningful and varied, they've added a LOT of redundancies (weapons and gear that makes something pointless, bomb crafting system with tons of redundancies, illussion of depth in weapon stats when there's barely any, etc.)

Instead of focusing on polishing the whole experience, they tried to, essentially, apply more duct tape with every game to keep things together.

And yet still, I love the games. I loved fighting in a storm with Black Bart and boarding his ship. I loved infiltrating Fort Wolcott. I loved tailing Tarik. I loved commanding my Brotherhood to kill the guards on the walls as I climbed the Castello. I loved moving through the crowd to kill Savonorola's doctor/lieutenant. I loved finding my way around the harbor to get to Sinbrand unnoticed.

While I think Assassin's Creed IV is great as a compilation of everything the best AC series has to offer, I desperately wanted for Ubi to take a break after it, to just relook at the series, the franchise, refocus. To move the experience provided by AC1 forward, instead of wobbling around in one place parallel to AC1 - alongside AC2. And I made peace with the fact that this may never happen, with the yearly releases especially. It wasn't that hard to make peace, though. After all, I still greatly enjoy the games (I couldn't keep my hands off AC2 when I first played it), why shouldn't I accept them?

But then comes Unity. I didn't expect it to be MUCH different from other games of the series. But from the looks of it, it finally moves forward from AC1, and in a way I really approve of as well. It feels great, I actually wasn't that excited about Unity but then I saw all the E3 footage and interviews and everything, and now I'm really looking forward to it. Not in a hyped way (AC3 probably would be when I was really hyped), but in a hopeful way. That maybe finally there's going to be a sequel to Assassin's Creed 1, rather than Assassin's Creed 2. Only time will tell, I guess.

roostersrule2
06-12-2014, 11:15 AM
AC2 made sizable changes to the combat, social stealth and navigation, the three pillars of AC.

For me combat in AC2 was way better then AC1's. AC1 was harder but it's a marginal difference, noticeable but marginal. The additions such as disarming, special moves etc. (There's more, I just haven't played AC2 in ages) and the progression of what was already their, such as way more weapons and counter animations, more archetypes. AC2 has my second favourite combat in the series.

I'd say social stealth went backwards in terms of realism, but forwards in terms of accessibility and ease.

Navigation was majorly improved in AC2, you don't realise how much so until you go back and play AC1 after AC2, it's so much slower. You could run across the tight ropes, Ezio climbed much faster, the jump leap thingy was great and you could swim.

AC3 was probably the other big mover in terms of progressing on the pillars of AC.

In my eyes AC3's combat is the best in the series, and from what I've seen, heard ACU's isn't much different, just an improvement over it rather then a change, which to me is a great thing.

Social stealth in AC3 was crap, couldn't even blend most of the time, the only thing it had going for it was the animations but even they sounded more promising in the lead up to AC3.

Navigation in AC3 was better but had low points, it was faster again, tree-running was awesome but the one-button thing got tedious at times and again it failed to live up to it's hype with the lack of canoes, frozen lakes while not navigation tools really they definitely had navigational potential.

This sounds really obvious but I think AC2 was the sequel to AC1 that really changed things up and if AC3 was done right it would have been the sequel to AC2 that changed things up. Again I think Unity is the sequel to AC3 that changes the formula, the real question is what happens post Unity? Do they keep Unity's formula and just improve and expand upon it? Or do they change it up again? If they do choose to change things then you'd need a long dev cycle. Perhaps a AC cycle where Every two years there is a big, new, fresh game that changes the formula and every other two years you get a game that builds off the previous one, in gameplay anyway. If this were to happen it'd be like this:

2014: Unity
2015: Unity-esque gameplay with improvements
2016: Big change to the series
2017: Again, a game that builds off the previous one.

That way Ubisoft doesn't lose money, sales while we as the fans get to keep our AC fix while knowing a change comes every two years.

LoyalACFan
06-12-2014, 11:50 AM
Perhaps a AC cycle where Every two years there is a big, new, fresh game that changes the formula and every other two years you get a game that builds off the previous one, in gameplay anyway. If this were to happen it'd be like this:

2014: Unity
2015: Unity-esque gameplay with improvements
2016: Big change to the series
2017: Again, a game that builds off the previous one.

That way Ubisoft doesn't lose money, sales while we as the fans get to keep our AC fix while knowing a change comes every two years.

I'd like to see something similar, but I don't think there needs to be a drastic mechanical overhaul every two years. If they nail the core mechanics, there's really no need to go shaking them up again just because. Ideally, I'd like to see a new setting/era every two years. Choose a setting, isolate the things that would need to be uniquely tailor-made for this setting, make the necessary tweaks to the mechanics to make them work in that setting, and build the game around them. Then in the sequel, take in fan feedback and give us a more refined version of the previous game (kind of like Brotherhood was to AC2, only larger in scale) while another team works on researching a new setting and applying the core mechanics to work in said setting. For example, this year we get Unity, next year we get an Arno sequel about the Napoleonic era, then in 2016 we get a completely new era and protagonist with new mechanics made specifically for that era (come on, Japan!). As a bonus, the last-gen gives us a Haytham sequel this year and a Connor sequel next year.

roostersrule2
06-12-2014, 12:02 PM
I'd like to see something similar, but I don't think there needs to be a drastic mechanical overhaul every two years. If they nail the core mechanics, there's really no need to go shaking them up again just because. Ideally, I'd like to see a new setting/era every two years. Choose a setting, isolate the things that would need to be uniquely tailor-made for this setting, make the necessary tweaks to the mechanics to make them work in that setting, and build the game around them. Then in the sequel, take in fan feedback and give us a more refined version of the previous game (kind of like Brotherhood was to AC2, only larger in scale) while another team works on researching a new setting and applying the core mechanics to work in said setting. For example, this year we get Unity, next year we get an Arno sequel about the Napoleonic era, then in 2016 we get a completely new era and protagonist with new mechanics made specifically for that era (come on, Japan!). As a bonus, the last-gen gives us a Haytham sequel this year and a Connor sequel next year.I completely agree, when the main games have been given a sequel it totally didn't feel out of place, as you mentioned AC2/ACB and AC3/AC4, while I liked ACR it wasn't necessary. Except for the last gen part, I hope Comet is the last or second last last-gen game, there's going to be a time soon when last-gen is obsolete and it would just be a waste of money, time and resources. I'm pretty sure Ubisoft said they'd be supporting last-gen until 2015 which is the right time to stop IMO. For next gen though:

2015: Napoleonic stuff
2016: Ancient Greece
2017: Ancient Rome

If that were to happen I'd probably cry.

LoyalACFan
06-12-2014, 12:27 PM
I completely agree, when the main games have been given a sequel it totally didn't feel out of place, as you mentioned AC2/ACB and AC3/AC4, while I liked ACR it wasn't necessary. Except for the last gen part, I hope Comet is the last or second last last-gen game, there's going to be a time soon when last-gen is obsolete and it would just be a waste of money, time and resources. I'm pretty sure Ubisoft said they'd be supporting last-gen until 2015 which is the right time to stop IMO. For next gen though:

2015: Napoleonic stuff
2016: Ancient Greece
2017: Ancient Rome

If that were to happen I'd probably cry.

Well... that's what I said, lol. Comet = this year= Haytham sequel, then a 2015 Connor sequel. I really don't want them to go somewhere new on last-gen only, even though colonial America has been my least favorite setting.

roostersrule2
06-12-2014, 12:32 PM
Well... that's what I said, lol. Comet = this year= Haytham sequel, then a 2015 Connor sequel. I really don't want them to go somewhere new on last-gen only, even though colonial America has been my least favorite setting.Ah yea haha, I remember I originally was thinking that the end of last gen AC should be this year, but then thought that there should be one more after that. Just forgot to change the disagree to agree haha.

killzab
06-12-2014, 03:09 PM
I'd like to see something similar, but I don't think there needs to be a drastic mechanical overhaul every two years. If they nail the core mechanics, there's really no need to go shaking them up again just because. Ideally, I'd like to see a new setting/era every two years. Choose a setting, isolate the things that would need to be uniquely tailor-made for this setting, make the necessary tweaks to the mechanics to make them work in that setting, and build the game around them. Then in the sequel, take in fan feedback and give us a more refined version of the previous game (kind of like Brotherhood was to AC2, only larger in scale) while another team works on researching a new setting and applying the core mechanics to work in said setting. For example, this year we get Unity, next year we get an Arno sequel about the Napoleonic era, then in 2016 we get a completely new era and protagonist with new mechanics made specifically for that era (come on, Japan!). As a bonus, the last-gen gives us a Haytham sequel this year and a Connor sequel next year.


Everything you said, it's exactly what I think, agreed 100 %.

Please Ubi, don't miss out on Napoleon and bring Asia next, it's long overdue.

Kakuzu745
06-12-2014, 04:23 PM
I
But then comes Unity. I didn't expect it to be MUCH different from other games of the series. But from the looks of it, it finally moves forward from AC1, and in a way I really approve of as well. It feels great, I actually wasn't that excited about Unity but then I saw all the E3 footage and interviews and everything, and now I'm really looking forward to it. Not in a hyped way (AC3 probably would be when I was really hyped), but in a hopeful way. That maybe finally there's going to be a sequel to Assassin's Creed 1, rather than Assassin's Creed 2. Only time will tell, I guess.

Basically everything you said is a sentiment I do share and I think it is great they are kind of moving forward from AC1. My only concern is the CO-OP though since I do think that if they donīt make it right (do not ask me what is "right") it will ruin the game feeling. I loved every single game in the series with AC3 probably being my least favorite, but truth be told I never quite felt so much as an assassin as I did with Altair...and from the footage I saw I might get the same feeling with Arno.

On a side note, I do agree about what was said about changing the setting like every two years. They should kind of create a spin-off called Legacy, Blood Legacy or something like that which give us sequels for past assassins while continuing to explore new ones in the main story when it is needed. For example, maybe it really does not make much sense to include an Altair sequence now in the main story line but I bet a lot of people would want the game...maybe it is the same with Connor...maybe it is not the same with Arno so it still makes sense to make two games with him.

I donīt know, it is just an idea but I would definitely want some games with old assassins:
Altair sequel? Please!!!
A CO-OP game with Connor and Avelline? Might be really nice...

DinoSteve1
06-12-2014, 04:28 PM
How is it contradictory to voice criticism about something you enjoy, if we don't state the faults of something it can never get better.

SixKeys
06-12-2014, 04:29 PM
How is it contradictory to voice criticism about something you enjoy, if we don't state the faults of something it can never get better.

Remember: this only applies unless your criticism is about adding female characters into the games. :rolleyes:

Sushiglutton
06-12-2014, 04:54 PM
Agree with everything you said, well written. For now I'm carefully optimistic. AC3 also seemed awesome and they talked about how the core pillars had been rebuilt from the ground up. It was true, but not in a good way. For AC3 they also showed a quest log and so on. After I watched the IGN "making of" video for Unity, it's clear that what they showed at E3 was just a so called verical slice. I think it's very likely some features will be cut (more accurately: they have never been fully built) and some won't work out the way they were shown.

That being said there are some things they showed that simply can't be cut. For example interiors, the scale of the buildings, crowds and the new stealth-mode. If these are the only additions AC:U will be awesome! So I have very little doubt I will enjoy the game a ton!



Remember: this only applies unless your criticism is about adding female characters into the games. :rolleyes:

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO PUSH YOUR FEMINIST AGENDA ON US YOU CRAZY WOMAN???? IT'S JUSt A GAME!!!

:p

MasterAssasin84
06-12-2014, 05:15 PM
I'm a fan of the series since AC1, but people here may know me for my fairly vocal criticism of many of the AC series aspects. Some find that contradicting, I personally see no such thing. There's no contradiction in loving a work of art and analyzing its flaws (and good sides as well). Despite my love for the series (and AC1 and AC4 especially), it has never moved in a direction I'd like it to after AC1.

Instead of fixing AC1's combat flaws (the biggest being counter-attack), they tried to hide them with new stuff that made things even worse (*cough*kill streaks*cough*) and at most achieved 'basic, fun at least for a while, but not too deep' status (that being AC3 and AC4 combats).

Instead of advancing social stealth in a more... behavioral way (i.e. what AC1 was trying to do), they just transformed crowds into hiding spots.

Instead of providing more control to parkour (while still keeping it relatively simple), they removed the amount of control there was to a more basic form.

Instead of adding alternate scenarios to missions, they've added optional restrictions.

Instead of keeping mechanics a little bit more basic but more meaningful and varied, they've added a LOT of redundancies (weapons and gear that makes something pointless, bomb crafting system with tons of redundancies, illussion of depth in weapon stats when there's barely any, etc.)

Instead of focusing on polishing the whole experience, they tried to, essentially, apply more duct tape with every game to keep things together.

And yet still, I love the games. I loved fighting in a storm with Black Bart and boarding his ship. I loved infiltrating Fort Wolcott. I loved tailing Tarik. I loved commanding my Brotherhood to kill the guards on the walls as I climbed the Castello. I loved moving through the crowd to kill Savonorola's doctor/lieutenant. I loved finding my way around the harbor to get to Sinbrand unnoticed.

While I think Assassin's Creed IV is great as a compilation of everything the best AC series has to offer, I desperately wanted for Ubi to take a break after it, to just relook at the series, the franchise, refocus. To move the experience provided by AC1 forward, instead of wobbling around in one place parallel to AC1 - alongside AC2. And I made peace with the fact that this may never happen, with the yearly releases especially. It wasn't that hard to make peace, though. After all, I still greatly enjoy the games (I couldn't keep my hands off AC2 when I first played it), why shouldn't I accept them?

But then comes Unity. I didn't expect it to be MUCH different from other games of the series. But from the looks of it, it finally moves forward from AC1, and in a way I really approve of as well. It feels great, I actually wasn't that excited about Unity but then I saw all the E3 footage and interviews and everything, and now I'm really looking forward to it. Not in a hyped way (AC3 probably would be when I was really hyped), but in a hopeful way. That maybe finally there's going to be a sequel to Assassin's Creed 1, rather than Assassin's Creed 2. Only time will tell, I guess.



No I can see exactly were your coming from to pick flaws out of a series that your truly love is in a strange appreciation because your effectively taking the idea that has been presented to you and looking for ways to innovate it to enhance your experience .

I am going to be totally honest When I played AC2 I was more immersed than I was with AC1 but I absolutely agree that Unity seems to be a step in the right direction.

When I watched the single player Demo I was very impressed with the new features like the controlled decent and the stealth mode, even better Going back to the old formula of using your environment and the crowds to mask your approach ! A blade in the crowd this is what Assassins Creed is all about so I am pinning my hopes that Unity will not disappoint .

I think the real reason that AC2 was so immersive more than one was because the rich environments masked the awful physics and mechanics .

AC3 was a major step forward for the franchise IMO but I am really excited to see how the development team have exploited the Next generation Architecture.

Jexx21
06-12-2014, 05:57 PM
Farlander, you're the best critic on these forums as you're able to criticize while also remain fairly positive about everything in the series as a whole.

You're the best kind of AC fan.

Dome500
06-13-2014, 12:05 AM
I'm a fan of the series since AC1, but people here may know me for my fairly vocal criticism of many of the AC series aspects. Some find that contradicting, I personally see no such thing. There's no contradiction in loving a work of art and analyzing its flaws (and good sides as well). Despite my love for the series (and AC1 and AC4 especially), it has never moved in a direction I'd like it to after AC1.

Instead of fixing AC1's combat flaws (the biggest being counter-attack), they tried to hide them with new stuff that made things even worse (*cough*kill streaks*cough*) and at most achieved 'basic, fun at least for a while, but not too deep' status (that being AC3 and AC4 combats).

Instead of advancing social stealth in a more... behavioral way (i.e. what AC1 was trying to do), they just transformed crowds into hiding spots.

Instead of providing more control to parkour (while still keeping it relatively simple), they removed the amount of control there was to a more basic form.

Instead of adding alternate scenarios to missions, they've added optional restrictions.

Instead of keeping mechanics a little bit more basic but more meaningful and varied, they've added a LOT of redundancies (weapons and gear that makes something pointless, bomb crafting system with tons of redundancies, illussion of depth in weapon stats when there's barely any, etc.)

Instead of focusing on polishing the whole experience, they tried to, essentially, apply more duct tape with every game to keep things together.

And yet still, I love the games. I loved fighting in a storm with Black Bart and boarding his ship. I loved infiltrating Fort Wolcott. I loved tailing Tarik. I loved commanding my Brotherhood to kill the guards on the walls as I climbed the Castello. I loved moving through the crowd to kill Savonorola's doctor/lieutenant. I loved finding my way around the harbor to get to Sinbrand unnoticed.

While I think Assassin's Creed IV is great as a compilation of everything the best AC series has to offer, I desperately wanted for Ubi to take a break after it, to just relook at the series, the franchise, refocus. To move the experience provided by AC1 forward, instead of wobbling around in one place parallel to AC1 - alongside AC2. And I made peace with the fact that this may never happen, with the yearly releases especially. It wasn't that hard to make peace, though. After all, I still greatly enjoy the games (I couldn't keep my hands off AC2 when I first played it), why shouldn't I accept them?

But then comes Unity. I didn't expect it to be MUCH different from other games of the series. But from the looks of it, it finally moves forward from AC1, and in a way I really approve of as well. It feels great, I actually wasn't that excited about Unity but then I saw all the E3 footage and interviews and everything, and now I'm really looking forward to it. Not in a hyped way (AC3 probably would be when I was really hyped), but in a hopeful way. That maybe finally there's going to be a sequel to Assassin's Creed 1, rather than Assassin's Creed 2. Only time will tell, I guess.


While I think AC2 really opened up the gameplay more, made AC more interactive, improved on mechanics and controls and did a great job in improving AC1, I still agree on the combat and I agree on the points made about Stealth, Social Stealth, Traversal and other elements done after AC2.

I am too happy that ACU seems to take the good additions of AC2 - AC4 while improving on the CORE formula of Assassins Creed 1. They made improvements which are bigger than the improvements made in AC3 and AC4 together, and finally they made improvements I have been hoping for SO long.

AC Unity itself was known to me and I knew a new AC would be coming, but I have to say it's CORE, it's NATURE, was a complete surprise for me and a good one at that.
There only remains to hope that this is how the final product will be and that the story will be interesting, and despite being less and less interested in AC over the years I might just end up buying this game shortly after release.

Sesheenku
06-13-2014, 02:26 AM
I'm a fan of the series since AC1, but people here may know me for my fairly vocal criticism of many of the AC series aspects. Some find that contradicting, I personally see no such thing. There's no contradiction in loving a work of art and analyzing its flaws (and good sides as well). Despite my love for the series (and AC1 and AC4 especially), it has never moved in a direction I'd like it to after AC1.

Instead of fixing AC1's combat flaws (the biggest being counter-attack), they tried to hide them with new stuff that made things even worse (*cough*kill streaks*cough*) and at most achieved 'basic, fun at least for a while, but not too deep' status (that being AC3 and AC4 combats).

Instead of advancing social stealth in a more... behavioral way (i.e. what AC1 was trying to do), they just transformed crowds into hiding spots.

Instead of providing more control to parkour (while still keeping it relatively simple), they removed the amount of control there was to a more basic form.

Instead of adding alternate scenarios to missions, they've added optional restrictions.

Instead of keeping mechanics a little bit more basic but more meaningful and varied, they've added a LOT of redundancies (weapons and gear that makes something pointless, bomb crafting system with tons of redundancies, illussion of depth in weapon stats when there's barely any, etc.)

Instead of focusing on polishing the whole experience, they tried to, essentially, apply more duct tape with every game to keep things together.

And yet still, I love the games. I loved fighting in a storm with Black Bart and boarding his ship. I loved infiltrating Fort Wolcott. I loved tailing Tarik. I loved commanding my Brotherhood to kill the guards on the walls as I climbed the Castello. I loved moving through the crowd to kill Savonorola's doctor/lieutenant. I loved finding my way around the harbor to get to Sinbrand unnoticed.

While I think Assassin's Creed IV is great as a compilation of everything the best AC series has to offer, I desperately wanted for Ubi to take a break after it, to just relook at the series, the franchise, refocus. To move the experience provided by AC1 forward, instead of wobbling around in one place parallel to AC1 - alongside AC2. And I made peace with the fact that this may never happen, with the yearly releases especially. It wasn't that hard to make peace, though. After all, I still greatly enjoy the games (I couldn't keep my hands off AC2 when I first played it), why shouldn't I accept them?

But then comes Unity. I didn't expect it to be MUCH different from other games of the series. But from the looks of it, it finally moves forward from AC1, and in a way I really approve of as well. It feels great, I actually wasn't that excited about Unity but then I saw all the E3 footage and interviews and everything, and now I'm really looking forward to it. Not in a hyped way (AC3 probably would be when I was really hyped), but in a hopeful way. That maybe finally there's going to be a sequel to Assassin's Creed 1, rather than Assassin's Creed 2. Only time will tell, I guess.

I see many of your points as valid being a fan from the beginning of the series as well.

I disagree about the combat changes from 1 to 2 being worse, AC was a new IP, it established what kind of stealth and combat it wanted and I was okay with it, I never thought they would change the basics of it although I'm glad they did as it was getting utterly terrible in 3 and 4 if you ask me. The enemy varieties were simply invulnerable and that to me does not equal depth. It just required the player to disarm the enemy and stab them 7 times to kill a simple enemy.

I also disagree on your opinion on stealth, one of the most memorable phrases in the first game is "a blade in the crowd" the crowd should have been usable as a place to blend in the first place.

I agree wholeheartedly on the parkour, I absolutely hated it in 3 and 4, there was less control and less thought as well as everything was automated. This fixed version in Unity is exactly what the game needed from its inception.

I disagree on bombs being redundant, the crafting was indeed unnecessary but if you mean the bombs themselves I disagree, I found it highly convenient to use Datura Bombs to quickly poison a large group of enemies and get them out of my way. Distraction bombs also played a prominent role for me, especially in the tarik assassination mission. However the rest I can agree, while I enjoy variety, variety for varieties sake should be discouraged. We need it but not in excess or in places where it has little impact.

I agree with the "duct tape" analogy, they tried to keep alive a system that needed more than simple maintenance long after it became dull, frustrating, and predictable.

I disagree with 2 being the problem though, as I said the combat and stealth had been established, the navigation improvements should have been here before but the combat and stealth worked fine and were satisfying enough UNTIL they were repeated ad nauseam in subsequent games that were absolutely aching for another strong innovation in their mechanics.

Even after being severely disappointed by the last 2 main games, I am extremely hyped and excited for Unity. I only hope they deliver on every promise and don't dare to cut out anything substantial, if they must delay the release a year or even two then so be it. Just give us the game that's been shown in the trailers.

Farlander1991
06-13-2014, 09:05 AM
AC2 made sizable changes to the combat, social stealth and navigation, the three pillars of AC.

A bunch of features was added (though, on the record, I wasn't talking strictly about AC2, but about the whole AC2-AC4 lineup), yes, but it didn't really advance the principles of the pillars - and by that I mean fixing the flaws existent in AC1. It was essentially the start of 'duct taping' (the big difference is that AC2 being only the second game in the series, it wasn't as noticeable). Combat was still rifled with counter-based dominant strategy, navigation was still clunky on non-predesigned free-running paths (with hard to control exact nature of free-running; I loved the free-running courses in ACB animus training sessions and it showed the abilities that the freerunning mechanic had in those games, but good luck trying to run with that kind of flow in mind in the city unless it was a race mission with a designed path - you'd stick all over places you wouldn't want, jump on a higher or lower surface than you needed, etc.), and the 'social' aspect of social stealth hasn't really improved. Not to mention the whole way mission structure worked was absolutely different.

I don't see AC2 as moving forward from AC1, it's more like moving diagonally. And the rest of the games moved forward from AC2. And I'm not speaking strictly mechanically (I'm not implying that ACU mechanics are absolutely different from what we may see in AC3 or AC4 for example), I'm speaking more regarding the general principles behind the design - which in AC2 and AC1 differed quite a lot, but judging by the interviews it feels to me that ACU is more in tune with AC1. But that's just how I view the evolution of the series, and I have yet to play ACU to see if this is actually the case.


How is it contradictory to voice criticism about something you enjoy, if we don't state the faults of something it can never get better.

You'd be surprised at how many times (some on this very forum) I'd been accused of hypocrisy or 'not being a real fan' for my criticism and enjoyment :D


Farlander, you're the best critic on these forums as you're able to criticize while also remain fairly positive about everything in the series as a whole.

You're the best kind of AC fan.

Awwwwww ^_^


I disagree about the combat changes from 1 to 2 being worse

Again, I want to point out that I wasn't talking about combat just in AC2, but the whole evolution of combat from AC2 to AC4. AC2 didn't fix the core problems with AC1 combat (in fact, they made it worse, one of the reason being that hidden blade could not only counter absolutely anything but its counter window was raised significantly), and that in turn started an avalanche that has led the combat into a different direction from AC1s. ACU combat, judging by the interviews, feels like it's not only based on AC1 core principles, but actually fixes the flaws.


I also disagree on your opinion on stealth, one of the most memorable phrases in the first game is "a blade in the crowd" the crowd should have been usable as a place to blend in the first place.

That may be, but the main principle behind AC1 stealth was behavioral (act like a crowd and you're already essentially a part of it), while in AC2 it was much less so.


I disagree on bombs being redundant, the crafting was indeed unnecessary but if you mean the bombs themselves I disagree, I found it highly convenient to use Datura Bombs to quickly poison a large group of enemies and get them out of my way. Distraction bombs also played a prominent role for me, especially in the tarik assassination mission. However the rest I can agree, while I enjoy variety, variety for varieties sake should be discouraged. We need it but not in excess or in places where it has little impact.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bomb variety with different effects, but in ACR system there was a lot of overlapping that in my opinion could be streamlined. And I think the bomb system is just a good example of how a lot of features in AC have evolved, with lots of overlapping (when there could be less of things but with more meaning behind them).


I disagree with 2 being the problem though, as I said the combat and stealth had been established, the navigation improvements should have been here before but the combat and stealth worked fine and were satisfying enough UNTIL they were repeated ad nauseam in subsequent games that were absolutely aching for another strong innovation in their mechanics.

I never said 2 was a problem. I think it was a great game. But I think it was a game that instead of advancing AC1 design principles forward, decided to change a bunch of them (not everything, of course) and go into a different direction, and the series followed AC2. There are a lot of mechanical similarities that keep AC1 and AC2 connected enough, but just the thought process behind how to use and advance those mechanics was different. And I'm not saying that it's BAD (and I think there are a lot of great features introduced in AC2-AC4 games), more like that it's... different. And AC1 is the first AC game I've ever played, and that made me a fan, so I'm hopeful that the design principles behind AC1 will get evolution.

m4r-k7
06-13-2014, 11:11 AM
Im just very happy it seems they are being heavily influened by AC 1, which although it wasn't perfect, it may be one of my favourite AC games. My top 3 AC games were AC 1, AC 2, and AC 4. Love the direction AC U is going in. Love the new parkour system, loving the huge emphasis on stealth and that combat is alot harder this time around. They are finally going back to the "roots" of being an assassin. Can't wait.

jdowny
06-13-2014, 03:01 PM
I'm absolutely optimistic about this. I'm trying not to listen to the hype otherwise it will never live up to my expectations (read: AC III). But I'm encouraged by the fact that they seem to be taking inspiration directly from AC 1. I just wonder how far they'll take it - whether we'll have AC 1 style missions that involve tracing our target, assessing the scene and moving in for the kill. Certainly the E3 singleplayer demo seemed to suggest this. But it was when they spoke of Adaptive Mission Mechanic, I started to get excited. I've been hoping for something like this since AC II, and it may (optimism mode) just mean the end of 100% synch which will pretty much make it the best AC game since AC II by default.

This isn't the end of my hopes for the game. The Unity blog reads like a page from my mind - they've literally (or claim at least) changed everything about the AC series that I didn't like.

- Stealth (we can finally crouch)

- Parkour - at last we can descend with control and finesse instead of leaping to something insanely far away

- Animations - particularly with parkour, AC III and IV's animations really bugged me. They felt too quick and didn't seem to carry any weight behind them. Unity's on the other hand felt beautifully smooth, with real weight on each foot. Arno moves like a real person instead of a superhuman. Just look at the air assassination to see my point. I could watch that all day.

- Combat - which they claim is being taken back to basics. This can only be a good thing. The combat since Brotherhood has been getting easier and easier, and the fact that you can mow through dozens of heavily armed soldiers should never be a good thing. Fortunately they seem to be taking a leaf out of AC 1, where (for the advanced soldiers at least) you could never instantly counter kill or chain kills. Fights lasted a while and felt brutal. My only concern is that when taking down opponents in Unity, they still slash and hack at them when it should play more like a real swordfight where the weapons connect with each other.

- Minimised weapons - It's too early to jump to conclusions on this one, but in the demos at least, it seems like the arsenal at our desposal is being decreased, with more thought being put into each one - long, medium and short range. I'd still rather a dagger and throwing knives instead of the phantom blade, but again, this can only be good news if it's true.

- Minimised HUD - Again, too early to jump to conclusions, but it seemed like the HUD was being refocused. I really hope the demos are accurate in there being no minimap and instead icons that are revealed on the rooftops (I hope by a button and not automatically). I've always played with the HUD off personally, but even in Black Flag there were elements that were impossible to hide.

Aside from a few minor concerns I'm definitely looking forward to this one. AC 1 is probably still my favourite, and any effort to emulate that and take it back to basics should be applauded in my books.

Sesheenku
06-13-2014, 07:43 PM
A bunch of features was added (though, on the record, I wasn't talking strictly about AC2, but about the whole AC2-AC4 lineup), yes, but it didn't really advance the principles of the pillars - and by that I mean fixing the flaws existent in AC1. It was essentially the start of 'duct taping' (the big difference is that AC2 being only the second game in the series, it wasn't as noticeable). Combat was still rifled with counter-based dominant strategy, navigation was still clunky on non-predesigned free-running paths (with hard to control exact nature of free-running; I loved the free-running courses in ACB animus training sessions and it showed the abilities that the freerunning mechanic had in those games, but good luck trying to run with that kind of flow in mind in the city unless it was a race mission with a designed path - you'd stick all over places you wouldn't want, jump on a higher or lower surface than you needed, etc.), and the 'social' aspect of social stealth hasn't really improved. Not to mention the whole way mission structure worked was absolutely different.

I agree that it got worse in hindsight but as of the time of AC1 it's like I said, it was a new IP and AC told me exactly what it was going to be so I didn't expect radical changes to any of the main mechanical parts of it so AC2 felt like an improvement until Unity shows what it could have been all along.

Same with parkour and I had gotten pretty decent at it but I'm definitely happy it's become better, the old way was horrid with almost no control, especially in 3 and 4.

I can agree the social aspect went to **** there haven't even been usable crowds in the last few games, blending had become a thing of the past.


I don't see AC2 as moving forward from AC1, it's more like moving diagonally. And the rest of the games moved forward from AC2. And I'm not speaking strictly mechanically (I'm not implying that ACU mechanics are absolutely different from what we may see in AC3 or AC4 for example), I'm speaking more regarding the general principles behind the design - which in AC2 and AC1 differed quite a lot, but judging by the interviews it feels to me that ACU is more in tune with AC1. But that's just how I view the evolution of the series, and I have yet to play ACU to see if this is actually the case.

I agree now but back when it was two games it seemed like a decent improvement, we did not yet know they would continue piling pointless features onto the games in a hope to add enough variety to keep the stale core mechanics fresh.





You'd be surprised at how many times (some on this very forum) I'd been accused of hypocrisy or 'not being a real fan' for my criticism and enjoyment :D

This game would likely not improve half as much if it weren't for fans like you and I, I loathed AC3 and made it quite clear on various forums, lamenting the broken stealth, ruined parkour, over simplification of an already over simplistic battle system and gimmicky extra features there only to be there to give some illusion of variety.

I also conveyed my severe disappointment in AC4, after all that hype the map wasn't that massive, the cities were small, there wasn't enough assassin like activities, the combat had become worse, the stealth had become stupidly bad, the ship sailing and battles quickly became repetitive, the islands were restricted and offers you a clear cut path with little exploration available.

It didn't live up to its hype in my eyes and I only say it's better than three because of a drop more of freedom.








Again, I want to point out that I wasn't talking about combat just in AC2, but the whole evolution of combat from AC2 to AC4. AC2 didn't fix the core problems with AC1 combat (in fact, they made it worse, one of the reason being that hidden blade could not only counter absolutely anything but its counter window was raised significantly), and that in turn started an avalanche that has led the combat into a different direction from AC1s. ACU combat, judging by the interviews, feels like it's not only based on AC1 core principles, but actually fixes the flaws.

I used AC2 as a talking point as it's considered the best by most, I agree with what you're saying the combat only got worse and worse and worse, instead of making enemies challenging they added pointless invisibilities which forced you to disarm an opponent and then repeatedly slash him 4-7 times in a repetitive fashion. no challenge and no fun.




That may be, but the main principle behind AC1 stealth was behavioral (act like a crowd and you're already essentially a part of it), while in AC2 it was much less so.

I chalk it up to different brotherhoods and different methods. The Levantine brotherhood was essentially a group of warrior monks, all trained under a specific curriculum, all taught the same skills. Their robes seem to be specifically catered to the times, made to look similar to scholars in order to easily blend with them as they are prevalent in this time period. Therefore it's easy to become part of the crowd without a crowd.

In AC2 and the others however the robes maintain the iconic colors and hood but don't match up with the religious men of the day, therefore it makes sense that they assassins must use a large crowd to mask their movements now, they can't just act like a religious scholar now and expect to get away with it, they're dressed in bright white robes with fancy design while the scholars of that century used humble brown burlap like robes.

I never really had a problem with it, there simply wasn't enough people to make use of it all the time, it was often more convenient to kill everyone or run.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bomb variety with different effects, but in ACR system there was a lot of overlapping that in my opinion could be streamlined. And I think the bomb system is just a good example of how a lot of features in AC have evolved, with lots of overlapping (when there could be less of things but with more meaning behind them).

Agreed, I only ever used one bomb of any category, the others were amusing but nothing else.




I never said 2 was a problem. I think it was a great game. But I think it was a game that instead of advancing AC1 design principles forward, decided to change a bunch of them (not everything, of course) and go into a different direction, and the series followed AC2. There are a lot of mechanical similarities that keep AC1 and AC2 connected enough, but just the thought process behind how to use and advance those mechanics was different. And I'm not saying that it's BAD (and I think there are a lot of great features introduced in AC2-AC4 games), more like that it's... different. And AC1 is the first AC game I've ever played, and that made me a fan, so I'm hopeful that the design principles behind AC1 will get evolution.

I didn't mean to imply you thought it was the problem but stating something I thought. I agree now of course with the reveal of Unity, but before I would have disagreed since I couldn't have imagined how much better it could be. I'd never thought about it because I already enjoyed AC and didn't consider that they'd change the core mechanics.

My story is similar, I had lost hope in seeing any good SE titles and then I saw AC instead, the amazing graphics and the unique ideas and game play, I immediately bought a PS3 specifcally for AC. I even quit the PS3 shortly after AC2 as the wait was too long and at the time there wasn't anything on the radar to pique my interest, most niche games I liked flew far under the radar.

Today after having played through every main game more than once I am buying the PS4 asap ONLY because Unity is out and it looks amazing and seems to have addressed every mechanic I've utterly despised in both AC3 and AC4.

If not I would have waited for the distant KH3/FFXV but no, the new AC is upon us and it looks glorious and I must have it on day 1.