PDA

View Full Version : Assassin Creed IV: Black Flag worse than ACIII!!!



Dragon782013
07-16-2014, 02:20 PM
The reason being I don't like AC4 is because it's more about the pirates than assassins and AC games r more about assassin's v Templars, yes there are Templars in AC4 but not like in the rest of AC games, and Unity just looks like my sort of game!!

ACfan443
07-16-2014, 02:22 PM
My prayers are with you.

Be prepared for an onslaught.

LoyalACFan
07-16-2014, 02:30 PM
http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ku9my8FvLF1qzfxk8o1_400.jpg

king-hailz
07-16-2014, 02:31 PM
Lol... i think AC4 feels MUCH more like an AC game than AC3 did...

The story in AC4 is a lot more to do with the philosophy of the assassins then AC3 was. It had way more assassins and hideouts for the assassins which gave it that feeling of being among the assassins...

I dont think what the assassins do in their spare time defines them as more of an assassin or not... I can hardly remember AC3 talk about the assassins or anything.

AC4 really spoke about the creed and why someone would want to or need to join the assassins to belong somewhere.

Connor only joined to save his people... and you lot can say that Ezio only joined for revenge, but thats not true. Ezio was brought into the world of assassins because of his vengeance but joined because he wanted to be an assassin... same with edward at the end. He really understood the creed and joined for a purpose, higher than money!

pacmanate
07-16-2014, 03:07 PM
AC4 was a different take on the franchise. It was more concerned with telling an individuals story than an Assassin's.

Hans684
07-16-2014, 03:12 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1vNQPi9iOSw

steveeire
07-16-2014, 03:58 PM
The reason being I don't like AC4 is because it's more about the pirates than assassins and AC games r more about assassin's v Templars, yes there are Templars in AC4 but not like in the rest of AC games, and Unity just looks like my sort of game!!
http://i58.tinypic.com/2u4owbd.jpg


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1vNQPi9iOSw
I don't understand how a games commentator only has one console.

Megas_Doux
07-16-2014, 04:00 PM
The OP in entitled to his opinion, even though I do not agree......



http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1vNQPi9iOSw

Joe himself has said that he is not a Fan AC, and that he prefers ships over stealth and parkour any day.

wvstolzing
07-16-2014, 04:08 PM
Joe himself has said that he is not a Fan AC, and that he prefers ships over stealth and parkour any day.

I wish Joe had done a full-scale review for AC4.

Re: OP -- Well, AC4 reintroduced quite a number of ideas from AC1----to such an extent, that to me it felt like 'AC1 *done right*'.
Based on what we've heard about ACU so far, I'm expecting the trend to continue

GoldenBoy9999
07-16-2014, 04:31 PM
Re: OP -- Well, AC4 reintroduced quite a number of ideas from AC1----to such an extent, that to me it felt like 'AC1 *done right*'.
Based on what we've heard about ACU so far, I'm expecting the trend to continue

Which ideas did it reintroduce? I can't think of any really. It seemed radically different to me.

Megas_Doux
07-16-2014, 04:37 PM
Which ideas did it reintroduce? I can't think of any really. It seemed radically different to me.

Sure Edward is a pirate and not an assassin even though he is FULLY aware of both sides and their conflict, unlike Ezio who only wants revenge and even is surprised when Mario reveals as such. The thing is that AC IV brought back the full freedom in terms of assassinations that AC I had, and also sin some side content such as templar hunts and Plantations.

wvstolzing
07-16-2014, 04:48 PM
Which ideas did it reintroduce? I can't think of any really. It seemed radically different to me.

Individual assassination missions required gathering information around the city first (by stealing, eavesdropping, etc.). (Though that did result in a tad too many 'tailing' missions.) Later on you even had to 'run back to the bureau'.
The 'templar key' missions were modelled after the 'help an assassin brother' (to convince him to reveal bit of info) chores in AC1.
Eagle sense had a 'tag' function.
The notoriety system was essentially that of AC1.
The Animus interface had a few visual cues from AC1. (Similarly the music had some cues from AC*2*; that might be why quite a few people wrote on these forums that music in AC4 feels like it's a 'return to form' after AC3's generic action-flick sound.)

The key word, though, is that it *felt* to *me* a lot like AC1, in many ways----obviously that's a very subjective statement. Though there does seem to be *some* 'objective' effort towards reworking the rather more 'raw' mission structure from AC1.

Dragon782013
07-16-2014, 05:48 PM
Kings-hailz Yes Connor was bought into the creed to save his people but also to stop his father if u remember was a templar and that's what Edward doesn't really do take down Templars that's also what AC games are kinda about....

Locopells
07-16-2014, 06:19 PM
Well he does take out the Caribbean Grand Master, and the other main ringleaders...

steveeire
07-16-2014, 06:23 PM
pfft Edward took out more Templers then the Assassin's did and thats before he even becomes one.

Aphex_Tim
07-16-2014, 07:19 PM
Kings-hailz Yes Connor was bought into the creed to save his people but also to stop his father if u remember was a templar and that's what Edward doesn't really do take down Templars that's also what AC games are kinda about....

Connor having to stop his father felt more like a convenient side issue since he had just become an Assassin. He never set out to find or stop or do anything with his father; he set out to find the means to save his village. He found a way by joining the brotherhood but that also meant he had to face the Templars. Who happened to be led by his father.

joelsantos24
07-16-2014, 07:20 PM
Lol... i think AC4 feels MUCH more like an AC game than AC3 did...

The story in AC4 is a lot more to do with the philosophy of the assassins then AC3 was. It had way more assassins and hideouts for the assassins which gave it that feeling of being among the assassins...

I dont think what the assassins do in their spare time defines them as more of an assassin or not... I can hardly remember AC3 talk about the assassins or anything.

AC4 really spoke about the creed and why someone would want to or need to join the assassins to belong somewhere.

Connor only joined to save his people... and you lot can say that Ezio only joined for revenge, but thats not true. Ezio was brought into the world of assassins because of his vengeance but joined because he wanted to be an assassin... same with edward at the end. He really understood the creed and joined for a purpose, higher than money!
What? :confused:

You're joking, right? You must. The game is called Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. Newsflash for you, you're only an Assassin for a couple of missions at the end of the (very long) game. And spare me that speech about Black Flag being about the Creed and philosophy. It's a game about pirates, end of story. And although it's called Assassin's Creed, if you can accept that it's about pirates rather than assassins, and if you like pirates that is (very important, this one), then you'll most likely enjoy the game. If not, then the game will feel like a neverending joke about a dumb mercenary that is more stupid than a door.

Jexx21
07-16-2014, 07:21 PM
Pop, you only become an Assassin at the end of AC2 as well, and most of the story was about revenge.

Xstantin
07-16-2014, 07:23 PM
Somebody do a spreadsheet comparing amount of plundering/boarding/yarrrmatey to sneaky-stabbing within main missions.

Aphex_Tim
07-16-2014, 07:28 PM
What? :confused:

You're joking, right? You must. The game is called Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. Newsflash for you, you're only an Assassin for a couple of missions at the end of the (very long) game. And spare me that speech about Black Flag being about the Creed and philosophy. It's a game about pirates, end of story. And although it's called Assassin's Creed, if you can accept that it's about pirates rather than Assassin's, and if you like pirates that is (very important, this one), then you'll most probably enjoy the game. If not, then the game will feel like a neverending joke about a dumb mercenary that is more stupid than a door.

But just playing as an Assassin doesn't necessarily make the story about the Assassins. The argument was that AC4's story was a lot more about the Assassins than AC3's, and I agree with that. In AC3, you wear the uniform but there's no brotherhood, no mention of the creed, no history about the Colonial Assassins. It's ultimately about Connor trying to find a way to save his village.
In AC4, the Assassins had a much stronger presence and the story revolved around them more as well. To me it was a breath of fresh air to see the Assassins from a "3rd person perspective", if you will. It actually made the Assassins feel a lot more mysterious again.

Namikaze_17
07-16-2014, 07:48 PM
Lol... i think AC4 feels MUCH more like an AC game than AC3 did...

The story in AC4 is a lot more to do with the philosophy of the assassins then AC3 was. It had way more assassins and hideouts for the assassins which gave it that feeling of being among the assassins...

I dont think what the assassins do in their spare time defines them as more of an assassin or not... I can hardly remember AC3 talk about the assassins or anything.

AC4 really spoke about the creed and why someone would want to or need to join the assassins to belong somewhere.

Connor only joined to save his people... and you lot can say that Ezio only joined for revenge, but thats not true. Ezio was brought into the world of assassins because of his
vengeance but joined because he wanted to be an assassin... same with edward at the end. He really understood the creed and joined for a purpose, higher than money!


In AC2, Ezio never said or wanted to be an Assassin. Even when Sofia asks him: "Do you regret your decision to be an Assassin?" Then he answers that he doesn't remember making that decision because he was consumed by revenge at that time. I don't think any Assassin.....( Besides Edward) actually made a choice to be one. They all happen to be one by birth, or Circumstances. Secondly, I found AC3 to expand on the creed as well like when Achilles explained to Connor the History of the Assassin's. Sure it was cut out, but it was more or less a "You Guys already know this" type of thing. Not to mention, Connor also talks about the Assassin's and their History, Logic, Philosophy, etc. To better equip him for his Journey. Then, he ACTUALLY thinks the Impossible: "Why Can't The Assassins and Templars Unite?" That's actually something we haven't heard well since.....Altair and his Codex Pages. And finally, Connor even acknowledges the Assassin's Struggle with the Templars as he describes them going back and forth across time and ages. That doesn't satisfy you in someone knowing and understanding the Creed? I personally liked Black Flag direction as well, but to say that AC3 didn't say or show anything about the Creed is just silly.

Shahkulu101
07-16-2014, 07:52 PM
No we won't spear you the fact that AC4 was about the philosophy of the Creed because it was and the writer has even stated that was his intent.

joelsantos24
07-16-2014, 07:54 PM
Pop, you only become an Assassin at the end of AC2 as well, and most of the story was about revenge.
You're talking about the seal on the finger? Is that even relevant? Ezio was an assassin, in both form and function, period. Furthermore, he was groomed in that direction for years, by all the remaining characters. They didn't do anything, more or less, it was Ezio who carried out all the missions and performed all the actions. It was like, "thank you very much for finally accepting me into the order, for years I've been performing all your sworn duties and carrying out all of your single missions, but nice of you to come out of your burrows when all is done and finished".


But just playing as an Assassin doesn't necessarily make the story about the Assassins. The argument was that AC4's story was a lot more about the Assassins than AC3's, and I agree with that. In AC3, you wear the uniform but there's no brotherhood, no mention of the creed, no history about the Colonial Assassins. It's ultimately about Connor trying to find a way to save his village.
In AC4, the Assassins had a much stronger presence and the story revolved around them more as well. To me it was a breath of fresh air to see the Assassins from a "3rd person perspective", if you will. It actually made the Assassins feel a lot more mysterious again.
Connor didn't have a brotherhood? Of course he had, he kept recruiting them throughout the game and in every city he visited. They just didn't wore the outfit. There was no mention of the Creed and the history of the Colonial Assassins, because they all died out, except Achilles. For all intents and purposes, Connor rebuilt the Order in the New World. It just wasn't given much emphasis, that's all. To me, Black Flag was a (very bad) joke and it made me want to slid my wrists, for more than 90% of the game.

Namikaze_17
07-16-2014, 08:06 PM
But just playing as an Assassin doesn't necessarily make the story about the Assassins. The argument was that AC4's story was a lot more about the Assassins than AC3's, and I agree with that. In AC3, you wear the uniform but there's no brotherhood, no mention of the creed, no history about the Colonial Assassins. It's ultimately about Connor trying to find a way to save his village.
In AC4, the Assassins had a much stronger presence and the story revolved around them more as well. To me it was a breath of fresh air to see the Assassins from a "3rd person perspective", if you will. It actually made the Assassins feel a lot more mysterious again.

( Sigh) I personally think alot of people Underrate AC3 for not being an Assassin's Creed Game because there was no brotherhood, Connor wasn't saying: "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted" every cutscene.....and finally the History. But I ask alot of people this: Is this Assassin's Creed or Assassin's Brotherhood? because as I see it, doing those things but disregarding methods and the tenets suddenly make you an Assassin. THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONNOR'S STORY......he was one man facing impossible odds but he ended up killing the Colonial Templars mostly by himself yet he didn't need to Say the phrase, or have a massive Brotherhood behind him to do it.
Personally, I found Connor & AC3 a living Embodiment of what the "Creed" actually stands for as shown with his courageous actions, Heartfelt Conviction, and unbreakable spirit.

Pfft.

Megas_Doux
07-16-2014, 08:07 PM
You're talking about the seal on the finger? Is that even relevant? Ezio was an assassin, in both form and function, period. Furthermore, he was groomed in that direction for years, by all the remaining characters. They didn't do anything, more or less, it was Ezio who carried out all the missions and performed all the actions. It was like, "thank you very much for finally accepting me into the order, for years I've been performing all your ssingle duties and carrying out all of your missions, but nice of you to come out of your burrows when all is done and finished".



Ezio was so ignorant about both Assassin and templar affairs during 90% of game, he even was surprised Mario being such. In fact, Ezio NEVER mentions why the templars are dangerous and MUST be put to rest other "they killed my family".

Ezio is an angry boy with the body of an assassin, but the not "soul" of one.

Shahkulu101
07-16-2014, 08:12 PM
( Sigh) I personally think alot of people Underrate AC3 for not being an Assassin's Creed Game because there was no brotherhood, Connor wasn't saying: "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted" every cutscene.....and finally the History. But I ask alot of people this: Is this Assassin's Creed or Assassin's Brotherhood? because as I see it, doing those things but disregarding methods and the tenets suddenly make you an Assassin. THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONNOR'S STORY......he was one man facing impossible odds but he ended up killing the Colonial Templars mostly by himself yet he didn't need to Say the phrase, or have a massive Brotherhood behind him to do it.
Personally, I found Connor & AC3 a living Embodiment of what the "Creed" actually stands for as shown with his courageous actions, Heartfelt Conviction, and unbreakable spirit.

Pfft.

This. In fact I've argued a very similar point many times before.

ACB and AC2 have a superficial assassin presence and the Creed has no profound presence in either of the games from an ideological standpoint. Sure, in ACB it's probably said the most - but does the story in any way delve into what being an assassin and living by the Creed mean? Absolutely not.

As you said, Connor and his story are the embodiment of the Assassins philosophy and struggles.

AC4 tells the story of an aimless rogue who comes to understand and embrace the Creed through his personal struggles.

Jexx21
07-16-2014, 08:19 PM
most people don't like to think deeply about things, but they like to think they do. so they prefer AC2 and ACB because they give the impression that they're imparting a deep message, when in reality they aren't and are actually fairly shallow

It's like how people think BioShock Infinite's story is so deep and amazing, which is something you can mimic with practically anything that's related to parallel universes or the vastness of the universe itself (like all of those diagrams should how Earth is really tiny compared to the galaxy and saying we're insignificant).

SpiritOfNevaeh
07-16-2014, 08:19 PM
( Sigh) I personally think alot of people Underrate AC3 for not being an Assassin's Creed Game because there was no brotherhood, Connor wasn't saying: "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted" every cutscene.....and finally the History. But I ask alot of people this: Is this Assassin's Creed or Assassin's Brotherhood? because as I see it, doing those things but disregarding methods and the tenets suddenly make you an Assassin. THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONNOR'S STORY......he was one man facing impossible odds but he ended up killing the Colonial Templars mostly by himself yet he didn't need to Say the phrase, or have a massive Brotherhood behind him to do it.
Personally, I found Connor & AC3 a living Embodiment of what the "Creed" actually stands for as shown with his courageous actions, Heartfelt Conviction, and unbreakable spirit.

Pfft.


This. In fact I've argued a very similar point many times before.

ACB and AC2 have a superficial assassin presence and the Creed has no profound presence in either of the games from an ideological standpoint. Sure, in ACB it's probably said the most - but does the story in any way delve into what being an assassin and living by the Creed mean? Absolutely not.

As you said, Connor and his story are the embodiment of the Assassins philosophy and struggles.

AC4 tells the story of an aimless rogue who comes to understand and embrace the Creed through his personal struggles.

Well said.

Namikaze_17
07-16-2014, 08:29 PM
This. In fact I've argued a very similar point many times before.

ACB and AC2 have a superficial assassin presence and the Creed has no profound presence in either of the games from an ideological standpoint. Sure, in ACB it's probably said the most - but does the story in any way delve into what being an assassin and living by the Creed mean? Absolutely not.

As you said, Connor and his story are the embodiment of the Assassins philosophy and struggles.

AC4 tells the story of an aimless rogue who comes to understand and embrace the Creed through his personal struggles.

Yes! I loved the way Ubi expanded what the Creed actually means with AC3/AC4. But sadly, it obvious the majority would say that AC2/ACB were vastly "Superior" as it showcased a stronger Brotherhood having dominance over the Templars, Phrase was said/explained often, and mostly because Ezio had many Allies that so happened to be tied to the Creed. AC3 actually has various Deleted Conversations/ Scenes that could've easily explained the very things I said about AC2/ACB. However, it's expected I guess....Ezio had a TON of help and support from others while Connor had no one but Achilles who was very Bitter and unsupportive of Connor at first, then you have Edward who basically only had Mary who was tied to Creed and things.

Namikaze_17
07-16-2014, 08:33 PM
Well said.

*Arno Nod* Thank you.......

GunnerGalactico
07-16-2014, 08:41 PM
( Sigh) I personally think alot of people Underrate AC3 for not being an Assassin's Creed Game because there was no brotherhood, Connor wasn't saying: "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted" every cutscene.....and finally the History. But I ask alot of people this: Is this Assassin's Creed or Assassin's Brotherhood? because as I see it, doing those things but disregarding methods and the tenets suddenly make you an Assassin. THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONNOR'S STORY......he was one man facing impossible odds but he ended up killing the Colonial Templars mostly by himself yet he didn't need to Say the phrase, or have a massive Brotherhood behind him to do it.
Personally, I found Connor & AC3 a living Embodiment of what the "Creed" actually stands for as shown with his courageous actions, Heartfelt Conviction, and unbreakable spirit.

Pfft.


This. In fact I've argued a very similar point many times before.

ACB and AC2 have a superficial assassin presence and the Creed has no profound presence in either of the games from an ideological standpoint. Sure, in ACB it's probably said the most - but does the story in any way delve into what being an assassin and living by the Creed mean? Absolutely not.

As you said, Connor and his story are the embodiment of the Assassins philosophy and struggles.

AC4 tells the story of an aimless rogue who comes to understand and embrace the Creed through his personal struggles.

I agree with every word. Absolutely spot on!

wvstolzing
07-16-2014, 09:24 PM
I don't think any Assassin.....( Besides Edward) actually made a choice to be one.

Don't forget Adé.

steveeire
07-16-2014, 09:26 PM
Conor technically decided to become one.

Hans684
07-16-2014, 09:33 PM
Before saying what is an AC(no matter opinion) people should(recommended for a clearer view) know what makes an Assassin in AC. AC conon shows what that is a true Assassin in AC, it's not just history only, and that statement doesn't contradict what I've said before. So here is a qestion for everyone, what is a true Assassin in AC?

PS: Awnser that without going to Wikipedia and the AC Wiki, that is an challenge!

Farlander1991
07-16-2014, 09:51 PM
Somebody do a spreadsheet comparing amount of plundering/boarding/yarrrmatey to sneaky-stabbing within main missions.

Ahem (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/898522-Assassin-s-Creed-series-stealth-viability-sheet) :rolleyes:

---------

On the topic, Assassin's Creed IV in total has got the most stealth components or situations where it's possible to use stealth more than any game of the series. That's not 'feeling', that's not 'I think', that's not 'as far as I know', that's a calculated analytic statement (anybody interested - follow the link above).

Statements like 'the game is called Assassin's Creed and the character is not an Assassin until the end of the game' are ridiculous. If we want to talk names, the game's called Assassin's Creed. With Creed being the main word there. Assassin's Creed IV is very much about the Creed. It's about a person's introduction to the Creed and growing understanding of it. The whole theme of the game is about finding your way in life, your philosophy to live by. From Stede Bonnet's yearning for adventure, to Hornigold's wish for Order, to Roberts' merry life and a short one, it's about finding your path in life. And in the case of our main character, it's how, interacting with all these different philosophies and life dreams, one comes to understand, follow, and accept the Assassin's Creed.

Yes, it's not as centered on the Assassin vs. Templar conflict as other Assassin's Creed games. It's more of a personal story. Doesn't make it any worse, doesn't make it not about the Creed, and doesn't make it any less deserving of the Assassin's Creed name.

Xstantin
07-16-2014, 09:55 PM
^ That's a good one, man.

Kaschra
07-16-2014, 10:44 PM
Ahem (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/898522-Assassin-s-Creed-series-stealth-viability-sheet) :rolleyes:

---------

On the topic, Assassin's Creed IV in total has got the most stealth components or situations where it's possible to use stealth more than any game of the series. That's not 'feeling', that's not 'I think', that's not 'as far as I know', that's a calculated analytic statement (anybody interested - follow the link above).

Statements like 'the game is called Assassin's Creed and the character is not an Assassin until the end of the game' are ridiculous. If we want to talk names, the game's called Assassin's Creed. With Creed being the main word there. Assassin's Creed IV is very much about the Creed. It's about a person's introduction to the Creed and growing understanding of it. The whole theme of the game is about finding your way in life, your philosophy to live by. From Stede Bonnet's yearning for adventure, to Hornigold's wish for Order, to Roberts' merry life and a short one, it's about finding your path in life. And in the case of our main character, it's how, interacting with all these different philosophies and life dreams, one comes to understand, follow, and accept the Assassin's Creed.

Yes, it's not as centered on the Assassin vs. Templar conflict as other Assassin's Creed games. It's more of a personal story. Doesn't make it any worse, doesn't make it not about the Creed, and doesn't make it any less deserving of the Assassin's Creed name.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Assassin_M
07-16-2014, 10:52 PM
Connor only joined to save his people... and you lot can say that Ezio only joined for revenge, but thats not true. Ezio was brought into the world of assassins because of his vengeance but joined because he wanted to be an assassin... same with edward at the end. He really understood the creed and joined for a purpose, higher than money!
Actually, it is true...Ezio said it himself...he never wanted to be an Assassin..he only listened to Mario's bull crap about Codex pages..etc because he wanted to kill the men responsible for his family's tragedy, he said so himself and hey, I mean...Ezio was the only protagonist to retire from the Order sooo pay attention to what your favorite assassin says maybe?

I wont bother replying to OP, everyone else is doing a better job anyway

Farlander1991
07-16-2014, 11:15 PM
Btw, speaking of Ezio. And Edward. And all the other AC characters.

Edward, so far, is the only main AC protagonist where becoming an Assassin is one of the end character arc/story arc goals. Nobody else has that. Well, Desmond I guess, but I'm speaking of the main AC historical protagonists.

Yes, Ezio becomes an Assassin officially near the end of his game, but that wasn't the goal or the point, that was more of an accentuation of his growth. Even though unofficially, but Ezio was an Assassin pretty much throughout the whole game (still got less stealthy content in AC2 than Edward in AC4, though :p ), with his uncle being an Assassin, and him continuing his fathers work and hunting Templars, which, while he did that for his own personal reasons, was still moving the Assassin cause forward.

Becoming an Assassin is not the point in Altair's story, not the point in Ezio's story, not the point in Connor's story, but, it IS the point (one of the, at least) in Edward's story. For Ezio or Connor, becoming a part of the Order either officially or unofficially, was just a first step in their Journey. For Edward that was his final destination. And it's nice to have this sort of variety, and I don't see a reason why a story like this can't be told.

But one important thing to understand also, is that you can't tell a story like that and still have the Assassin vs. Templar conflict as the central focus. If AvT is all Edward would be doing, then it would essentially be Ezio's case, and it would absolutely remove the point they were trying to make. Which I've already stated more in detail in the last post, about finding yourself, and choosing to become an Assassin as a result of that.

This is not really a reply to any post or anything, and I think because it's late I'm rambling more than I should, but just wanted to throw this thought out there :D

Fatal-Feit
07-17-2014, 04:45 AM
most people don't like to think deeply about things, but they like to think they do. so they prefer AC2 and ACB because they give the impression that they're imparting a deep message, when in reality they aren't and are actually fairly shallow

11/10

This sums up everything.

roostersrule2
07-17-2014, 08:13 AM
AC2 and ACB gave pretty deep impressions on the church and religion.

Though I wouldn't say any AC story has deep undertones, at face value though most of the AC games have good stories.

Assassin_M
07-17-2014, 08:32 AM
AC2 and ACB gave pretty deep impressions on the church and religion.

lol, no they didn't...at most, they just touched upon the ills of control...which AC I already explored in deep length--just the conversation between Altair and Almualim about control and guidance during their final battle at Masyaf is deeper than ANYTHING AC II and ACB tried to say about either.
AC II tried with religion with the whole Teodora thing but all it really did was just offer a radical and un-releastic outlook on prostitution.

Don't try to give AC II and ACB depth because really--if there WAS any--they wouldn't need you to come and point it out...AC II and ACB would be looked at for more than just "OHMAGOSH ENZOOO" and side missions.

But okay, let me bite..how did AC II and ACB give deep impressions about church and religion?

Dragon782013
07-17-2014, 09:24 AM
Nope nope Connor toke out far more Templars than Edward did (Johnson, Pitcairn, Hickey, Haytham, Lee) Edward ( burgess, cockram, horningold) also the combat was far better in AC3 than AC4, AC4 it's to easy at least with Connor your Heath didn't regenerate you had to finish your combat, and the mission in AC4 are boring and tease ie - stun a guard with a smoke bomb well whoopy f*****g do, that's why in my option AC3 is a much better AC game than AC4! :)

roostersrule2
07-17-2014, 09:27 AM
lol, no they didn't...at most, they just touched upon the ills of control...which AC I already explored in deep length--just the conversation between Altair and Almualim about control and guidance during their final battle at Masyaf is deeper than ANYTHING AC II and ACB tried to say about either.
AC II tried with religion with the whole Teodora thing but all it really did was just offer a radical and un-releastic outlook on prostitution.

Don't try to give AC II and ACB depth because really--if there WAS any--they wouldn't need you to come and point it out...AC II and ACB would be looked at for more than just "OHMAGOSH ENZOOO" and side missions.

But okay, let me bite..how did AC II and ACB give deep impressions about church and religion?The AC2 part was just to get someone to bite hehe, AC2 had personal undertones rather then political ones so I could understand why some people thought of it as shallow.

ACB though definitely had a theme about the corruption of the Church. It was more apprent during the side missions but it was there nonetheless. And while AC1 may have talked about religion and the church, ACB actually showed it.

Assassin_M
07-17-2014, 09:29 AM
The AC2 part was just to get someone to bite hehe, AC2 had personal undertones rather then political ones so I could understand why some people thought of it as shallow.
nah, you just figured you screwed up, didn't ya? you little liar.


ACB though definitely had a theme about the corruption of the Church. It was more apparent during the side missions but it was there nonetheless. And while AC1 may have talked about religion and the church, ACB actually showed it.
How's that a deep impression, though? it's history, i could see it, read it, learn about it anywhere..

roostersrule2
07-17-2014, 09:34 AM
nah, you just figured you screwed up, didn't ya? you little liar.

How's that a deep impression, though? it's history, i could see it, read it, learn about it anywhere..No you're just predictable.

Does it really matter if it's history or not? Just because you can read it and see it elsewhere doesn't mean it's less credible.

AC1 had undertones that refelected on both modern and historical politics that I could read about, does that diminish the quality of it?

Farlander1991
07-17-2014, 09:36 AM
Nope nope Connor toke out far more Templars than Edward did (Johnson, Pitcairn, Hickey, Haytham, Lee) Edward ( burgess, cockram, horningold)

Wait, so are you just going to purposefully ignore Du Casse, Rogers (who survived, but still he was our target), Torres, and a little bit more minor since he's more of a bodyguard but still, El Tiburon? :p That's already more than Connor ;)


and the mission in AC4 are boring and tease ie - stun a guard with a smoke bomb well whoopy f*****g do

You're talking about optional objectives, though. There's a lot of bad ones in both AC3 and AC4.

If we talk mission design itself (without optional objectives), AC4 holds a clear advantage - there's much less handholding and restrictions than in Assassin's Creed 3 (where in some missions you get desynchronized for getting of a friggin' horse in a situation where that doesn't matter).

roostersrule2
07-17-2014, 09:43 AM
AC4 and AC3's missions are equal.

AC4's are well designed but repetitive and tailing missions are too frequent.

AC3's however suck but are varied, and there are less tailing ones.

Dragon782013
07-17-2014, 09:54 AM
Farlander1991 Yes Rogers was a target but as u said not killed at least Conner did the job the properly :p we can all ague who is the best and worst assassin but remember its a fourm I'm aloud my option conner is the better assassin than Edward, Edwards a pirate first and for most than assassin :p

Farlander1991
07-17-2014, 09:57 AM
AC4's are well designed but repetitive and tailing missions are too frequent.

That's like saying that assassination missions are too repetetive and frequent because you have to kill a target in them.

Out of 43 AC4 missions only 10 have got tailing parts in them (I don't think any single AC4 mission consists of pure tailing), and only two missions have a similar structure, environment and design principles to them (both happen, ironically enough, in Kingston).

Farlander1991
07-17-2014, 10:00 AM
Farlander1991 Yes Rogers was a target but as u said not killed at least Conner did the job the properly

Even without Rogers, Edward still killed as many Templars as Connor did though. And Connor had his fair share of 'not doing the job properly' (choosing not to kill Johnson, slamming into Hickey's hideout instead of sneaking in)

Listen, I don't have anything against people's opinions, but I have against purposeful distortion to suit your needs (and your argument that Connor killed more Templars was precisely that :p )

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 10:02 AM
Ezio was so ignorant about both Assassin and templar affairs during 90% of game, he even was surprised Mario being such. In fact, Ezio NEVER mentions why the templars are dangerous and MUST be put to rest other "they killed my family".

Ezio is an angry boy with the body of an assassin, but the not "soul" of one.
No. Ezio was not that ignorant. He might not have known the entire truth about the endless Assassins vs. Templars crusade, but he knew enough. Enough to make him understand that he had to destroy the Templars. Was it enjoyable, at the same time, for him to realize he would be carrying out his revenge against the very own people that killed half of his family, while he was at it? Definitely. At the beginning of the game (Assassin's 2), when Mario is training him at the arena, Mario mentions being aware that Ezio had been snooping around the library, getting to know everything about the Templars. What does Ezio do next? He tells his uncle he will fulfill the entire role of his father and carry out his sworn duties, all of them. Until that point, you had only played about 10-15% (if that much) of the game. In conclusion: Ezio was, in fact, an Assassin for the crushing majority of the game. The reasons for having become one, are blatantly irrelevant.


This. In fact I've argued a very similar point many times before.

ACB and AC2 have a superficial assassin presence and the Creed has no profound presence in either of the games from an ideological standpoint. Sure, in ACB it's probably said the most - but does the story in any way delve into what being an assassin and living by the Creed mean? Absolutely not.

As you said, Connor and his story are the embodiment of the Assassins philosophy and struggles.

AC4 tells the story of an aimless rogue who comes to understand and embrace the Creed through his personal struggles.
I disagree. The endless (and strikingly) philosophical discussions between Ezio and Machiavelli, are at the core of, not only what it meant to be an Assassin, but also the ideological diferences that still existed between key members of the order.

Regarding Assassin's 3, Connor isn't the embodiment of anything. Like someone said previously, there is no philosophical presence of the Creed in Assassin's 3. Why? Because there are no Assassins in the New World, to begin with. The order died out, and it's single survivor was an arrogant and spiteful old man, that had given up on his life's mission and the order. Connor simply does not have the time to dwelve into what it meant to be an Assassin.

But I do agree with one thing, though: Black Flag tells the story of an aimless (and pathetically stupid) rogue.


most people don't like to think deeply about things, but they like to think they do. so they prefer AC2 and ACB because they give the impression that they're imparting a deep message, when in reality they aren't and are actually fairly shallow

It's like how people think BioShock Infinite's story is so deep and amazing, which is something you can mimic with practically anything that's related to parallel universes or the vastness of the universe itself (like all of those diagrams should how Earth is really tiny compared to the galaxy and saying we're insignificant).
Oh, please...

Both Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood, are infinitely deeper (ideologically) than Black Flag. That is my opinion. If you disagree, that is perfect, no problem whatsoever. However, assuming your opinion is best (or true), that is just presumption. All you have, is an opinion, much like I have and everyone else here.

roostersrule2
07-17-2014, 10:12 AM
That's like saying that assassination missions are too repetetive and frequent because you have to kill a target in them.

Out of 43 AC4 missions only 10 have got tailing parts in them (I don't think any single AC4 mission consists of pure tailing), and only two missions have a similar structure, environment and design principles to them (both happen, ironically enough, in Kingston).No it's like this is a good steak, if I eat it everyday for the rest of my life though it'll suck.

Only 10? That's a quarter of the missions, that's not the example I'd use to prove a point, not in this case anyway.

*EDIT: ^Oh man, you're going to get crucified, you're not allowed to say any Ezio game is better then any of the others on here.

shobhit7777777
07-17-2014, 10:16 AM
Btw, speaking of Ezio. And Edward. And all the other AC characters.

Edward, so far, is the only main AC protagonist where becoming an Assassin is one of the end character arc/story arc goals. Nobody else has that. Well, Desmond I guess, but I'm speaking of the main AC historical protagonists.


Well said.

Edward's is the truest "Assassin" tale

His entrance into the Assassin order is a gradual, thought out, meaningful journey....which is fitting since the man himself cherished liberty and freedom. Edward wasn't forced into the order. He willfully joined it and as such AC4's narrative is a compelling take on the Assassin's creed (which goes superbly well with the Pirate setting).

On the flipside.....Ezio's tale has its own charm and is engaging for different reasons.

Its funny that from a gameplay perspective Ezio was a supremely accomplished assassin and at the same time the least "assassiny" one out of all the protags.

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 10:37 AM
Well said.

Edward's is the truest "Assassin" tale

His entrance into the Assassin order is a gradual, thought out, meaningful journey....which is fitting since the man himself cherished liberty and freedom. Edward wasn't forced into the order. He willfully joined it and as such AC4's narrative is a compelling take on the Assassin's creed (which goes superbly well with the Pirate setting).

On the flipside.....Ezio's tale has its own charm and is engaging for different reasons.

Its funny that from a gameplay perspective Ezio was a supremely accomplished assassin and at the same time the least "assassiny" one out of all the protags.
So, am I to assume that merely the existence of a story that incorporates a character that only becomes an Assassin at the end of it, is worthy of praise and recognition? Or better, only the existence of that factor marks a true Assassin's Creed game/story?

Farlander1991
07-17-2014, 10:42 AM
Only 10? That's a quarter of the missions, that's not the example I'd use to prove a point, not in this case anyway.

Well, there's 11 naval battle sequences in the main campaign, 13 infiltration sequences (where you have to get to a certain particular goal in a guarded area of the map), 11 or 12 combat sequences (i.e. where we HAVE to fight), and I can go on. AC4 main campaign is a well balanced meal, the only exception being the chase/race/running action sequences, there's like 8 of them, but it's still pretty balanced in that regard. There's no overabundance of any particular goal, environment or type of activity over any others.


So, am I to assume that merely the existence of a story that incorporates a character that only becomes an Assassin at the end of it, is worthy of praise and recognition? Or better, only the existence of that factor marks a true Assassin's Creed game/story?

The only thing you're to assume is that the existence of said factor doesn't make it any less of an Assassin's Creed game/story. ;)



Its funny that from a gameplay perspective Ezio was a supremely accomplished assassin and at the same time the least "assassiny" one out of all the protags.

Eh, I duno, I would say Connor's the least "assassiny" of the protags from a gameplay perspective (ironically enough, not in the DLC where he can be most assassiny and not being an assassin), but then again you deny AC3's existance :p

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 11:56 AM
(...)

The only thing you're to assume is that the existence of said factor doesn't make it any less of an Assassin's Creed game/story. ;)

(...)
I never said otherwise. I merely responded to the statement, "Edward's is the truest Assassin's tale".

What is indeed a fact, is that the aimless rogue only becomes an Assassin at the end of the game. Which means you are something else entirely, for more than 90% of the game. Truth be told, I call Black Flag, the multiple personality disorder game: you begin as a nobody looking for fortune; you become a pirate; you stumble across a traitor Assassin, kill him, take his clothes and impersonate him; you pretend to work for the Templars; you pretend to work for the Assassins; you even get a superior Templar armour, and so you even get to pretend to work for the Assassins while looking exactly like a Templar; and then you become an Assassin.

Would I call this "the truest Assassin's tale"? Not ever. But that is just my opinion. :cool:

itsamea-mario
07-17-2014, 12:00 PM
op u r rong

shobhit7777777
07-17-2014, 01:16 PM
So, am I to assume that merely the existence of a story that incorporates a character that only becomes an Assassin at the end of it, is worthy of praise and recognition? Or better, only the existence of that factor marks a true Assassin's Creed game/story?

Assume whatever you want.



Eh, I duno, I would say Connor's the least "assassiny" of the protags from a gameplay perspective (ironically enough, not in the DLC where he can be most assassiny and not being an assassin), but then again you deny AC3's existance :p

AC3 can hump a landmine for all I care

Also....IDK whether we are agreeing or disagreeing....

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 01:41 PM
Assume whatever you want.

(...)
Cool. Thank you so much for that answer. It was incredibly productive, discussion wise.

roostersrule2
07-17-2014, 01:59 PM
Well, there's 11 naval battle sequences in the main campaign, 13 infiltration sequences (where you have to get to a certain particular goal in a guarded area of the map), 11 or 12 combat sequences (i.e. where we HAVE to fight), and I can go on. AC4 main campaign is a well balanced meal, the only exception being the chase/race/running action sequences, there's like 8 of them, but it's still pretty balanced in that regard. There's no overabundance of any particular goal, environment or type of activity over anyBalanced doesn't really mean better.

No one likes tailing missions so the less the better, people do like infiltration amd combat missions though, so the more the merrier. If there's an equal amount then it's not really a good thing.

Farlander1991
07-17-2014, 02:13 PM
No one likes tailing missions

I like tailing missions (at the very least the way they're implemented in BF) so :p And I'm not the only one. So unless you collect every bit of AC4 feedback ever from all sources and can clearly show that people who don't have a dislike to tailing missions are in a 0.01% minority, then... :rolleyes: :p

And I don't like combat missions in AC. Except boardings, those are awesome, but that's just because of the general feel of it. The AC combat system (AC2 and onward) is not interesting to me enough to like or look forward to combat missions, so no 'the more the merrier' of them to me.

We're in a highly subjective territory here, so balanced is better.

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 02:33 PM
Balanced doesn't really mean better.

No one likes tailing missions so the less the better, people do like infiltration amd combat missions though, so the more the merrier. If there's an equal amount then it's not really a good thing.
I agree. I wouldn't say that no one enjoys tailing missions, but there are lots of people who actually don't, myself included. Especially, the tailing missons in Black Flag, which felt incredibly long and boring.


I like tailing missions (at the very least the way they're implemented in BF) so :p And I'm not the only one. So unless you collect every bit of AC4 feedback ever from all sources and can clearly show that people who don't have a dislike to tailing missions are in a 0.01% minority, then... :rolleyes: :p

And I don't like combat missions in AC. Except boardings, those are awesome, but that's just because of the general feel of it. The AC combat system is not interesting to me enough to like or look forward to combat missions.
I hated Black Flag's tailing missions, and they were so boring. Most of the times, you're trying to keep up with your targets and it feels like you have nowhere to go. Guards start gathering around you like locusts; you get closer to your target and then guards start running towards you; if you turn back, guards will watch you and start running towards you; and so on, and so on. Generally speaking, I get the feeling the game is getting more and more difficult, but just because, which is nonsensical, in my humble opinion. If you can't have fun while playing these missions, then what the hell are they for? Another thing I've noticed, is that missions in general are less intuitive, and it became increasingly hard to realize a way to bypass enemies/guards.

Regarding the boarding action, it didn't feel that special to me. But then again, I never enjoyed the whole pirates theme, anyway. :nonchalance:

Farlander1991
07-17-2014, 03:02 PM
Most of the times, you're trying to keep up with your targets and it feels like you have nowhere to go.

That might be the case if you're trying to tail purely based on Line of Sight, but Eagle Vision tagging exists in Black Flag for a reason ;) And allows for a very wide area of movement, I never felt like I had no solutions or ways to bypass something (and unlike tailing in Ezio's games, for example, I never felt like I had to be in a constant erratic hurry, due to the tagging mechanic). The eavesdropping parts were trickier due to more limited range, but even then, there are a lot of choices on the path of the ones we're tailing.


Most of the times, you're trying to keep up with your targets and it feels like you have nowhere to go. Guards start gathering around you like locusts; you get closer to your target and then guards start running towards you; if you turn back, guards will watch you and start running towards you; and so on, and so on.

Uhm.... huh? O_o Guards gathering around like locusts? Were we playing the same game? :p It's not like I wouldn't get noticed by guards at all, but guards practically don't matter unless you get into restricted zone (or you're on a rooftop, but then again, it's not like players don't know how to deal with guards on rooftops), which are not that many in BF tailing missions, and with lots of hiding options.


Another thing I've noticed, is that missions in general are less intuitive, and it became increasingly hard to realize a way to bypass enemies/guards.

I disagree. There are a lot of visual cues for different free-running paths. And hiding spots. The open world generally speaking provides a considerable number of choices.

roostersrule2
07-17-2014, 03:05 PM
I like tailing missions (at the very least the way they're implemented in BF) so :p And I'm not the only one. So unless you collect every bit of AC4 feedback ever from all sources and can clearly show that people who don't have a dislike to tailing missions are in a 0.01% minority, then... :rolleyes: :p

And I don't like combat missions in AC. Except boardings, those are awesome, but that's just because of the general feel of it. The AC combat system (AC2 and onward) is not interesting to me enough to like or look forward to combat missions, so no 'the more the merrier' of them to me.

We're in a highly subjective territory here, so balanced is better.When I say no one, I don't literally mean no one...

Though the majority don't like tailing and the majority do like action, so balanced isn't better.

Also how is AC1's combat any more interesting then the others? Because of shorter counter windows? Hahaha

AC1 and AC2 have the same combat system except for AC2's has more depth, weapons and animations.

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 03:59 PM
That might be the case if you're trying to tail purely based on Line of Sight, but Eagle Vision tagging exists in Black Flag for a reason ;) And allows for a very wide area of movement, I never felt like I had no solutions or ways to bypass something (and unlike tailing in Ezio's games, for example, I never felt like I had to be in a constant erratic hurry, due to the tagging mechanic). The eavesdropping parts were trickier due to more limited range, but even then, there are a lot of choices on the path of the ones we're tailing.
That may be so, but still, I find the current eagle vision highly confusing. Tailing based on line of sight should be the rule, not the alternative. But even so, more intuitive options should be given for those who prefer to base their pursuits on purely line of sight. At least, that's my take on it.


Uhm.... huh? O_o Guards gathering around like locusts? Were we playing the same game? :p It's not like I wouldn't get noticed by guards at all, but guards practically don't matter unless you get into restricted zone (or you're on a rooftop, but then again, it's not like players don't know how to deal with guards on rooftops), which are not that many in BF tailing missions, and with lots of hiding options.
That was a simply a force of expression, an exageration, nothing more. But still, many tailing missions occured in the middle of highly restricted areas, which made things painfully more difficult, and boring.


I disagree. There are a lot of visual cues for different free-running paths. And hiding spots. The open world generally speaking provides a considerable number of choices.
I wasn't saying the game is counter-intuitive, mind you, I simply stated it was less intuitive than previous titles. In parallel to this, for instance, is the incorporation of plain pistols and a gun for sleeping/anger darts, when the hidden-blade could/should incorporate all those choices in one single weapon. It would be blatantly more inconspicuous. Another thing I've hated in both Assassin's 3 and 4, is the fact that we can no longer block our opponents. It's these little things that make the most recent titles less enjoyable, at least to me. Or maybe I'm just too attached to the Assassins's 1, 2, Brotherhood and Revelations general mechanics.

Jexx21
07-17-2014, 04:00 PM
Oh, please...

Both Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood, are infinitely deeper (ideologically) than Black Flag. That is my opinion. If you disagree, that is perfect, no problem whatsoever. However, assuming your opinion is best (or true), that is just presumption. All you have, is an opinion, much like I have and everyone else here.

You're free to feel that way, I won't stop you. However, you would have to prove it to me if you want me to feel similarly.


When I say no one, I don't literally mean no one...

Though the majority don't like tailing and the majority do like action, so balanced isn't better.

Also how is AC1's combat any more interesting then the others? Because of shorter counter windows? Hahaha

AC1 and AC2 have the same combat system except for AC2's has more depth, weapons and animations.

Actually AC2 doesn't have the combo chains that AC1 had. I personally think AC2 has the worst combat in the series.

TheHumanTowel
07-17-2014, 04:06 PM
What combo chains?

roostersrule2
07-17-2014, 04:07 PM
Actually AC2 doesn't have the combo chains that AC1 had. I personally think AC2 has the worst combat in the series.There were no combo chains in AC1? I personally think AC4 had the worst combat, with AC3 having the best.

Jexx21
07-17-2014, 04:10 PM
Combo chains is what they were called in AC1. It's where you would hit the attack button right as Altair's blade hit the other guy's blade/the other guy and Altair would follow up by instantly killing him. Great mechanic, never seen after AC1.

roostersrule2
07-17-2014, 04:14 PM
So press X twice to kill?

Hardly a great mechanic.

Shahkulu101
07-17-2014, 04:16 PM
The timing of that was actually pretty hard, it hardly ever came off for me actually. I get stuck in the tutorial for 2-3 minutes all the time just trying to get it right.

TheHumanTowel
07-17-2014, 04:23 PM
Combo chains is what they were called in AC1. It's where you would hit the attack button right as Altair's blade hit the other guy's blade/the other guy and Altair would follow up by instantly killing him. Great mechanic, never seen after AC1.
It's not an instant kill you have to do it a few times before you get the kill animation. And that's in AC2. And the other AC games as far as I'm aware.

Jexx21
07-17-2014, 04:36 PM
No, it is not, and a successful combo chain is in fact an instant kill.

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 04:36 PM
You're free to feel that way, I won't stop you. However, you would have to prove it to me if you want me to feel similarly.
I'm free? Yes, I know I'm free. And so are you, by the way, free to voice your own opinions and make them count. Your statements earlier, presumed you know best, and well, that's just not true. Like I said, all you have are your opinions, nothing more, nothing less. And your opinions are just as good and valuable as anyone else's, not better. But then again, this is common sense, so...

Anyway, I said both Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood and emotionally/ideologically deeper than Black Flag. And I stand by my statement. The way Ezio learned about the Creed; the way he learned respect, even for his greatest enemies (he even spared Rodrigo Borgia, his single greatest enemy in Assassin's 2); the way Ezio fought injustice throughout Rome; his endless philosophical discussions with Machiavelli; Ezio's blatant faith in the inherency of values like morality and virtue in mankind vs. Machiavelli's distinct cynicism; etc.

Jexx21
07-17-2014, 04:41 PM
Black Flag explored Edward's past with Caroline, his relationships with the other pirates; with each person he assassinated he realized that they each were someone he could become, given his ambitions; he grew from seeing the Creed as a statement that could be used as a tool for his own gains to seeing the Creed as a true philosophical statement; he saw that his actions ending with everything he cared about being destroyed, even though he became more successful, he realized that what he wanted anymore wasn't just wealth; he evolved.

shobhit7777777
07-17-2014, 04:41 PM
I like tailing missions (at the very least the way they're implemented in BF) so :p And I'm not the only one. So unless you collect every bit of AC4 feedback ever from all sources and can clearly show that people who don't have a dislike to tailing missions are in a 0.01% minority, then... :rolleyes: :p

And I don't like combat missions in AC. Except boardings, those are awesome, but that's just because of the general feel of it. The AC combat system (AC2 and onward) is not interesting to me enough to like or look forward to combat missions, so no 'the more the merrier' of them to me.

We're in a highly subjective territory here, so balanced is better.

Ditto

TheHumanTowel
07-17-2014, 04:45 PM
No, it is not, and a successful combo chain is in fact an instant kill.
Yes, it is. You press X when swords meet to keep an attack going and then a kill animation plays. It's in all the subsequent AC games including AC3 and Black Flag.

itsamea-mario
07-17-2014, 04:54 PM
No, it is not, and a successful combo chain is in fact an instant kill.

A successful chain does kill them, but i'd hardly say it was instant given that you generally have to hit them several times, unless they're weakened for it to work. which is what Towel was saying.

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 05:01 PM
Black Flag explored Edward's past with Caroline, his relationships with the other pirates; with each person he assassinated he realized that they each were someone he could become, given his ambitions; he grew from seeing the Creed as a statement that could be used as a tool for his own gains to seeing the Creed as a true philosophical statement; he saw that his actions ending with everything he cared about being destroyed, even though he became more successful, he realized that what he wanted anymore wasn't just wealth; he evolved.
Yes, he evolved, that's unmistakable. But all that you've said, doesn't necessarily make it any more meaningful or insightful than Ezio's predicament in Assassin's 2 and/or Brotherhood. Altaďr also took the Creed to the letter, in such a way that it ultimately caused Malik's brother's capture and death, and it took him the entire game to fully understand the truth behind those words.

Shahkulu101
07-17-2014, 05:04 PM
I'm free? Yes, I know I'm free. And so are you, by the way, free to voice your own opinions and make them count. Your statements earlier, presumed you know best, and well, that's just not true. Like I said, all you have are your opinions, nothing more, nothing less. And your opinions are just as good and valuable as anyone else's, not better. But then again, this is common sense, so...

Anyway, I said both Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood and emotionally/ideologically deeper than Black Flag. And I stand by my statement. The way Ezio learned about the Creed; the way he learned respect, even for his greatest enemies (he even spared Rodrigo Borgia, his single greatest enemy in Assassin's 2); the way Ezio fought injustice throughout Rome; his endless philosophical discussions with Machiavelli; Ezio's blatant faith in the inherency of values like morality and virtue in mankind vs. Machiavelli's distinct cynicism; etc.

You're opinion is being challenged in a debate. I fail to see the problem.

As I remember you were the one who claimed that anyone who said AC4 was about more than pirates was wrong and that your opinion was the be all and end all. So you are the one acting that your opinion is right in a rude, disrespectful manner. You're now playing the victim because people have challenged your words.

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 05:13 PM
You're opinion is being challenged in a debate. I fail to see the problem.

As I remember you were the one who claimed that anyone who said AC4 was about more than pirates was wrong and that your opinion was the be all and end all. So you are the one acting that your opinion is right in a rude, disrespectful manner. You're now playing the victim because people have challenged your words.
No. That's just... LOOOL.

Shahkulu101
07-17-2014, 05:22 PM
No. That's just... LOOOL.

Eloquently put.

Here's proof:


And spare me that speech about Black Flag being about the Creed and philosophy. It's a game about pirates, end of story.

Clear evidence that you are the one who claimed you're opinion was correct and could not be challenged.

Then when it was challenged, you got all defensive and hypocritically played the 'You're opinion is not fact!' card when all people did was debate against your rudely presented post.

Kakuzu745
07-17-2014, 05:26 PM
Yes, it is. You press X when swords meet to keep an attack going and then a kill animation plays. It's in all the subsequent AC games including AC3 and Black Flag.

No it is not. The mechanic was dumbed down and you can press the x at any point and it will kill. In AC1 you had to press the button at the right time.

TheHumanTowel
07-17-2014, 05:32 PM
No it is not. The mechanic was dumbed down and you can press the x at any point and it will kill. In AC1 you had to press the button at the right time.
Yes, it is. The window when you can press x is longer but it's still the same mechanic. Are you going to say counters are only in AC1 now because the counter window was made longer for AC2?

Jexx21
07-17-2014, 05:36 PM
Yes, he evolved, that's unmistakable. But all that you've said, doesn't necessarily make it any more meaningful or insightful than Ezio's predicament in Assassin's 2 and/or Brotherhood. Altaďr also took the Creed to the letter, in such a way that it ultimately caused Malik's brother's capture and death, and it took him the entire game to fully understand the truth behind those words.
To be frank, Ezio didn't really get that much development in AC2, or Brotherhood. In AC2 Ezio was simply a young boy out for revenge who had to be taught a simple thing like respect the dead, especially the ones you killed yourself, and then he really didn't get much development the rest of the story until the end where he decided "naw, after killing all those other folks I decide that revenge is a worthless pursuit, so imma let you live." Yes, those lessons are important lessons, but they're pretty basic, they're not that deep, they're something that an Assassin should already know. In Brotherhood, Ezio was actually a lot like a Gary Sue character, he was the smartest character in the game, and Cesare and even Machiavelli were inferior to him, which doesn't make much sense as both men were supposed to be greatly intelligent. Ezio was again on a revenge mission at the beginning of the game, reverting back to before AC2's ending, and then all of a sudden he becomes a genius at unifying people together? Not to mention the villains in both games which were pretty much only after power, status, and wealth with no real philosophies driving them, not allowing for Ezio to have any real developmental moments, the closest we got to that was the Bonfire of the Vanities, which contains the best Ezio speech in those two games, and even so it was a fairly basic concept of letting people believe what they want.

AC4 had a more complex undertone of exploring the darkness inside you and realizing that those you are fighting against could easily be you if you choose to carry along your current path.

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 05:42 PM
Eloquently put.

Here's proof:



Clear evidence that you are the one who claimed you're opinion was correct and could not be challenged.

Then when it was challenged, you got all defensive and hypocritically played the 'You're opinion is not fact!' card when all people did was debate against your rudely presented post.
Again... No.

None of those statements are equal to saying my opinion is best and the other's are trash. Black Flag is, indeed, a game about pirates. What does make it so, is playing pirates for more than 90% of the game, with a couple of Assassins-related missions that mark the end of it. But, you do know the difference between fact and opinion, right? I mean, even the reviews focused it, more than that, Ginx TV keeps saying it, even today: "accept the fact that it's a game more about pirates than it is about Assassins, and you'll enjoy the game".

The only thing you're interested in now, is in incinerating the environment, and for that, you can count me out. Moreover, me and Jexx21, we're presenting our arguments and discussing the issue. So, goodbye. ;)

Kakuzu745
07-17-2014, 05:54 PM
Yes, it is. The window when you can press x is longer but it's still the same mechanic. Are you going to say counters are only in AC1 now because the counter window was made longer for AC2?

You claimed that the mechanic that Jexx described in AC1 was present in all of the AC games...the mechanic was dumbed down and it is different. The window is not bigger, you can virtually can press the x button whenever you want while you are killing one guy, it is a big change from pressing x at an exact point.

The combat mechanics have changed a lot from AC1 to Black Flag and while terms like counter, combo kill and such remain, the mechanic is different now for most of them.

TheHumanTowel
07-17-2014, 05:56 PM
You claimed that the mechanic that Jexx described in AC1 was present in all of the AC games...the mechanic was dumbed down and it is different. The window is not bigger, you can virtually can press the x button whenever you want while you are killing one guy, it is a big change from pressing x at an exact point.

The combat mechanics have changed a lot from AC1 to Black Flag and while terms like counter, combo kill and such remain, the mechanic is different now for most of them.
It is present in all AC games. It is dumbed down but it is present. Just like counters were dumbed down but are still present. This isn't hard to understand.

Shahkulu101
07-17-2014, 05:56 PM
Again... No.

None of those statements are equal to saying my opinion is best and the other's are trash. Black Flag is, indeed, a game about pirates. What does make it so, is playing pirates for more than 90% of the game, with a couple of Assassins-related missions that mark the end of it. But, you do know the difference between fact and opinion, right? I mean, even the reviews focused it, more than that, Ginx TV keeps saying it, even today: "accept the fact that it's a game more about pirates than it is about Assassins, and you'll enjoy the game".

The only thing you're interested in now, is in incinerating the environment, and for that, you can count me out. Moreover, me and Jexx21, we're presenting our arguments and discussing the issue. So, goodbye. ;)

It is a game about pirates and that is fact, but other people including myself argue it is about more than that - for example the philosophy of the Creed. You said 'spear me the speech that it is about the philosophy or Creed'.

That just indicates that you think you're opinion that AC4 is about pirates and nothing more is correct, and that people with a wider view of AC4 who think it is about more than pirates are completely wrong. In other words, you're claiming you're right and you're opinion can't be challenged. Which is what you hypocritically accused other people of.

Anyway I'm done here too. I don't mean any hard feelings, I just think you're being unreasonable.

joelsantos24
07-17-2014, 05:59 PM
To be frank, Ezio didn't really get that much development in AC2, or Brotherhood. In AC2 Ezio was simply a young boy out for revenge who had to be taught a simple thing like respect the dead, especially the ones you killed yourself, and then he really didn't get much development the rest of the story until the end where he decided "naw, after killing all those other folks I decide that revenge is a worthless pursuit, so imma let you live." Yes, those lessons are important lessons, but they're pretty basic, they're not that deep, they're something that an Assassin should already know. In Brotherhood, Ezio was actually a lot like a Gary Sue character, he was the smartest character in the game, and Cesare and even Machiavelli were inferior to him, which doesn't make much sense as both men were supposed to be greatly intelligent. Ezio was again on a revenge mission at the beginning of the game, reverting back to before AC2's ending, and then all of a sudden he becomes a genius at unifying people together? Not to mention the villains in both games which were pretty much only after power, status, and wealth with no real philosophies driving them, not allowing for Ezio to have any real developmental moments, the closest we got to that was the Bonfire of the Vanities, which contains the best Ezio speech in those two games, and even so it was a fairly basic concept of letting people believe what they want.

AC4 had a more complex undertone of exploring the darkness inside you and realizing that those you are fighting against could easily be you if you choose to carry along your current path.
Yes, those lessons are indeed supposed to be old news for an experienced Assassin, but you have put it perfectly, he was indeed just a young man, at that time. When he faced Rodrigo at the Vatican's vault, how long was it since the death of his father and brothers? Ten years? He also learned over time. He killed Vieri while he was still a young boy, and his next assassinations revealed far more reverence and respect.

Well, regarding Brotherhood, I do believe Césare seemed superficial in his pursuit of ultimate power, but Machiavelli seemed otherwise. I did enjoy their discussions. I think Ezio was forced into vindictive circumstances, I mean, the Templars killed half of his family first, and then they killed his uncle and destroyed the Villa. That required a strong response, on his behalf. But even in the middle of it, he found time to built the brotherhood, which even spawned another philosophical discussion with Machiavelly, about the moral merits of humanity.

I never denied Black Flag's undertone of good vs. evil in every single one of us. I just didn't feel it that strongly. But then again, and as I said before, I might just be too attached to the past titles of the series.

Jexx21
07-17-2014, 06:00 PM
AC2 took place over like.. 25 years or around there.

Kakuzu745
07-17-2014, 06:08 PM
It is present in all AC games. It is dumbed down but it is present. Just like counters were dumbed down but are still present. This isn't hard to understand.

The term is present in all AC games, the mechanic, meaning how it works, is different. So, the way it originally worked is only present in AC1. I know, right?

Assassin_M
07-17-2014, 08:20 PM
Read a post from someone talking about "endless" philosophical discussions between Ezio and Machiavelli in brotherhood...do you mind indulging us in the endlessness of these "discussions", kind sir?


No you're just predictable.
keep telling yourself that


Does it really matter if it's history or not? Just because you can read it and see it elsewhere doesn't mean it's less credible.
I didn't say credible, I said deep. you didn't say credible, you said deep.


AC1 had undertones that refelected on both modern and historical politics that I could read about, does that diminish the quality of it?
I didn't say it diminished the quality, i'm saying it's not as deep...AC I's discussions were something that was pretty new, something that not a lot of people would tread upon in such an entertainment medium...AC II? corruption and shiz? that's discussed everywhere, nothing deep about it..

SixKeys
07-17-2014, 08:44 PM
Read a post from someone talking about "endless" philosophical discussions between Ezio and Machiavelli in brotherhood...do you mind indulging us in the endlessness of these "discussions", kind sir?

For real. Their "philosophical" discussions in ACB were just arguing back and forth about how much of a failure Ezio was for not killing Rodrigo when he had the chance and how much of an idiot Machiavelli was for not seeking the help of others.

Assassin_M
07-17-2014, 08:48 PM
For real. Their "philosophical" discussions in ACB were just arguing back and forth about how much of a failure Ezio was for not killing Rodrigo when he had the chance and how much of an idiot Machiavelli was for not seeking the help of others.
Right? they were mostly one liners thrown at each other every time they're together...I mean, I could understand liking ACB's story for making you feel like a boss at every turn but really...Ezio and Niccolo having endless philosophical discussions? That's a different game

Namikaze_17
07-17-2014, 11:26 PM
Regarding Assassin's 3, Connor isn't the embodiment of anything. Like someone said previously, there is no philosophical presence of the Creed in Assassin's 3. Why? Because there are no Assassins in the New World, to begin with. The order died out, and it's single survivor was an arrogant and spiteful old man, that had given up on his life's mission and the order. Connor simply does not have the time to dwelve into what it meant to be an Assassin.

I disagree......Connor & AC3 are the Embodiment of what the "Creed" actually means rather than whatever AC2/ACB were trying to teach me.......sure, AC3 was more Subtle in how they talked about or showed it.......but With AC3, I felt like an Assassin that had a Creed to follow......perhaps not the "Assassins" Creed......but I like to keep to think Connor followed his own way.

I mean C'mon, with yearly releases, they can't have every Assassin LEARN the same way as well.


Right? they were mostly one liners thrown at each other every time they're together...I mean, I could understand liking ACB's story for making you feel like a boss at every turn but really...Ezio and Niccolo having endless philosophical discussions? That's a different game

I could never take ACB "Philosophical" discussions seriously......they always came off so one-sided. People like to always call Connor's view of the world "Black & White" Yes? But as I see it, Ezio is easily the Most Black & White out of all the Assassin's.
There was even a scene with Prince Ahmet in revelations talking about freedom and the two orders.
"We are not so different Ezio.....Peace, Stability, a world where men live without fear. People desire the Truth yes? But even when they have it, they refuse to look.....how do we combat this kind of ignorance?"
Then Ezio goes on to say:
"Freedom is messy Ahmet.....but it is priceless."

Fatal-Feit
07-18-2014, 02:49 AM
I never denied Black Flag's undertone of good vs. evil in every single one of us. I just didn't feel it that strongly. But then again, and as I said before, I might just be too attached to the past titles of the series.

You are awfully too attached to the past titles. Attached to a point where you are filling in the empty gaps to amend for the lack of real substance in the writing. Brotherhood was anything but philosophical.

Dragon782013
07-18-2014, 09:51 AM
But in AC3 there is a brotherhood because Conner does liberate Boston and New York which then mean you can recruit Assassin's i.e. - Stephane, Ducan, Jamie Colley, Jacob Zinger, Dobby Cater... so yes there is kinda a Brotherhood in AC3 & POP_WW_2008 I agree with your original post, In AC4 the missions got to repetitive and as someone posted AC4 was a follow on from AC3. Edward was more about money and Conner was more about Freedom which is like The Creed is about, then freedom is away to chaos??

Dragon782013
07-18-2014, 09:58 AM
Amen Namikze17 :D

joelsantos24
07-18-2014, 11:07 AM
You are awfully too attached to the past titles. Attached to a point where you are filling in the empty gaps to amend for the lack of real substance in the writing. Brotherhood was anything but philosophical.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

This has been approached several times, mostly by game reviewers, and I agree that Ezio has had arguably one of the most complete and sustained character developments of any leading franchise. From a teenage florentine boy, enjoying the sweet life, to the fall in absolute despair, anger and misery following the murder of half of his family. He didn't choose his path, life chose for him, so he was forced into the role of an Assassin and into a life of battle and war. First, compelled by blind revenge, he learned to let go of it and put a more introspective battle for ideals, over the thirst for vengeance. This was Assassin's 2.

Brotherhood, however, thrusted him onto a path of leadership, culminating in his role as Mentor of the order. It might not have been the absolute pinnacle of philosophical enlightment, but it had plenty of interest in that chapter. Very few realize that Brotherhood was intricately political, in both it's message and content, much like Yohalem (writer of the game) intended. So, the game is very much defined by a contrast of cynicism vs. morality, as I pointed out before. The aim was to portrait the (even modern-day) dicotomy between morality in regular society amongst the inescapable range of influence of private corporations on the struggle for power and control. Hence, Ezio's appointment to leader/mentor of the Assassins, as a counterweight. But this wasn't quite that positive or linear. After Assassin's 2, Ezio felt the entitlement to leadership (another point Yohalem wished to address). Simple accomplishments alone, or even merit, should not be the only criteria for a position of power and control. One has to be ready to control and lead, and above all else, accept the responsibilities for his decicions. When one leads men over the battlefield, one may take decisions that may cost their lives.

So, in many ways, Brotherhood was indeed more philosophical than all the rest. It was about leadership, and it meant to convey a message on how to buit with strong foundations and how to lead. And about Machiavelli, he had several worthy discussions with Ezio, but just his presence by Ezio's (and on the Assassins) side is a fantastic and rather paradoxical accomplishment. Anyone who knows about Machiavelli, knows that his writings speak of absolute and uncompromising scheming, subversion and manipulation towards the role of leadership and power. Well, he even praises Césare's intelligence, along one of those discussions with Ezio. The Assassins however, have a philosophical stand absolutely opposite to that, even when they're rather paradoxical people themselves (the Creed is an epitomy of hypocrisy, in fact, since they seek nothing but peace in all things, and yet they try to promote it through murder; they seek to free the minds of men, but require blind obedience to a master and rules; they seek to denounce the dangers of blind faith, and yet they practice it themselves). The way Machiavelli was fit into the Assassins, was rather spectacular, and for most of the game he was even branded as a traitor, given his own distinct values and reasoning.

So, is Brotherhood perfectly written? No. Is it the paradigm of phisolophical meaning? No. But I believe it's reasonably evolved, in that regard.

roostersrule2
07-18-2014, 11:43 AM
keep telling yourself thatI didn't say credible, I said deep. you didn't say credible, you said deep.I didn't say it diminished the quality, i'm saying it's not as deep...AC I's discussions were something that was pretty new, something that not a lot of people would tread upon in such an entertainment medium...AC II? corruption and shiz? that's discussed everywhere, nothing deep about it..Replying to a post 5 pages ago to prove a point, predictable.

I and I meant the credibilty of how deep it was.

And I meant that it didn't diminish the quality of how deep it was.You're also confusing the words controversial and deep.

Farlander1991
07-18-2014, 11:45 AM
That may be so, but still, I find the current eagle vision highly confusing. Tailing based on line of sight should be the rule, not the alternative. But even so, more intuitive options should be given for those who prefer to base their pursuits on purely line of sight. At least, that's my take on it.

I personally think that with the direction that the social stealth and stealth in general in the AC series has evolved, the Eagle Vision tagging for tailing is a great and comfortable design choice, because LoS tailing (AC2 and onwards) is very erratic and does not allow for much freedom of movement due to the fact that as soon as the target breaks LoS, a timer begins, while with the tagging system it felt great because I could move freely in an area around the target without constantly worrying about having a line of sight connection.

For LoS tailing to be a rule, I think the social stealth mechanics should be revised and redesigned, which is what ACU seems to be doing, so maybe it will work there better. And one thing that shouldn't exist is a timer, IMO, so we'd find the target at our own pace (which is what the Adaptive Mission Mechanic seems to have a goal of doing)


That was a simply a force of expression, an exageration, nothing more.

I know, but I think that it applies to AC3 more with its broken detection system where tons of enemies can notice you immediately than to AC4.


is the fact that we can no longer block our opponents

Huh? You just hold the counter button and you parry all attacks (just like you would in previous games with the high profile button).


When I say no one, I don't literally mean no one...

Though the majority don't like tailing and the majority do like action, so balanced isn't better.

Also how is AC1's combat any more interesting then the others? Because of shorter counter windows? Hahaha

AC1 and AC2 have the same combat system except for AC2's has more depth, weapons and animations.

More features does not necessarily imply more depth. Yes, AC2 has more features, but it also does things that diminish the depth.

The only real fault of the AC1 combat system was the overpowered counter (and the AI).
AC2 not only did not fix the counter issue, it made it worse by making the hidden blade a solution to everything with a big counter window, making the strategy even more dominant.
AC2 introduces another dominant combat move in terms of a disarm. Literally nobody can resist a disarm (with the exception of assassination targets like Dante and Rodrigo). What's the point of not being able to block a brute with a normal sword if you can simply disarm him and kill with his own weapon instantly? What's the point of finding an appropriate opening to start attacking an agile if you can disarm him and kill him?

AC2 has these systems, of damage, how big a combo chain should be, how fast weapons attack, how different archetypes act, and all that is rendered useless because it's got even more dominant strategies than AC1 does.

(btw, I've read here somewhere that AC2 removed combo chains, it didn't, you still had to press in a timely manner to perform combo attack and continue your chains, so AC2 retained that feature)

ACB does the same thing. Like, you have to taunt brute before disarming in ACB, or Papal Guards who have to be disarmed on the second hit. You know, including variety to make things more fun. Right? But it still doesn't fix the overpowered counter, AND introduces the kill streak mechanic which is essentially "death galore!"

By the time of ACR, there were so many overpowered concepts in the series, they tried to introduce stuff like enemies who couldn't be killed with a single kill streak (Janissaries), enemies who were resilient to super-mega-crossbow (new Brutes), spearmen couldn't be countered by hidden blades (finally, somebody who couldn't be!), but, honestly, by that time the whole combat/weapon system was such a mess that I don't think it really helped.

Assassin's Creed 3 has got some of the best designed combat in series. There's not a single move that can be used to deal with everybody. Even disarms, either Agiles or Officers (need to recheck who exactly), but somebody's immune to disarms. Though, AC3 has got double counters, so it's still has a 'mega-kill' button, but at least it can't be used as often as counter-attack in previous games. But the problem is, there's little actual depth to it, it's all very basic. Weapons don't matter, weapons feel the same, it's all essentially just archetype vs move. Which is fun for a little while as you're figuring it out, but then becomes very simple. ACIV did the right thing by removing redundancies from AC3 in my opinion (like TONS of different melee weapon types), but didn't really improve on any particular concept.

If I want to experience fun and engaging combat in AC series, I go to a sequence of AC1 where counter-attack is not yet unlocked and go fight a Templar. That's some intense stuff right there, you can't even win by simply chaining a combo (because enemies, with the exception of very basic ones, tend to dodge). All other games, they all had interesting ideas, but they also had a set of flaws that didn't fix the initial problems of the AC1 combat, and added a bunch of their own. This is why combat in AC doesn't interest me, and why AC1 to me is the most favourite combat system so far. My only hope is that ACU is going to expand on the AC1 principles (they did remove the counter-attack after all and brought back the general combat scheme from that game), and knowing that Amancio's working on the game and they tried to make things not overpowered in ACR, hopefully there's not going to be any overpowered dominant strategy or weapon in ACU in the first place.

roostersrule2
07-18-2014, 12:16 PM
More features does not necessarily imply more depth. Yes, AC2 has more features, but it also does things that diminish the depth.

The only real fault of the AC1 combat system was the overpowered counter (and the AI).
AC2 not only did not fix the counter issue, it made it worse by making the hidden blade a solution to everything with a big counter window, making the strategy even more dominant.
AC2 introduces another dominant combat move in terms of a disarm. Literally nobody can resist a disarm (with the exception of assassination targets like Dante and Rodrigo). What's the point of not being able to block a brute with a normal sword if you can simply disarm him and kill with his own weapon instantly? What's the point of finding an appropriate opening to start attacking an agile if you can disarm him and kill him?

AC2 has these systems, of damage, how big a combo chain should be, how fast weapons attack, how different archetypes act, and all that is rendered useless because it's got even more dominant strategies than AC1 does.The disarm button wasn't a 100% guarantee that you'd disarm the guard, regardless of who it was.

I disagree about AC1 and AC2's counter system being OP. Could you imagine those games without it? It'd be boring as ****. The new rock-paper-scissor system will make up for the lack of counters in Unity but no counters in the early AC's would be awful.

The bigger counter window hardly renders all the upgrades useless, seems more like you're clutching at straws to try and prove a point. Especially when archetypes like the spears couldn't be countered, well it was rare that you did anyway.

Farlander1991
07-18-2014, 12:25 PM
The disarm button wasn't a 100% guarantee that you'd disarm the guard, regardless of who it was.

Only if you timed it wrong, and it was really hard to time it wrong.


disagree about AC1 and AC2's counter system being OP. Could you imagine those games without it? It'd be boring as ****.

Why? Without counters you actually have to, *gasp*, go into offensive to kill enemies! It's the counter-system that really nudges to a slow turtle defensive combat system, and if you don't do that you actually do more actions because you want to kill the guys.


The bigger counter window hardly renders all the upgrades useless, seems more like you're clutching at straws to try and prove a point.

I'm not clutching at straws. You can counter everything with the hidden blade in AC2. That's the only weapon I used in that game after learning that, because didn't see a reason to bother with anything else. That's not 'clutching at straws', that's a dominant strategy and a huge flaw, especially when timing didn't have to be precisely right as it had to in AC1 hidden blade counters. I do agree that the window for brutes and seekers in AC2 is smaller for hidden blade, but not as much as to make it really hard. Besides, disarms still work like a charm regardless.


Especially when archetypes like the spears couldn't be countered, well it was rare that you did anyway.

You can't counter spear archetypes with hidden blades only in ACR (I've edited my post to add that and expand on what I find good and bad with each AC game combat)

roostersrule2
07-18-2014, 12:51 PM
Only if you timed it wrong, and it was really hard to time it wrong.

Why? Without counters you actually have to, *gasp*, go into offensive to kill enemies! It's the counter-system that really nudges to a slow turtle defensive combat system, and if you don't do that you actually do more actions because you want to kill the guys.

I'm not clutching at straws. You can counter everything with the hidden blade in AC2. That's the only weapon I used in that game after learning that, because didn't see a reason to bother with anything else. That's not 'clutching at straws', that's a dominant strategy and a huge flaw, especially when timing didn't have to be precisely right as it had to in AC1 hidden blade counters. I do agree that the window for brutes and seekers in AC2 is smaller for hidden blade, but not as much as to make it really hard. Besides, disarms still work like a charm regardless.

You can't counter spear archetypes with hidden blades only in ACR (I've edited my post to add that and expand on what I find good and bad with each AC game combat)No you could easily time it wrong, it was hardly a failsafe system.

Well if you played the game right you could *gasp* use both systems.

If you used the HB there was more of a chance you'd get hit then any other weapon and AC1 also did this anyway.

I never said it was impossiblr to counter the spear archetypes but it was difficult, it was hardly pulled off.

Farlander1991
07-18-2014, 01:07 PM
No you could easily time it wrong, it was hardly a failsafe system.

Hidden blades, maybe, the timing indeed could be tricky there. Not disarms. The only failed disarm I have ever had was with Rodrigo. I personally never tried it with Dante, but read in different sources that it doesn't work with him.


Well if you played the game right you could *gasp* use both systems.

****, man, that's not the point. If playing a game *right* means purposefully ignoring dominant strategies despite their existence that make the life 100 times easier, then it means that, *gasp* the system is ****ing flawed. And AC2 system, while having more features than AC1 system, is also more flawed than AC1 system.

I just listed all the reasons why I prefer AC1 system and what I find at flaws with AC1,AC2,ACB,ACR and other games' systems, based on my own experience (and analysis, I was planning for a blog post about AC combat system analysis and played a lot of combat, but haven't actually got to writing that), which might have differed from yours, and you call that 'clutching at straws' and 'not playing right'.

EDIT: Sorry if I sounded harsh, it's the 'if you played the game right' that frustrated me somewhat, rather than the argument we have itself ;) Arguments are fun! :D

joelsantos24
07-18-2014, 01:13 PM
I personally think that with the direction that the social stealth and stealth in general in the AC series has evolved, the Eagle Vision tagging for tailing is a great and comfortable design choice, because LoS tailing (AC2 and onwards) is very erratic and does not allow for much freedom of movement due to the fact that as soon as the target breaks LoS, a timer begins, while with the tagging system it felt great because I could move freely in an area around the target without constantly worrying about having a line of sight connection.

For LoS tailing to be a rule, I think the social stealth mechanics should be revised and redesigned, which is what ACU seems to be doing, so maybe it will work there better. And one thing that shouldn't exist is a timer, IMO, so we'd find the target at our own pace (which is what the Adaptive Mission Mechanic seems to have a goal of doing)
I agree that social stealth has become messy, particularly after Assassin's 3. And personally, I didn't enjoy how the introduction of physical stealth elements was made. Hopefully, they can revise it and balance all the different elements.



I know, but I think that it applies to AC3 more with its broken detection system where tons of enemies can notice you immediately than to AC4.
Yeah, Assassin's 3 was horrible in that regard. I didn't feel any compelling changes in Black Flag, though. But it just might be my own impression.



Huh? You just hold the counter button and you parry all attacks (just like you would in previous games with the high profile button).
I might not have expressed myself correctly. I didn't mean blocking as in when engaged in combat, I meant the selection of enemies/opponents. In previous titles, you selected your target (highlighting you opponent and then selecting/blocking him using L1) and then you'd take care of business. I don't like the current way of dealing with this, I preferred the older way much more.

Farlander1991
07-18-2014, 01:19 PM
I might not have expressed myself correctly. I didn't mean blocking as in when engaged in combat, I meant the selection of enemies/opponents. In previous titles, you selected your target (highlighting you opponent and then selecting/blocking him using L1) and then you'd take care of business. I don't like the current way of dealing with this, I preferred the older way much more.

Oh. I'm used to this calling locking/target locking :)

I agree with that to an extent. I feel the lack of target locking in situations where there are two enemies close by and I want to attack one (for example a grenadier who prepares to throw a grenade), but can't target him properly. But that kind of stuff doesn't happen often.

joelsantos24
07-18-2014, 01:26 PM
Oh. I'm used to this calling locking/target locking :)

I agree with that to an extent. I feel the lack of target locking in situations where there are two enemies close by and I want to attack one (for example a grenadier who prepares to throw a grenade), but can't target him properly. But that kind of stuff doesn't happen often.
That past system was useful, particularly in confusing situations where you'd have plenty of civilians mixed with the target(s). I admit to have killed some civillians, the first time I dealt with this new system. :p

Farlander1991
07-18-2014, 01:39 PM
I admit to have killed some civillians, the first time I dealt with this new system. :p

O_o You mean with pistols or the likes? Because this system is not supposed to be targeting civilians in combat (heck, you can barely target them out of combat too, I can't puch any annoying people in the face :( ), you must've had some really confusing times with it :D

joelsantos24
07-18-2014, 01:46 PM
O_o You mean with pistols or the likes? Because this system is not supposed to be targeting civilians in combat (heck, you can barely target them out of combat too, I can't puch any annoying people in the face :( ), you must've had some really confusing times with it :D
With pistols? No. I meant like when you target guards, or plan to kill a guard in the middle of a crowd, for instance. At the last moment, an unforeseen civilian steps in the way and I ended up killing him. It even happened in Brotherhood, for that matter. Once or twice, I forgot to lock my target and it happened. That's why I believe the past system was useful, even if I did end up forgetting it. :p

roostersrule2
07-18-2014, 03:00 PM
Hidden blades, maybe, the timing indeed could be tricky there. Not disarms. The only failed disarm I have ever had was with Rodrigo. I personally never tried it with Dante, but read in different sources that it doesn't work with him.



****, man, that's not the point. If playing a game *right* means purposefully ignoring dominant strategies despite their existence that make the life 100 times easier, then it means that, *gasp* the system is ****ing flawed. And AC2 system, while having more features than AC1 system, is also more flawed than AC1 system.

I just listed all the reasons why I prefer AC1 system and what I find at flaws with AC1,AC2,ACB,ACR and other games' systems, based on my own experience (and analysis, I was planning for a blog post about AC combat system analysis and played a lot of combat, but haven't actually got to writing that), which might have differed from yours, and you call that 'clutching at straws' and 'not playing right'.

EDIT: Sorry if I sounded harsh, it's the 'if you played the game right' that frustrated me somewhat, rather than the argument we have itself ;) Arguments are fun! :DIndeed arguments are fun, but I'll have to end this one here I'm afraid.

I'm on my phone and writing long paragraphs gets really tedious also we're repeating ourselves. It seems someone else will have to enlighten you on how amazing AC2 is.

Jexx21
07-18-2014, 03:36 PM
With pistols? No. I meant like when you target guards, or plan to kill a guard in the middle of a crowd, for instance. At the last moment, an unforeseen civilian steps in the way and I ended up killing him. It even happened in Brotherhood, for that matter. Once or twice, I forgot to lock my target and it happened. That's why I believe the past system was useful, even if I did end up forgetting it. :p

But you said that this happened because of the new system.

You can't kill civilians at all in the new system unless you use a pistol.

roostersrule2
07-18-2014, 03:39 PM
But you said that this happened because of the new system.

You can't kill civilians at all in the new system unless you use a pistol.Yes you can.

It's just harder.

Fatal-Feit
07-18-2014, 04:05 PM
This has been approached several times, mostly by game reviewers, and I agree that Ezio has had arguably one of the most complete and sustained character developments of any leading franchise. From a teenage florentine boy, enjoying the sweet life, to the fall in absolute despair, anger and misery following the murder of half of his family. He didn't choose his path, life chose for him, so he was forced into the role of an Assassin and into a life of battle and war. First, compelled by blind revenge, he learned to let go of it and put a more introspective battle for ideals, over the thirst for vengeance. This was Assassin's 2.

AC:2 lacked a lot of substance, and like AC:B, was rhetorical for most of its campaign. I enjoyed AC:2, but as a fun game, not a compelling one.


Brotherhood, however, thrusted him onto a path of leadership, culminating in his role as Mentor of the order. It might not have been the absolute pinnacle of philosophical enlightment, but it had plenty of interest in that chapter. Very few realize that Brotherhood was intricately political, in both it's message and content, much like Yohalem (writer of the game) intended. So, the game is very much defined by a contrast of cynicism vs. morality, as I pointed out before. The aim was to portrait the (even modern-day) dicotomy between morality in regular society amongst the inescapable range of influence of private corporations on the struggle for power and control. Hence, Ezio's appointment to leader/mentor of the Assassins, as a counterweight. But this wasn't quite that positive or linear. After Assassin's 2, Ezio felt the entitlement to leadership (another point Yohalem wished to address). Simple accomplishments alone, or even merit, should not be the only criteria for a position of power and control. One has to be ready to control and lead, and above all else, accept the responsibilities for his decicions. When one leads men over the battlefield, one may take decisions that may cost their lives.

Except NON of that was challenged in the game. Brotherhood Ezio was a Gary Sue who's only rival was the game keeping his victims alive to sustain the length. Ezio have become older and wiser since AC:2, sure. And he has been made a mentor for his ''development'', okay. Well, that's as deep as it got. Nothing in the game had challenged the mindset of being a leader. If it weren't for the Assassin Brotherhood gimmick, Ezio wouldn't have wasted his time recruiting for sure. Because last I checked, he jumped into the middle of a war without support. You also had small political debates, and persona drama between the casts. --All Grade B, at best. Cynicism vs morality have always been a part of Assassin's Creed. For AC:B's case, it was pure black and white. The villains couldn't be more generic, power hungry, and Ezio couldn't be more perfect in his ventures. That is bland for Assassin's Creed.


So, in many ways, Brotherhood was indeed more philosophical than all the rest. It was about leadership, and it meant to convey a message on how to buit with strong foundations and how to lead. And about Machiavelli, he had several worthy discussions with Ezio, but just his presence by Ezio's (and on the Assassins) side is a fantastic and rather paradoxical accomplishment. Anyone who knows about Machiavelli, knows that his writings speak of absolute and uncompromising scheming, subversion and manipulation towards the role of leadership and power. Well, he even praises Césare's intelligence, along one of those discussions with Ezio. The Assassins however, have a philosophical stand absolutely opposite to that, even when they're rather paradoxical people themselves (the Creed is an epitomy of hypocrisy, in fact, since they seek nothing but peace in all things, and yet they try to promote it through murder; they seek to free the minds of men, but require blind obedience to a master and rules; they seek to denounce the dangers of blind faith, and yet they practice it themselves). The way Machiavelli was fit into the Assassins, was rather spectacular, and for most of the game he was even branded as a traitor, given his own distinct values and reasoning.

As I said, mostly rhetoricalness. Cesare was never represented as intelligent, he was only praised as such. Machiavelli? Not him either. He was always 2nd to Ezio, demoted to your typical sidekick, except with a title in every cut-scene. Machiavelli was not branded as a traitor because of his different views, but because he was suspicious and caught La Volpe's attention.

joelsantos24
07-18-2014, 04:55 PM
AC:2 lacked a lot of substance, and like AC:B, was rhetorical for most of its campaign. I enjoyed AC:2, but as a fun game, not a compelling one.
Could you elaborate, please?



Except NON of that was challenged in the game. Brotherhood Ezio was a Gary Sue who's only rival was the game keeping his victims alive to sustain the length. Ezio have become older and wiser since AC:2, sure. And he has been made a mentor for his ''development'', okay. Well, that's as deep as it got. Nothing in the game had challenged the mindset of being a leader. If it weren't for the Assassin Brotherhood gimmick, Ezio wouldn't have wasted his time recruiting for sure. Because last I checked, he jumped into the middle of a war without support. You also had small political debates, and persona drama between the casts. --All Grade B, at best. Cynicism vs morality have always been a part of Assassin's Creed. For AC:B's case, it was pure black and white. The villains couldn't be more generic, power hungry, and Ezio couldn't be more perfect in his ventures. That is bland for Assassin's Creed.
I think it was more than just a gimmick. I remember Ezio talking to Machiavelli after his arrival in Rome. That was the discussion where Machiavelli praised Césare's supposed intelligence and leadership skills. Machiavelli revealed even deeper cynicism, upon turning his finger against the people. Ezio later responded that the belief in mankind had always been at the core of the order's ideals and founding principles. In my opinion, that was the genesis of the rebuilding of the brotherhood. Recruiting Assassins, was not only necessary, given the scope of the enemy/fight at hand, but also vital, given these founding beliefs in the people, and moreover, Machiavelli's somewhat deffiance of this notion. Machiavelli didn't believe the people were strong enough to stand and fight, he thought they were fools, and too easily fooled/manipuladed by the Borgia. After a long time in Rome, Machiavelli accomplished nothing. The remaining members of the order had turned their back on him and there was effectively no underground to work with. Ezio came, and turned everything around. That was also symbolic of the enormous difference in both approach and ideals, of both of them. Again, the philosophical dicotomy between Machiavelli's deep subversive cynicism vs. Ezio's virtue (as he, himself, put it in the game).



As I said, mostly rhetoricalness. Cesare was never represented as intelligent, he was only praised as such. Machiavelli? Not him either. He was always 2nd to Ezio, demoted to your typical sidekick, except with a title in every cut-scene. Machiavelli was not branded as a traitor because of his different views, but because he was suspicious and caught La Volpe's attention.
I also believe Césare was poorly promoted. But his power and influence were still felt. I think Ubisoft did a poor job at executing Césare's sway and influence over the land and people. However, he remains the very own epitomy of the villain, in Assassin's Creed (I mean, take a look at the different villains in the games, you go from Robert De Sable, to the Borgia, and then Ahmed, Haytham's janitor and what's-his-name). But Machiavelli was branded a traitor, essentially by Volpe, as you put it very well, but it was no coincidence. Or do you believe that Machiavelli's precedents didn't play a part in this growing suspicion against him? Of course he was followed, of course he was a target of great suspicion, because he had suspicious ideals to begin with. At least, as the Assassins are concerned.

Hans684
07-18-2014, 05:14 PM
I mean, take a look at the different villains in the games, you go from Robert De Sable, to the Borgia, and then Ahmed, Haytham's janitor and what's-his-name.

You seem to have great understanding for the leader theme or what ever of ACB making it more *special* in your eyes while going back to basics when talking about AC3 and Black Flag.
And it's Haytham Kenway and Laureano De Torres y Ayala, please explain why those two true Templars isn't worthy or whatever point are making, the Borgia's is responsible for the Dark Age of The Templar Order, their plain evil.


But Machiavelli was branded a traitor, essentially by Volpe, as you put it very well, but it was no coincidence. Or do you believe that Machiavelli's precedents didn't play a part in this growing suspicion against him? Of course he was followed, of course he was a target of great suspicion, because he had suspicious ideals to begin with. At least, as the Assassins are concerned.

He was branded traitor by La Volpe because he used to work for Cesare, left before the villa attack and also was accused by La Volpe for reveling the locations of his spies. That was La Volpe's theory, not something the entire Assassin Order believed.

FrankieSatt
07-18-2014, 05:23 PM
Black Flag was a Pirate Simulator, nothing more. It was a really good Pirate Simulator, but an AC it was not. AC 3 wasn't the best AC game and in my opinion led to the decline of the series and why we ended up with the abomination Black Flag.

AC Unity is looking to be a complete opposite of Black Flag and looks like a true AC game and one that will rejuvenate the series.

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 05:24 PM
I think it was more than just a gimmick. I remember Ezio talking to Machiavelli after his arrival in Rome. That was the discussion where Machiavelli praised Césare's supposed intelligence and leadership skills. Machiavelli revealed even deeper cynicism, upon turning his finger against the people. Ezio later responded that the belief in mankind had always been at the core of the order's ideals and founding principles. In my opinion, that was the genesis of the rebuilding of the brotherhood. Recruiting Assassins, was not only necessary, given the scope of the enemy/fight at hand, but also vital, given these founding beliefs in the people, and moreover, Machiavelli's somewhat deffiance of this notion. Machiavelli didn't believe the people were strong enough to stand and fight, he thought they were fools, and too easily fooled/manipuladed by the Borgia. After a long time in Rome, Machiavelli accomplished nothing. The remaining members of the order had turned their back on him and there was effectively no underground to work with. Ezio came, and turned everything around. That was also symbolic of the enormous difference in both approach and ideals, of both of them. Again, the philosophical dicotomy between Machiavelli's deep subversive cynicism vs. Ezio's virtue (as he, himself, put it in the game).
The praise of Cesare from Machiavelli was only there to satisfy the historical connection between Canon Niccolo and historical Niccolo, Niccolo's opinion of Cesare is NEVER brought up ever again later, that one bit of "praise" at the beginning was all that was needed to make the historical connection, there was no more depth to it than Petruccio's feather side quest in AC II--had they brought it up more than once or touched upon it more then sure, I would be inclined to agree.

The discussions you talk about are FAR from discussions, really..Ezio never explains why the belief in mankind has always been in the core, he never tried to convince Niccolo, he just TELLS him that fact about the people and the Assassins. The only interesting back and forth was Machiavelli's counter when he said that "relying on the people is like building on sand" to which Ezio replies with the sentence mentioned above....and offers no reason...and then a thief steals his money AND THEN Ezio threatens him with death after catching him...there's no moral or philosophical payoff from that "discussion" whatsoever.

Speaking of Machiavelli's cynicism, he was the one that was right from the VERY beginning. Killing Rodrigo would have spared everyone the mess that was the start of Brotherhood and the rest of Ezio's Roman adventure. Ezio kept taking down Cesare's power supplies one by one but ONLY when Rodrigo was killed did Cesare truly crumble because really the only important source for Cesare's power which allowed him to have everything else was Rodrigo's position as Pope...so not only is Machiavelli, the supposed cynic, right but also Ezio--the virtuous and optimistic--was made to look like a fool who was hiding his failure to assassinate Rodrigo in the vatican because "killing you wont bring my family back" when he's SUPPOSED to have been a fully devoted assassin by that point so SUPPOSEDLY, he was over revenge BUT he knew how dangerous Rodrigo still was and yet he still let him live but that's another story entirely.

I'm really trying to be convinced that Brotherhood has this clear direction and philosophical depth but all I remember is nothing of that caliber.



I also believe Césare was poorly promoted. But his power and influence were still felt. I think Ubisoft did a poor job at executing Césare's sway and influence over the land and people. However, he remains the very own epitomy of the villain, in Assassin's Creed (I mean, take a look at the different villains in the games, you go from Robert De Sable, to the Borgia, and then Ahmed, Haytham's janitor and what's-his-name). But Machiavelli was branded a traitor, essentially by Volpe, as you put it very well, but it was no coincidence. Or do you believe that Machiavelli's precedents didn't play a part in this growing suspicion against him? Of course he was followed, of course he was a target of great suspicion, because he had suspicious ideals to begin with. At least, as the Assassins are concerned.
It was all Rodrigo's influence, not Cesare's really...the poverty...etc was all Rodrigo, which everyone in the game makes sure to tell you about. How can a king's influence and power be felt when for the bulk of the game, he's not even present? there's no real struggle...just Ezio conveniently besting Cesare at every turn without Cesare noticing AT ALL, even after returning to Rome halfway through the end of the story...they just show him killing an old guy and that's it...oooooohhh way to exercise your will and influence, man, very convincing.

A villain's position has NOTHING to do with how good of an antagonist he/she is...especially in the Templar realm of antagonism.

About Machiavelli, you just repeated Fatal's words albeit added more words in order to give it some superficial depth. Machiavelli was reduced to a side kick, nothing more.

your problem is that, you seem to apply all these deep dynamics and rhetoric in the stories and narratives of AC II and ACB but you easily and quickly dismissed any argument about the depth of AC IV and AC III, which is really not helping your case at all

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 05:25 PM
but an AC it was not.
Yes it was..

MasterAssasin84
07-18-2014, 05:28 PM
Black Flag was one of the most Assassins Creed games ive played !!

It really explored the ideals of Assassins and Templar Ideology and i felt that Edward fully justified the ironies between the two creeds .

FrankieSatt
07-18-2014, 05:35 PM
Yes it was..

That may be your opinion but it's not the opinion of everyone, including me.


Black Flag was one of the most Assassins Creed games ive played !!

It really explored the ideals of Assassins and Templar Ideology and i felt that Edward fully justified the ironies between the two creeds .

To me it was all about being a Pirate. The focus was more on sailing your Pirate Ship than it was about the story of the Assassins vs Templars. Edward was the worst of the Ancestors. He never wanted nor cared about the Assassins or the battle between them and the Templars. Edward was more concerned about being rich from the beginning to the end.

While AC 3 wasn't the best in the series it was much more an AC game than Black Flag.

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 05:38 PM
That may be your opinion but it's not the opinion of everyone, including me.
Only talk about yourself, please...bringing forth your opinion as part of a bigger scope just implies that you feel that your opinion is weak.

FrankieSatt
07-18-2014, 05:42 PM
Only talk about yourself, please...bringing forth your opinion as part of a bigger scope just implies that you feel that your opinion is weak.

My opinion isn't weak at all. Read all the complaints about the game that are on these forums. I'm not even close to being the only person who believes Black Flag isn't even close to an AC game and focuses more on Pirating than actually being an Assassin.

Just because is says Assassin's Creed on the Box doesn't make it an Assassin's Creed game. The game itself is the true test and Black Flag fails miserably.

Kakuzu745
07-18-2014, 05:43 PM
Only talk about yourself, please...bringing forth your opinion as part of a bigger scope just implies that you feel that your opinion is weak.

It does not...he is just echoing what he has read in the forums...it does not really take any effort to notice that is the opinion of many.

Do not try to imply something that was not implied, that just makes your argument look weak.

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 05:46 PM
My opinion isn't weak at all. Read all the complaints about the game that are on these forums. I'm not even close to being the only person who believes Black Flag isn't even close to an AC game and focuses more on Pirating than actually being an Assassin.
There he goes again, if you REALLY don't think your opinion is weak then you wouldn't be leaning on "others" who share it, you'd be fine with standing on your own...a lot more people here, than complainers, think that AC IV brought the best Assassin experience in the series, so there's that too...for every one thread complaining that AC IV was not an Assassin game, there's 6 people disagreeing.


Just because is says Assassin's Creed on the Box doesn't make it an Assassin's Creed game. The game itself is the true test and Black Flag fails miserably.
I thought this was all subjective? or is it "my opinioz your opnionz" when it's convenient for you?


It does not...he is just echoing what he has read in the forums...it does not really take any effort to notice that is the opinion of many.

Do not try to imply something that was not implied, that just makes your argument look weak.
Bringing it up in an argument where mass opinion is of no relevance is what implies that, please read and fully comprehend before butting in on a conversation

FrankieSatt
07-18-2014, 06:06 PM
There he goes again, if you REALLY don't think your opinion is weak then you wouldn't be leaning on "others" who share it, you'd be fine with standing on your own...a lot more people here, than complainers, think that AC IV brought the best Assassin experience in the series, so there's that too...for every one thread complaining that AC IV was not an Assassin game, there's 6 people disagreeing.

People can have their opinions as well. That doesn't mean those who had problems with the game doesn't count.



I thought this was all subjective? or is it "my opinioz your opnionz" when it's convenient for you?

I have never said anything about what I'm saying as "Fact". Everything I have typed so far has been MY opinion of the game that I have played twice all the way through, on both XBox Consoles... the XBox One version only after it dropped to the Bargain Bin for $20.00

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 06:10 PM
People can have their opinions as well. That doesn't mean those who had problems with the game doesn't count.
Where did I say that people who had problems with the game don't count? I'm saying that in an argument, bringing up other people's opinions--when it's relevant--implies that you feel your opinion can't stand on its own without support from others.



I have never said anything about what I'm saying as "Fact". Everything I have typed so far has been MY opinion of the game that I have played twice all the way through, on both XBox Consoles... the XBox One version only after it dropped to the Bargain Bin for $20.00
You didn't but it's the implication of "just because it has AC on the cover does not make it AC" but eh whatever, i look silly arguing this point now so i'll drop it..

joelsantos24
07-18-2014, 06:25 PM
The praise of Cesare from Machiavelli was only there to satisfy the historical connection between Canon Niccolo and historical Niccolo, Niccolo's opinion of Cesare is NEVER brought up ever again later, that one bit of "praise" at the beginning was all that was needed to make the historical connection, there was no more depth to it than Petruccio's feather side quest in AC II--had they brought it up more than once or touched upon it more then sure, I would be inclined to agree.

The discussions you talk about are FAR from discussions, really..Ezio never explains why the belief in mankind has always been in the core, he never tried to convince Niccolo, he just TELLS him that fact about the people and the Assassins. The only interesting back and forth was Machiavelli's counter when he said that "relying on the people is like building on sand" to which Ezio replies with the sentence mentioned above....and offers no reason...and then a thief steals his money AND THEN Ezio threatens him with death after catching him...there's no moral or philosophical payoff from that "discussion" whatsoever.

Speaking of Machiavelli's cynicism, he was the one that was right from the VERY beginning. .Killing Rodrigo would have spared everyone the mess that was the start of Brotherhood and the rest of Ezio's Roman adventure. Ezio kept taking down Cesare's power supplies one by one but ONLY when Rodrigo was killed did Cesare truly crumble because really the only important source for Cesare's power which allowed him to have everything else was Rodrigo's position as Pope...so not only is Machiavelli, the supposed cynic, right but also Ezio--the virtuous and optimistic--was made to look like a fool who was hiding his failure to assassinate Rodrigo in the vatican because "killing you wont bring my family back" when he's SUPPOSED to have been a fully devoted assassin by that point so SUPPOSEDLY, he was over revenge BUT he knew how dangerous Rodrigo still was and yet he still let him live but that's another story entirely.

I'm really trying to be convinced that Brotherhood has this clear direction and philosophical depth but all I remember is nothing of that caliber.
Whatever the reason is, for Machiavelli's praise of Césare, it's irrelevant, it's there. And as for the connection you make with Petruccio's feather quest, I'm not even gonna dwelve into that.

Does Ezio need to explain why the beliefs in manking are at the core of the order? What are they fighting for, then? What have they been fighting for, for centuries? A hobby? The basic principles of the order may be deeply hypocritical, but still they fight for manking and it's freedom from tyrany. Ezio's actions spoke more than his words ever could. Like I said before, Machiavelli accomplished nothing, and relying on the people was like buiding on sand, so Ezio took those words and built the brotherhood. More than that, he rekindled the trust and cooperation whithin the order, something Machiavelli never managed to accomplish.

I also used to believe that killing Rodrigo would've solved everything. But no, it wouldn't. First, had Rodrigo been killed, Césare, still at the peak of it's power and influence, would've been even more likely to attack the Villa and go further, destroying everything in his path. He would've been free. He said so, when he met with De Valois, Juan Borgia and Micheletto. Without Rodrigo, they would've done as they pleased. Not only that, what change would Rodrigo's death effectively promote upon Rome and it's decadence? The people would still be robbed, abused, killed, etc. Ezio says this in the game. Ezio is trying to promote real change, to destroy the evil from it's root, not just effect revenge or carry out a blind assassination mission on a target.

And contrary to what you've said, it wasn't Ezio who just dismissed Machiavelli's arguments, it was the opposite. Machiavelli's reaction to this was cynical, at best, stating that it's precisely because of the people that men like the Borgia rose to power. Ezio then asks him what to do. How to address the decadence, the chaos and the misery in Rome, Romagna, Venice, etc? Ezio asks "would you kill them as they come, or stop it at it's source?" Machiavelli answers: "this is not a debate on philosophy." Ezio then says that perhaps it should be, because he didn't seem to have much faith in the very own principles that made him an Assassin to begin with. And Ezio being robbed right after that, wasn't the Gods conveniently showing Ezio how wrong he was, but the opposite. It was the very by-product of what he feared and endeavoured to destroy, the very evil that created a misery without parallel there in Rome, the decay, the chaos, the death, etc. The thief explained that he was desperate, he had no money, no food, his pregnant wife was sick and there was no doctor to be found. Ezio's answer to the thief's terror and tears? He pointed him towards the same doctor that treated him earlier. There are you morals and ethics, the same one's you desperately try to deny.



It was all Rodrigo's influence, not Cesare's really...the poverty...etc was all Rodrigo, which everyone in the game makes sure to tell you about. How can a king's influence and power be felt when for the bulk of the game, he's not even present? there's no real struggle...just Ezio conveniently besting Cesare at every turn without Cesare noticing AT ALL, even after returning to Rome halfway through the end of the story...they just show him killing an old guy and that's it...oooooohhh way to exercise your will and influence, man, very convincing.

A villain's position has NOTHING to do with how good of an antagonist he/she is...especially in the Templar realm of antagonism.

About Machiavelli, you just repeated Fatal's words albeit added more words in order to give it some superficial depth. Machiavelli was reduced to a side kick, nothing more.

your problem is that, you seem to apply all these deep dynamics and rhetoric in the stories and narratives of AC II and ACB but you easily and quickly dismissed any argument about the depth of AC IV and AC III, which is really not helping your case at all
Regarding this, I'll just say that I never denied Assassin's 3 values. As for Black Flag's, though, as someone has suddently pointed out here, it's merely a pirate's simulador. That's my humble opinion. Not much more I can (and want to) say about that.

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 06:43 PM
Whatever the reason is, for Machiavelli's praise of Césare, it's irrelevant, it's there. And as for the connection you make with Petruccio's feather quest, I'm not even gonna dwelve into that.
It actually is relevant, it's relevant to the story and how Machiavelli's character is portrayed. The game basically dismissed EVERY praise that Niccolo gives Cesare by making him look like a wimp, there's no delving on the praise, just a passing mention because the real Niccolo was fond of Cesare Borgia--the failure to capitalize on this bit of historical information is a lack of depth in of itself.


Does Ezio need to explain why the beliefs in manking are at the core of the order? What are they fighting for, then? What have they been fighting for, for centuries? A hobby? The basic principles of the order may be deeply hypocritical, but still they fight for manking and it's freedom from tyrany. Ezio's actions spoke more than his words ever could. Like I said before, Machiavelli accomplished nothing, and relying on the people was like buiding on sand, so Ezio took those words and built the brotherhood. More than that, he rekindled the trust and cooperation whithin the order, something Machiavelli never managed to accomplish.
He needs to explain why to Machiavelli, yeah--He's the one who was unconvinced of recruiting people. Theeeere we go, the Brotherhood...how much did we use the Brotherhood in ACB? if not, how much was the presence of the Brotherhood emphasized in ACB? Ezio carried out MOST of his missions as a lone wolf.

Machiavelli did not accomplish those not due to any clever plot point (apart from La Volpe thinking he's a traitor) but because the game wanted to portray Ezio as this awesome dude who can do things. EVERYTHING Ezio did, Machiavelli could have done...helping the Courtesans, funding their place, aiding Bartolomeo and rebuilding his Barracks. All of these events conveniently revolve around Ezio because he's the protagonist, nothing more.


I also used to believe that killing Rodrigo would've solved everything. But no, it wouldn't. First, had Rodrigo been killed, Césare still at the peak of it's power and influence, would be even more likely to attack the Villa and destroy everything in his path. He would've been free. He said so, when he met with De Valois, Juan Borgia and Micheletto. Without Rodrigo, they would've done as they pleased. Not only that, what change would Rodrigo's death effectively promote upon Rome and it's decadence? The people would still be robbed, abused, killed, etc. Ezio says this in the game. Ezio is trying to promote real change, to destroy the evil from it's root, not just effect revenge or carry out a blind assassination mission of a target.
Cesare was at the peak of his power BECAUSE he was Rodrigo's son. He only had that power BECAUSE of Rodrigo's position, his power was the papacy and Rodrigo controlled it. face it, it's a plain fact now that had Ezio killed Rodrigo in the Vatican vault, Cesare would have no power whatsoever because everything would have been taken from him because his father is no longer pope...the papal forces? gone..control over Rome? gone...support of the french? gone...finances? gone gone gone..nothing held Cesare's power together more than the Papacy, when that was gone, everything else crumbled...Ezio wasted his time.

It would have been much, MUCH easier to root out the corruption in Rome AFTER the Borgia were deposed.


And contrary to what you've said, it wasn't Ezio who just dismissed Machiavelli's arguments, it was the opposite. Machiavelli's reaction to this was cynical, at best, stating that it's precisely because of the people that men like the Borgia rose to power. Ezio then asks him what to do. How to address the decadence, the chaos and the misery in Rome, Romagna, Venice, etc. Ezio asks "would you kill them as they come, or stop it at it's source?" Machiavelli answers: "this is not a debane on philosophy." Ezio then says that perhaps it should be, because he didn't seem to have much faith in the very creed that made him an Assassin to begin with. And ezio being robbed right after, was not the Gods cenveniently showing Ezio how wrong he was. It was the very by-product of what he feared and fough to destroy, the very evil that created a misery withour parallel, the decay, the chaos, the death, etc. The thief explained that he was desperate, he had no money, no food, his pregnant wife was sick and there was no doctor to be found. There are you morals and ethics, the same one's you desperately try to deny.
woah woah woah, where was any of this?? Those quotes are not from the game and the events are not even what happened in the game...are you seriously quoting the Brotherhood Novel right now?



Regarding this, I'll just say that I never denied Assassin's 3 values.
You actually did..


As for Black Flag's, though, as someone has suddently pointed out here, it's merely a pirate's simulador, in my humble opinion. Not much more I can (and want to) say about that.
Well, you're gonna have to look at AC IV as deeply as you looked at Brotherhood because it's not merely a pirate simulator...that's stripping it of any and everything gameplay and story wise.

joelsantos24
07-18-2014, 07:05 PM
How on earth, you manage to dismiss every single point of value in Brotherhood, is beyond me. I have a very different opinion than your's, and I stand by that opinion. If you favour Assassin's 3 and Black Flag, good for you, I don't. As a matter of fact, I actually enjoyed Assassin's 3. Nothing of the sort happened with Black Flag, and there's no reason for me to believe that ever will, as it was literal chinese torture, for me to even go through that game until the end, the first time around.

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 07:10 PM
How on earth, you manage to dismiss every single point of value in Brotherhood, is beyond me. I have a very different opinion than your's, and I stand by that opinion. If you favour Assassin's 3 and Black Flag, good for you, I don't. As a matter of fact, I actually enjoyed Assassin's 3. Nothing of the sort happened with Black Flag, and there's no reason for me to believe that ever will, as it was literal chinese torture, for me to even go through that game until the end.
How on earth you dismiss every point of value in AC IV is beyond me too. I don't see the value you see in ACB's story because apparently we both played different games...the discussions between Machiavelli and Ezio that you quoted never occurred in the game and the whole thief thing never happened...

We're talking about Brotherhood THE GAME, not the novel or wherever you got those deep discussions and philosophies from...none of what you mentioned as instances of depth in the story and characters is EVER present in brotherhood the game..

Farlander1991
07-18-2014, 07:14 PM
and the whole thief thing never happened...

Well, there was a thief, but "Get out of here before I regret sparing your life." was the full extent of our conversation with him.

Kakuzu745
07-18-2014, 07:17 PM
Bringing it up in an argument where mass opinion is of no relevance is what implies that, please read and fully comprehend before butting in on a conversation

And how is bringing that up relevant to the conversation? Trying to ditch someone's argument with semantics or that kind of argument is as irrelevant as it gets to any conversation...

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 07:27 PM
And how is bringing that up relevant to the conversation? Trying to ditch someone's argument with semantics or that kind of argument is as irrelevant as it gets to any conversation...
You seem to be confused, bringing up what's relevant and what's not IS relevant to the conversation, so again...try comprehending fully before rushing to defend someone who happens to share your opinion against someone who does not..


Well, there was a thief, but "Get out of here before I regret sparing your life." was the full extent of our conversation with him.
Yeah, that's what I meant.

Kakuzu745
07-18-2014, 07:47 PM
You seem to be confused, bringing up what's relevant and what's not IS relevant to the conversation, so again...try comprehending fully before rushing to defend someone who happens to share your opinion against someone who does not.

I really do not care who shares my opinion or not in terms of defending them...again yo do not present a valid argument and just try to focus your attack in the person and not the argument. You are such an internet stereotype that it is boring.

I will give you what you so desperately need: You are right!

Locopells
07-18-2014, 07:49 PM
Guys...

Jexx21
07-18-2014, 08:06 PM
If what POP said is true, then there is a certain level of depth to the story of Brotherhood. However, I don't think it's as deep as AC3 or AC4.

How about we make this argument less ACB vs AC4 and more just hearing each other out and refusing to see the other person's side? Granted, I think those who see AC4 as purely a pirate game are looking at too much from the gameplay perspective, rather than a story perspective.

Kakuzu745
07-18-2014, 08:26 PM
If what POP said is true, then there is a certain level of depth to the story of Brotherhood. However, I don't think it's as deep as AC3 or AC4.

How about we make this argument less ACB vs AC4 and more just hearing each other out and refusing to see the other person's side? Granted, I think those who see AC4 as purely a pirate game are looking at too much from the gameplay perspective, rather than a story perspective.

I agree. In my case I mainly see it from a gameplay perspective, however I do not think the story of AC4 is that deep. In my opinion it actually felt quite plain and to the point...could you please elaborate?

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 08:33 PM
If what POP said is true, then there is a certain level of depth to the story of Brotherhood. However, I don't think it's as deep as AC3 or AC4..
It's not true, he's basing his argument on the novel of ACB not the game..

Shahkulu101
07-18-2014, 08:42 PM
Why do people get annoyed when someone tries to counter their argument in a debate?

And why is it always the people who are completely dismissive of other peoples opinion that get upset when someone disagrees with them?

Farlander1991
07-18-2014, 08:48 PM
I'm actually not sure what he was basing it on (would like to hear more information). I've glanced at the novel, the interaction with the thief is almost the same. Ezio gets back the purse, thief runs away, Ezio yells that he's not done with him. I've also found a spot where we learn that the thief's name is Bentio and La Volpe apologizes for his behaviour, but that's all I could find on the person. Maybe it's a different thief or happens in a different spot.

I did notice a bit further one big difference, Machiavelli was more knowledgeable in what's happening in Rome. In first conversation in the Assassin base, he knew that the Apple was with Cesare, and that Caterina was captured, while in the game he didn't and Ezio berated him for that.



Machiavelli: Now, I propose we begin planning our assault on the Borgia.
Ezio: Oh, you think we are ready for such an attack?
Machiavelli: Sě. (Yes.)
Ezio: Do you know, for instance, where the Borgia troops took Caterina Sforza (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Caterina_Sforza)?
Machiavelli: What?
Ezio: Are you also unaware that the Borgia have captured the Apple of Eden (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Ezio's_Apple_of_Eden)?
Machiavelli: How could we have lost the Apple?
Ezio: So, you do not know what goes on with our enemies. Do we at least have an underground here to work with?



The quote's from the game, and it paints Machiavelli in a worse light than the novel:


Ezio hesitated. “You think we are ready for such an attack?”
“Sě.”
“I’d like to know where the Borgia are holding Caterina Sforza first.
She’d be a powerful ally.”
Machiavelli looked nonplussed. “If she is their prisoner, she’ll be held at
the Castel Sant’Angelo. They’ve turned it into a stronghold.” He paused. “It is too
bad they have control of the Apple. Oh, Ezio, how could you have let that happen?”
“You were not at Monteriggioni.” It was Ezio’s turn to pause, after an
angry silence. “Do we really know what goes on with our enemies? Do we at least
have an underground network here to work with?”


Those are really different interpretations, and the novel might handle it better (I have not read it fully, so I cannot say for sure).

But Brotherhood is a game first and foremost, and I do not think that the novel's merits should be ruled as an argument for the game's story (as is the case with all other AC game novelizations, possibly with the exception of Forsaken that doesn't adapt any game, but is a separate story in its own right).

Megas_Doux
07-18-2014, 08:49 PM
Edward's last speech to Torres>>>>>>>>>>Any dialogue about Assassins\templars in AC II and ACB.

joelsantos24
07-18-2014, 08:51 PM
How on earth you dismiss every point of value in AC IV is beyond me too. I don't see the value you see in ACB's story because apparently we both played different games...the discussions between Machiavelli and Ezio that you quoted never occurred in the game and the whole thief thing never happened...

We're talking about Brotherhood THE GAME, not the novel or wherever you got those deep discussions and philosophies from...none of what you mentioned as instances of depth in the story and characters is EVER present in brotherhood the game..
Yes, we both played different games, that much is certain: apparently you saw Brotherhood as a blank page; and apparently, you did something else, rather than sailing and plundering, for more than 90% of Black Flag.

Last, but not least, you're conveniently generalizing every one of my statements as fiction, in order to support your own views. But that which I wrote about the game was real, apart from the little detail about the thief, which I opted to portray in the romanticized version, in order to prove my point. Even if it didn't happen in that exact way in the game, it's the only logical and rational reason why it did happen in the first place, as opposed to your rotten, decaying interpretation of the facts. Or perhaps some people still believe the writers chose to show the thief's act, as in a way to substantiate Machiavelli's (also rotten) views of the world. My take on it: not likely.

To finalize, the butcher didn't hung that poor woman and then confess his admiration on the artistry of the act. No, how could someone do that? The same way the child didn't cry for his kidnapped mother. I mean, who would kidnap parents in order to introduce them into a life of prostitution or worse?.Yes, clearly, the thief stole Ezio's money for sport, because money was so abundant and food was falling from the skies.

Shahkulu101
07-18-2014, 08:53 PM
Black Flag is not 90% sailing and plundering - talk about generalizations.

Farlander, time to whip out the spreadsheet again!

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 08:56 PM
I agree. In my case I mainly see it from a gameplay perspective, however I do not think the story of AC4 is that deep. In my opinion it actually felt quite plain and to the point...could you please elaborate?
There's the Creeds story and the sages story. Edward Kenway's story is about a guy trying to find his place in the world to be a man of quality for his estranged wife. he's not someone that's content, he aspires for more than just living, he wants a lavish life, a good life...the game always talks about the needs and wants of people--when does someone draw a line between a need and a want? When is enough? Edward Kenway represents the need because of a hard life, a need that in the eyes of a content man would be a want. Like Connor and Haytham in his early life, Edward is extremely idealistic but also like Connor and Haytham, his idealism manifested in a different way, it manifested in the best possible scenario for his goal: becoming a man of quality--Everyone around Edward scoffed at the idea of the existence of the observatory but he never doubted its existence, he wanted to find it and that was his jackpot...his ticket out.

Now, in his quest to find his place, Edward came across a lot of Principles, Values and Creeds..he was a man trying to find his own place as well and he had his own principles, lawless as he was. The game shows how Creeds affect people, how every person's Creed changes the foundation of said person. The Assassins Creed, the Templars principles, Blackbeard's law, Roberts' Pirate code among others. Edward met and saw all these different creeds from a neutral stand point but in the end, he found his place with the Assassins...he found his part there, he found harmony there, that's how important a Creed is to humans, a set of principles to live by, a code to signify your existence--Edward was a rogue without the Creed and everyone made sure to tell him that, Templars and Assassins...as people around him died, none of them died with sorrow or regrets...only he was a living empty shell--the difference between the people who died with convictions and him is just that...they had convictions while he only sought infamy, glory and fortune without any purpose or direction.

The story of the sages is another fascinating plot point, it shows how the burden of Sage affected 3 distinct individuals--how these people lived with this phenomena and how they went about their lives. being a Sage is as important to the story as the Creed dynamic, the 3 individuals were: Thom Kavanagh, Bartholomew Roberts and John. 3 very different people who lived in different times. The side story of the sage shows how each reacted to this phenomena, how each of them dealt with it. Thom tried to make sense of it, Roberts embraced and it drove John insane...all of this ties into the Creed philosophy too since each individual managed to ask the same question of finding their place in the world...Thom found it best to just deal with this second life inside his head and live with guardians until his death, that was his place...Roberts decided to have a short life and a merry one..John decided to act on the impulses in his head and try to revive the old civilization by creating the manifesto of the first will.

Megas_Doux
07-18-2014, 08:58 PM
ACB's story has the philosophical depth of this cartoon:

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/DoRightCast.JPG

And I SWEAR that is NOT Ezio rescuing Pantasilea.....

joelsantos24
07-18-2014, 09:03 PM
Black Flag is not 90% sailing and plundering - talk about generalizations.

Farlander, time to whip out the spreadsheet again!
The term piracy simulador, rings any bells? That's what Black Flag was, for me. In that context, enough said.

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 09:07 PM
Yes, we both played different games, that much is certain: apparently you saw Brotherhood as a blank page; and apparently, you did something else, rather than sailing and plundering, for more than 90% of Black Flag.
Nope, you're the one who apparently saw Brotherhood as something that was not there, you're adding details that do not exist in the game, you're making up quotes and events.


Last, but not least, you're conveniently generalizing every one of my statements as fiction, in order to support your own views. But that which I wrote about the game was real, apart from the little detail about the thief, which I opted to portray in the romanticized version
Nope, you're the one who's generalizing everything about AC IV, I pointed out the 2 quotes and statements you made that are fictitious and never happened. you wrote your own romanticized views about the story of the game and I rebutted each one with how they weren't as deep to me but you ignored my whole post and decided to type a different one about something else entirely.


in order to prove my point. Even if it didn't happen in that exact way in the game, it's the only logical and rational reason why it did happen in the first place, as opposed to your rotten, decaying interpretation of the facts.
The game does not imply ANYTHING you said, every story needs to have an implication/s, be them subtle or not. ACB's thief quest does NOTHING to the subtleties you claim ACB does in terms of philosophy. Ezio gets robbed, gets his money back and threatens the thief...even if that WAS done to portray the image of Rome being poverty stricken enough so this poor thief just wants to survive, Ezio just closed that door for the thief and showed absolutely no sympathy. Where did the conversation about the thief being poor and only wanted to eat come from? and even if that WAS the explanation, how could Ezio threaten him like that? It's non-existent, that scene does nothing to portray your romanticized image, it was only for comical relief.


To finalize, the butcher didn't hung that poor woman and then confess his admiration on the artistry of the act. No, how could someone do that? The same way the child didn't cry for his kidnapped mother. I mean, who would kidnap parents in order to introduce them into a life of prostitution or worse?.Yes, clearly, the thief stole Ezio's money for sport, because money was so abundant and food was falling from the skies.
You arent making any sense whatsoever, the thief was comic relief, with your romanticized version of the tale not counting, and everything else was there to show Rome's state of despair and corruption, what's philosophical and deep about that? every game showed Templar atrocities but at least AC I actually had depth to those atrocities.

Shahkulu101
07-18-2014, 09:08 PM
The term piracy simulador, rings any bells? That's what Black Flag was, for me. In that context, enough said.

If you think Black Flag is a piracy simulator and nothing more, you are factually incorrect.

Hans684
07-18-2014, 09:09 PM
The term piracy simulador, rings any bells? That's what Black Flag was, for me. In that context, enough said.

Technically every AC is a pirate simulator(with or without ships) because of the way the Assassins work, they do the same as pirates but for a different cause. Black Flag is the AC with most stealth so far and even opinions can be wrong but numbers don't lie. Only the cake is a lie.

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 09:10 PM
The term piracy simulador, rings any bells? That's what Black Flag was, for me. In that context, enough said.
---> Brotherhood is not deep ----> ohmagodz yes it is, you just don't look at it deeply *proceeds to type made up quotes and events in an effort to add a non-existent depth*

---> AC IV was pretty deep ------> No, it wasnt, it was a pirate simulator to me and that's all i will say nuff said

---> Connor personifies the Creed ---> he doesnt personify anything, don't try and make something that's not true, nuff said and that's my opinioz mine mine mine.

----> AC IV and Connr are deep ---> are you challenging my opinion?? *starts playing role of victim*

Do you see your problem?

Farlander1991
07-18-2014, 09:13 PM
Last, but not least, you're conveniently generalizing every one of my statements as fiction, in order to support your own views. .

I'm sorry, but aren't you doing pretty much that as well?

Yes, the thief didn't steal money for sport, it was because of the bad life in Rome. I apologize, but I really want to use the phrase "No ****, Sherlock" in this scenario.

But this is no way to lead an argument. Expressing interpretations is one thing, we all do that, but you're also infusing them with fictitious elements, while at the same time simply dismissing several interpretations of the opposing game (and I'm pretty sure if somebody infused that with a bunch of fictitious elements you'd call ******** on that) to prove your point.

Everything that we talk about Black Flag can be interpreted from the information that's in the game. No additional historical knowledge, no fictitious stories, no quotes that are in the vein of something that was said in the game but didn't actually happen. You can agree or disagree with those interpretations, but don't start cherry picking what others agree or disagree with when they judge another game by same principles.

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 09:19 PM
but don't start cherry picking what others agree or disagree with when they judge another game by same principles.
Exactly--agreed or disagreed--he's not using the same principles to analyse and judge each game, he's applying a double standard when it suits him.

Kakuzu745
07-18-2014, 09:58 PM
There's the Creeds story and the sages story. Edward Kenway's story is about a guy trying to find his place in the world to be a man of quality for his estranged wife. he's not someone that's content, he aspires for more than just living, he wants a lavish life, a good life...the game always talks about the needs and wants of people--when does someone draw a line between a need and a want? When is enough? Edward Kenway represents the need because of a hard life, a need that in the eyes of a content man would be a want. Like Connor and Haytham in his early life, Edward is extremely idealistic but also like Connor and Haytham, his idealism manifested in a different way, it manifested in the best possible scenario for his goal: becoming a man of quality--Everyone around Edward scoffed at the idea of the existence of the observatory but he never doubted its existence, he wanted to find it and that was his jackpot...his ticket out.

Now, in his quest to find his place, Edward came across a lot of Principles, Values and Creeds..he was a man trying to find his own place as well and he had his own principles, lawless as he was. The game shows how Creeds affect people, how every person's Creed changes the foundation of said person. The Assassins Creed, the Templars principles, Blackbeard's law, Roberts' Pirate code among others. Edward met and saw all these different creeds from a neutral stand point but in the end, he found his place with the Assassins...he found his part there, he found harmony there, that's how important a Creed is to humans, a set of principles to live by, a code to signify your existence--Edward was a rogue without the Creed and everyone made sure to tell him that, Templars and Assassins...as people around him died, none of them died with sorrow or regrets...only he was a living empty shell--the difference between the people who died with convictions and him is just that...they had convictions while he only sought infamy, glory and fortune without any purpose or direction.

The story of the sages is another fascinating plot point, it shows how the burden of Sage affected 3 distinct individuals--how these people lived with this phenomena and how they went about their lives. being a Sage is as important to the story as the Creed dynamic, the 3 individuals were: Thom Kavanagh, Bartholomew Roberts and John. 3 very different people who lived in different times. The side story of the sage shows how each reacted to this phenomena, how each of them dealt with it. Thom tried to make sense of it, Roberts embraced and it drove John insane...all of this ties into the Creed philosophy too since each individual managed to ask the same question of finding their place in the world...Thom found it best to just deal with this second life inside his head and live with guardians until his death, that was his place...Roberts decided to have a short life and a merry one..John decided to act on the impulses in his head and try to revive the old civilization by creating the manifesto of the first will.

Really well explained actually...maybe my issue with this is that I would prefer Edward to notice all of this before so I would not have to spend that much time in the game with Blackbeard for example, but I guess that is just personal taste.

I wanted Edward to be more involved with the order and not take that much time to realize all what you just said which eventually led him to join the assassins and spend more time embracing the creed and enforcing the cause of the assassins...probably that is why I prefer other assassins.

I guess that in terms of story I just wanted the whole thing to be more about the assassins and not just Edward's personal journey.

Assassin_M
07-18-2014, 10:10 PM
I wanted Edward to be more involved with the order and not take that much time to realize all what you just said which eventually led him to join the assassins and spend more time embracing the creed and enforcing the cause of the assassins...probably that is why I prefer other assassins.

I guess that in terms of story I just wanted the whole thing to be more about the assassins and not just Edward's personal journey.
To be honest, every Assassins Creed is a personal journey. Altair's redemption, Ezio's revenge, Connor's idealism and Edward's ascendance. The only difference between Edward's story and the rest is that the Assassins were the final pay off for Edward's personal journey. From AC I, AC II and AC III the final pay-off was something else and the Assassins came along from the beginning. Altair was an established assassin forced to reestablish himself and his understanding of the Creed to reclaim his honor (end goal/payoff for journey), Ezio inherited the mantle of Assassin to hunt those responsible for his family's tragedy in revenge (end goal/pay off for journey), Connor took up the mantle of Assassin to protect his people and bring freedom and peace to all (end goal/ pay off for journey), Edward stole the mantle of Assassin in an effort to find his place in the world (end goal/pay off for journey)

So we have Honor/redemption, Revenge, Freedom and place in the world. Edward encounters the assassins all along the way and each meeting actively affects Edward in some way or another, like meeting the Maroon leader in Kingston...he was very critical of Edward's life style and you could see that maroon's berating of Edward was taking effect. The only difference between Edward and the others is that his end goal/pay off for journey was the Assassin Order, unlike Connor, Altair and Ezio but what they share, though is that the Assassin Order was always there walking along the personal quest of each Assassin.

Farlander1991
07-18-2014, 10:20 PM
The theme of finding one's own place in the world is seen not only in Edward, but in pretty much almost every character with the exception of the already established in their convictions Assassins and Templars, and a few other characters.

We have Stede Bonnet yearning for adventure, Hornigold wishing for structure and order, Roberts dealing with his 'wanted by Templars and Assassins' status by leading a merry life and a short one, Blackbeard wanting to lead a peaceful end of his life, etc.

Kakuzu745
07-18-2014, 10:26 PM
To be honest, every Assassins Creed is a personal journey. Altair's redemption, Ezio's revenge, Connor's idealism and Edward's ascendance. The only difference between Edward's story and the rest is that the Assassins were the final pay off for Edward's personal journey. From AC I, AC II and AC III the final pay-off was something else and the Assassins came along from the beginning. Altair was an established assassin forced to reestablish himself and his understanding of the Creed to reclaim his honor (end goal/payoff for journey), Ezio inherited the mantle of Assassin to hunt those responsible for his family's tragedy in revenge (end goal/pay off for journey), Connor took up the mantle of Assassin to protect his people and bring freedom and peace to all (end goal/ pay off for journey), Edward stole the mantle of Assassin in an effort to find his place in the world (end goal/pay off for journey)

So we have Honor/redemption, Revenge, Freedom and place in the world. Edward encounters the assassins all along the way and each meeting actively affects Edward in some way or another, like meeting the Maroon leader in Kingston...he was very critical of Edward's life style and you could see that maroon's berating of Edward was taking effect. The only difference between Edward and the others is that his end goal/pay off for journey was the Assassin Order, unlike Connor, Altair and Ezio but what they share, though is that the Assassin Order was always there walking along the personal quest of each Assassin.

Ya I think that in terms of story you just nailed exactly what "bothers" me, the late involvement in the order. I mean was it really necessary to do the whole Vane thing, the Blackbeard thing, the Nassau thing (i mean all of them)? Someone could argue it was but I would preferred the writer to scratch some of that in favor of some more action involving the observatory, the order, give more drama to the search for Laureano Torres.

Probably that is the reason I preferred Adewale, a character that was also finding a place in the world but at the point where we picked his story up, the order is already walking along. Freedom's Cry did not have the involvement of the order but you could feel the ideals in Ade right from the beginning. Additionally, in my opinion his story is a book to be written while Edward's somehow feels wrapped up.

Black_Widow9
07-18-2014, 10:27 PM
The reason being I don't like AC4 is because it's more about the pirates than assassins and AC games r more about assassin's v Templars, yes there are Templars in AC4 but not like in the rest of AC games, and Unity just looks like my sort of game!!
Please use this thread for your Feedback.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/803791

Thanks