PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Do you want notoriety back?



Xstantin
08-01-2014, 09:51 PM
I haven't seen any info regarding notoriety in Unity. The Black Flag removed notoriety levels in the cities, replacing them with the Wanted system for Jackdaw. Since Unity takes us back to the large city, do you want notoriety to make a comeback?

JustPlainQuirky
08-01-2014, 09:54 PM
I mean when Arno was walking down paris in a gameplay demo the guards did bleep yellow then red so I think it's back.

Notoriety was only annoying in AC3 because of the guards shooting you down from rooftops IMO. It was strange how much I could get away with in towns in AC IV.

m4r-k7
08-01-2014, 09:54 PM
I loved it in Black Flag when notoriety was on ships only. I really hope its not in Unity as I hate having high notoriety as guards see you straight away and start chasing you and it sucks. It was never well implemented in the game. Sometimes even if you stealth killed a guard it boosted up your notoriety up which is plain stupid. I really hope its gone to be honest, even if it is a bit unrealistic.


I mean when Arno was walking down paris in a gameplay demo the guards did bleep yellow then red so I think it's back.

That wasn't notoriety I don't think. I thought yellow indicates that a guard nearly see's you / looks for you whilst red is when he actually see's you and starts chasing you.

Xstantin
08-01-2014, 09:56 PM
The guards bleeped yellow and red in Black Flag as well, but you couldn't become Notorious in the cities besides one sequence in Havana as far as I remember. Earlier games allowed the player to go on a rampage and kill everyone in order to make guards notice you faster and begin investigations (yellow state).

m4r-k7
08-01-2014, 09:58 PM
I really really hope that the guard's accuracy with their guns is not 100%. In AC 3 and AC 4 they hit you 99% of the time unless you used a shield which is totally unrealistic as muskets were incredibly innacurate

lothario-da-be
08-01-2014, 10:07 PM
I loved no notority in ac4 I hope it doesn't return.

SpiritOfNevaeh
08-01-2014, 10:09 PM
I personally don't think they'll get rid of the notoriety system entirely. It'll come in one way or another, but I wouldn't mind having a challenge, as long as they don't hurt as much as Jagers

#bringiton

Dome500
08-01-2014, 10:12 PM
I really really hope that the guard's accuracy with their guns is not 100%. In AC 3 and AC 4 they hit you 99% of the time unless you used a shield which is totally unrealistic as muskets were incredibly innacurate

Agreed.

Aide from the quoted point I think I want it back.
The system DEFINITELY needs tweaking, but I prefer a notoriety system over being anonymous or being notorious all the time. Both can get annoying, boring and immersion breaking.
As long as they do not do it like in Revelations I am fine.
Like I said they definitely need to improve it (don't want another AC3 or ACR like system) but if they manage that, then I absolutely want a notoriety system.

Xstantin
08-01-2014, 10:13 PM
@Humble, I liked the jagers :) Boston's Most Wanted is one of my favorite missions from AC III.

GunnerGalactico
08-01-2014, 10:14 PM
No doubt that the notoriety system will make a return, it will just be different from the previous titles.

HDinHB
08-01-2014, 10:15 PM
I think notoriety was mostly implemented to encourage more stealthy and less high-profile behavior in the cities, and it sounds like they think the game design in ACU will encourage that in other ways. I didn't mind notoriety so much, but the ways of reducing notoriety (pulling down posters, bribing heralds, killing witnesses) got so repetitive they became silly. I didn't miss notoriety in the cities of AC4, and the wanted level on the ocean actually encouraged "bad" behavior. I need to capture a pirate-hunter man-of-war? Ramp up the wanted level!

DumbGamerTag94
08-01-2014, 10:27 PM
muskets were incredibly innacurate
That's actually a misconception and not entirely true. At the distances they usually hit you in AC3 and 4 it's pretty much a given they could hit you even with the guns of the period. By the revolutionary war rifled barrel muskets were actually being used to snipe officers by American militia. Now you couldn't reach out and touch somebody at a mile+ like modern guns. But you could hit a person at 150-300 yards with period weapons(depending on which gun) fairly easily. Granted it probably wouldn't be a head shot every time and wouldn't necessarily be lethal(which is pretty much reflected in the AC games). So the guns in AC have never really been inaccurate(except for the ottoman guards with guns in revelations. Now the guns of that period were extremely inaccurate. As the technology was fairly new at that time)

m4r-k7
08-01-2014, 10:31 PM
At the distances they usually hit you in AC3 and 4 it's pretty much a given they could hit you even with the guns of the period. By the revolutionary war rifled barrel muskets were actually being used to snipe officers by American militia.

When they are close to you its believable. Sorry what I meant was how unrealistic their accuracy was when they were on rooftops. When they were on a tall building and I was fighting a group of 5 dudes, the guys on the rooftops would always shoot from a large way away, and it would always hit you rather than hitting their team mates. That accuracy is unrealistic.

DumbGamerTag94
08-01-2014, 10:47 PM
When they are close to you its believable. Sorry what I meant was how unrealistic their accuracy was when they were on rooftops. When they were on a tall building and I was fighting a group of 5 dudes, the guys on the rooftops would always shoot from a large way away, and it would always hit you rather than hitting their team mates. That accuracy is unrealistic.

Huh those moments always seemed to look within 300yards to me. Anything beyond that and they usually either lose line of sight or miss by a bit. At least that's how it's always been when I've played

Fatal-Feit
08-01-2014, 11:12 PM
I hope not. There was absolutely no point of it. It was either a useless system, or an annoying one.

Ureh
08-02-2014, 12:25 AM
I do want something along the lines of AC3's lvl 1 and/or lvl 2 notoriety (with the ability to keep it at one one of those settings). lvl 3 was ridiculous.

The ssi system - when the aggressors saw Arno run up the wall - they showed in the demo seemed almost like AC2 notorious level cause Arno was able climb right above them then pass them without instantly going into open conflict. It almost seemed like they forgot about him after a few seconds.

m4r-k7
08-02-2014, 12:29 AM
Huh those moments always seemed to look within 300yards to me. Anything beyond that and they usually either lose line of sight or miss by a bit. At least that's how it's always been when I've played

Muskets during the revolutionary war were only accurate within around 100 - 150 yards if you were an accurate shooter. In AC 3 and AC 4 they shot well beyond that.

rickprog
08-02-2014, 01:04 AM
The thing with muskets in AC3 and AC4 was that it didn't even take into consideration whether you were moving or not. Granted, if the distance was about 150 yards and you were standing still, it would be fairly easy not to miss the shot and, for gaming difficulty, I would even consider the going the "no miss" route in this situation. But if you were fighting or running erratically, it would've been much harder not to miss for them, or not to hit another soldier and not you. I understand it was done for gaming purposes, but it got exaggerated and annoying at times.

OT, I would like the notoriety system to come back. The way it was done on AC4 made lots of sense: you could easily be forgotten about after leaving a certain place, and notoriety in one place wouldn't be related to notoriety on another, so having it on the Jackdaw was the way to go. In any case, it has to be fixed for some aspects like taking into account how stealthy the kills are.

DumbGamerTag94
08-02-2014, 01:27 AM
Muskets during the revolutionary war were only accurate within around 100 - 150 yards if you were an accurate shooter. In AC 3 and AC 4 they shot well beyond that.

A smooth bore musket yes. But they had rifled muskets readily available by the revolutionary war. Which are the kind of weapon a guard who's profession is to snipe from rooftops would carry. A military trained experienced shooter can give it an effective range of well over 200+ yards. Just look up the effective range of a Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle if you don't believe me. Now the 1710s of Edwards time is a little questionable as I am not sure if try had rifled muskets then or not. But they are a very particular class of enemy that are fairly few in number anyway. Idk if they had that tech then or not. N don't have the time to research that. I am curious though if they did or not.

I'm just saying that from experience hunting with a Kentucky style flintlock it isn't far fetched to shoot like they do in AC3. AC4 is questionable unless they did have the tech. But you'd have to check that for yourself. But as far as AC3 is concerned I feel very comfortable with how those guns were portrayed.

Sesheenku
08-02-2014, 03:44 AM
Not like in any of its previous incarnations.

It just seemed like busy work back then, and in 3 the whole city relentlessly was after your blood as enemies constantly respawned, that was absolutely ridiculous.

It needs to show the guards being more persistent WITHOUT endless respawning waves and it needs to be reasonable with the amount of notoriety you gain. On top of that notoriety shouldn't go up unless you do an illegal action within the line of sight of a guard.

I mean seriously how annoying was it that air assassinating a lone guard on a building in the Ezio trilogy gave you notoriety? How? Who saw you kill the guard?

Jexx21
08-02-2014, 05:37 AM
The guard you killed.

Ureh
08-02-2014, 05:58 AM
I mean seriously how annoying was it that air assassinating a lone guard on a building in the Ezio trilogy gave you notoriety? How? Who saw you kill the guard?

According to Lorenzo, Ezio's kills are apparently recognisable. So Ezio is kinda like a serial killer. That's why in one of the contracts he asks you to eliminate guards without blades.

joelsantos24
08-02-2014, 10:53 AM
I haven't seen any info regarding notoriety in Unity. The Black Flag removed notoriety levels in the cities, replacing them with the Wanted system for Jackdaw. Since Unity takes us back to the large city, do you want notoriety to make a comeback?
Definitely.

The Black Flag system made sense, since a big part of the action occurred at sea, but now the old notoriety system is by far more logical. Perhaps a new one, somewhat in between Revelations and AC3, because I don't think the latter was all that perfect.


I mean when Arno was walking down paris in a gameplay demo the guards did bleep yellow then red so I think it's back.

Notoriety was only annoying in AC3 because of the guards shooting you down from rooftops IMO. It was strange how much I could get away with in towns in AC IV.
Well, the snipers are so for a reason, their visibility is far more accurate than the rest of the guards, or at least it's supposed to be. So, for them to be able to shoot you down if you'd enter their line-of-sight, is more than reasonable. What bothered me most, was the overall notoriety system in AC3, since I prefer Brotherhood's or Revelations'.

Hans684
08-02-2014, 11:41 AM
Wouldn't mind but not in Unity, it's during the FR. Everyone is killing everyone, to chaotic for a notoriety system that only focus on us.

Sushiglutton
08-02-2014, 11:48 AM
I don't want the old system back, that's for sure. Basically it functioned as a wet blanket, punishing you for having fun with forcing you to do tedious tasks. It didn't create any challenging or interesting gameplay scenarios, it was mostly just a nuisance. If they're bringing back notoriety they need to do the implemententation so that it doesn't get in the way and make reducing notoriety as enjoyable as increasing it.

A safe and solid solution, that I'm very ok with, is to just not have it.

ACfan443
08-02-2014, 12:50 PM
I'd wouldn't mind having it back, but only on the condition that it's akin to AC1's system, in that notoriety is only gained when a high profile target is assassinated.

joelsantos24
08-02-2014, 01:10 PM
Wouldn't mind but not in Unity, it's during the FR. Everyone is killing everyone, to chaotic for a notoriety system that only focus on us.
Well, not everyone is walking around hooded, not to mention no one walks around rooftops and jumps between buildings. The notoriety system is built on the basis of high-profile and not socially acceptable actions. Climbing a ladder, that's normal. But climbing through walls? Not really. See where I'm getting? In the gameplay trailers, we were able to acknowledge that when the guards are focused on a crowd about to riot, you're able to get by pretty easily. But apart from those particular contexts, guards are pretty much expected to maintain some degree of control.


I don't want the old system back, that's for sure. Basically it functioned as a wet blanket, punishing you for having fun with forcing you to do tedious tasks. It didn't create any challenging or interesting gameplay scenarios, it was mostly just a nuisance. If they're bringing back notoriety they need to do the implemententation so that it doesn't get in the way and make reducing notoriety as enjoyable as increasing it.

A safe and solid solution, that I'm very ok with, is to just not have it.
Again, it's not about having fun, some actions are socially acceptable, some are not. If your definition of having fun means climbing on walls and jumping off buildings, how can the crowd and the guards not notice you and label you a disturber of some kind?

m4r-k7
08-02-2014, 03:23 PM
Wouldn't mind but not in Unity, it's during the FR. Everyone is killing everyone, to chaotic for a notoriety system that only focus on us.

Exactly

AssassinHMS
08-02-2014, 03:45 PM
Notoriety definitely deserves a place in ACU as in any good Assassinís Creed game. Notoriety is important because it is an incentive to use stealth, to think twice before making something brash or stupid. This combined with a progressively challenging combat system (according to the number of enemies to face) shows the player that it pays off to think like an Assassin.
It also helps preventing the mass murder rampage which is a big immersion breaker as well as the biggest enemy of the Assassinís Creed concept.

However notoriety needs to be done differently:
- Since ACU introduces outfit customization, one way to become incognito faster, would be to change or dye the current outfit in a noticeable way. So, in this case, notoriety would be connected to the Assassinís clothes.
- Laying low for a while could be another way to reduce notoriety.
- If the city is divided into multiple areas, each with its own notoriety, the player could vary between them. If he was caught committing too many crimes in one area, he can move to another and do his deeds there until it is safe to return.
- Another interesting (IMO) addition would be moveable hideouts. Basically, the player would be able to choose a suitable place to be his hideout (perhaps in addition to the main Assassinís hideout). A hideout would allow the player to store weapons, money and outfits and to sleep to recover from wounds and regain strength and stamina (obviously this would require many other systems that donít exist). These hideouts could vary from abandoned buildings to places owned by associates (like a brothel or an inn). If the player isnít careful enough and lets his notoriety rise enough, guards/Templars may discover his hideout and prepare a trap or take anything valuable. In order to prevent this from happening, the player would have to keep his notoriety low or to move the hideout at the first sign of trouble (like noticing an increasing number of guards near his hideout, etc.)




Again, it's not about having fun, some actions are socially acceptable, some are not. If your definition of having fun means climbing on walls and jumping off buildings, how can the crowd and the guards not notice you and label you a disturber of some kind?
Agreed. However, I also blame Ubisoftís choices. Social stealth was never complex or realistic enough (especially in later games). The crowds arenít volatile or interesting enough, the npcs are quite boring and guard AI isnít smart enough. All of this makes a very predictable and tedious experience. There is no tension and no fun in being a blade in the crowd. Itís just like investigations, it has a ton of potential but it lacks the attention and vision that it needs.

LoyalACFan
08-02-2014, 04:13 PM
Notoriety definitely deserves a place in ACU as in any good Assassin’s Creed game. Notoriety is important because it is an incentive to use stealth, to think twice before making something brash or stupid. This combined with a progressively challenging combat system (according to the number of enemies to face) shows the player that it pays off to think like an Assassin.
It also helps preventing the mass murder rampage which is a big immersion breaker as well as the biggest enemy of the Assassin’s Creed concept.

I totally disagree. The incentive for playing stealthily should be "it's going to be really hard to fight my way through this if I'm spotted," not "if I fight these guys I'm going to have to engage in a drag mechanic to lower that red bar." I'm completely opposed to the notion that players should be punished for completing missions the way they want; AC is supposed to be a stealth game first and foremost so the combat should provide a stiff challenge, but if you want to charge the army and fight your way to your target, go right ahead... IF you're good enough. That alone should be the sole factor in deciding how to approach your objective; challenging yourself with stealth, or challenging yourself with combat. If we truly want open-ended missions, we can't simultaneously ask to be slapped on the wrist with something as arbitrary and artificial as notoriety for successfully taking a high-profile approach.

Not to mention the problem of actually creating an engaging gameplay loop for lowering notoriety. I saw you put forth a few suggestions, but none of them are satisfactory IMO. Changing clothes would be bad since each article is tied to a gameplay boost, so you'd have to sacrifice the gear that augmented your playstyle for something else that provided a bonus you don't want. Laying low is also a poor choice considering there's no player agency involved at all, and the game would become a matter of handicapping yourself for an (again, arbitrary) amount of time until your notoriety reset. Individual notoriety for districts would be fine, but that essentially sounds like restricted zones, which don't require an actual notoriety meter mechanic (inside the zone, guards attack on sight, outside the zone they have to be provoked).

AssassinHMS
08-02-2014, 05:08 PM
I totally disagree. The incentive for playing stealthily should be "it's going to be really hard to fight my way through this if I'm spotted," not "if I fight these guys I'm going to have to engage in a drag mechanic to lower that red bar." I'm completely opposed to the notion that players should be punished for completing missions the way they want; AC is supposed to be a stealth game first and foremost so the combat should provide a stiff challenge, but if you want to charge the army and fight your way to your target, go right ahead... IF you're good enough. That alone should be the sole factor in deciding how to approach your objective; challenging yourself with stealth, or challenging yourself with combat. If we truly want open-ended missions, we can't simultaneously ask to be slapped on the wrist with something as arbitrary and artificial as notoriety for successfully taking a high-profile approach.


Do you remember AC1ís first mission? Altair did not think like an Assassin. And what were the consequences?
1 Ė He was not able to get the treasure. Like you said: ďit's going to be really hard to fight my way through this if I'm spotted";
2 Ė And what was the second? He led the Templars right to the Assassins. By exposing himself, he made the Assassins notorious and announced them as the culprits behind the attack.

It is wrong to disregard the major advantages of stealth. Stealth is not just a way to avoid conflict. It is a way to keep enemies off your back.
So yes, the incentive for playing stealthily should also be ďIím not going to get myself or my allies into trouble because of my actionsĒ.
The red bar you speak of is another issue.

There are reasons why stealth is superior to combat, why sneaky assassins live longer than strong warriors. Not only they avoid conflict, they also make sure they donít show their face.


And this is not about punishing players. They simply have to weight their options. Itís a choice. Besides, they can still enter a fight and not raise their notoriety as long as they kill every enemy and any bystander.
However, when in the streets, where the crowds are so big it is impossible to kill everyone who sees you fight, this is the incentive for the player to use SOCIAL STEALTH. Be a blade in the crowd, be smart.
So you see, this is paramount to the execution of a good Assassinís Creed game.








Not to mention the problem of actually creating an engaging gameplay loop for lowering notoriety. I saw you put forth a few suggestions, but none of them are satisfactory IMO. Changing clothes would be bad since each article is tied to a gameplay boost, so you'd have to sacrifice the gear that augmented your playstyle for something else that provided a bonus you don't want. Laying low is also a poor choice considering there's no player agency involved at all, and the game would become a matter of handicapping yourself for an (again, arbitrary) amount of time until your notoriety reset. Individual notoriety for districts would be fine, but that essentially sounds like restricted zones, which don't require an actual notoriety meter mechanic (inside the zone, guards attack on sight, outside the zone they have to be provoked).

Sure, none of my options are perfect. You always have to give something up. And that is the point.
They are not meant to be exactly fun. They are meant to be minimally realistic, engaging and smart.
If they were fun then they wouldnít incentive players to be stealthy. However they are not meant to feel punishing or boring, so I think the examples I gave are quite good.

However, they are not as bad as you put.
I said you could dye the outfits. That means you donít lose their bonuses.
Also, the ďlay-lowĒ idea is meant to complement the districts with individual notoriety. That way you donít have to handicap yourself.
Yes, you could compare them with restricted zones, but the whole city has the potential to become a restricted zone. You could still walk in those areas but you would have to change your outfit and carry only weapons that can be concealed.

joelsantos24
08-02-2014, 05:34 PM
(...)

Agreed. However, I also blame Ubisoft’s choices. Social stealth was never complex or realistic enough (especially in later games). The crowds aren’t volatile or interesting enough, the npcs are quite boring and guard AI isn’t smart enough. All of this makes a very predictable and tedious experience. There is no tension and no fun in being a blade in the crowd. It’s just like investigations, it has a ton of potential but it lacks the attention and vision that it needs.
I totally agree. In AC1, the crowds responded in a more expected manner. Obviously, they got it exaggerated beyond belief, so you'd move 100-200 meters from that spot, anonymously, and you'd still see citizens running terrified all around you and begging for mercy.


I totally disagree. The incentive for playing stealthily should be "it's going to be really hard to fight my way through this if I'm spotted," not "if I fight these guys I'm going to have to engage in a drag mechanic to lower that red bar." I'm completely opposed to the notion that players should be punished for completing missions the way they want; AC is supposed to be a stealth game first and foremost so the combat should provide a stiff challenge, but if you want to charge the army and fight your way to your target, go right ahead... IF you're good enough. That alone should be the sole factor in deciding how to approach your objective; challenging yourself with stealth, or challenging yourself with combat. If we truly want open-ended missions, we can't simultaneously ask to be slapped on the wrist with something as arbitrary and artificial as notoriety for successfully taking a high-profile approach.

Not to mention the problem of actually creating an engaging gameplay loop for lowering notoriety. I saw you put forth a few suggestions, but none of them are satisfactory IMO. Changing clothes would be bad since each article is tied to a gameplay boost, so you'd have to sacrifice the gear that augmented your playstyle for something else that provided a bonus you don't want. Laying low is also a poor choice considering there's no player agency involved at all, and the game would become a matter of handicapping yourself for an (again, arbitrary) amount of time until your notoriety reset. Individual notoriety for districts would be fine, but that essentially sounds like restricted zones, which don't require an actual notoriety meter mechanic (inside the zone, guards attack on sight, outside the zone they have to be provoked).
Well, the problem is, "completing the mission" often (or always) implies an assassination of a target. In other words, it's a crime. The game is based on the simulation of the behavior of conventional society. How on earth are we to expect getting away with murder, just for the sake of fun?

Dellers
08-02-2014, 06:05 PM
I hope not. It was pretty annoying to run around looking for posters. It only added tedious gameplay.

LoyalACFan
08-02-2014, 06:14 PM
Do you remember AC1’s first mission? Altair did not think like an Assassin. And what were the consequences?
1 – He was not able to get the treasure. Like you said: “it's going to be really hard to fight my way through this if I'm spotted";
2 – And what was the second? He led the Templars right to the Assassins. By exposing himself, he made the Assassins notorious and announced them as the culprits behind the attack.

It is wrong to disregard the major advantages of stealth. Stealth is not just a way to avoid conflict. It is a way to keep enemies off your back.
So yes, the incentive for playing stealthily should also be “I’m not going to get myself or my allies into trouble because of my actions”.
The red bar you speak of is another issue.

There are reasons why stealth is superior to combat, why sneaky assassins live longer than strong warriors. Not only they avoid conflict, they also make sure they don’t show their face.


And this is not about punishing players. They simply have to weight their options. It’s a choice. Besides, they can still enter a fight and not raise their notoriety as long as they kill every enemy and any bystander.
However, when in the streets, where the crowds are so big it is impossible to kill everyone who sees you fight, this is the incentive for the player to use SOCIAL STEALTH. Be a blade in the crowd, be smart.
So you see, this is paramount to the execution of a good Assassin’s Creed game.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how your ideas are not about punishing the player for choosing combat. Having to kill every single witness? How is that not punitive? Not to mention in flagrant disregard for the Creed, which you seem to be using to bolster your argument for a stealth approach.

Just... make combat hard. That's all you have to do to make stealth rewarding. You can bring up Altair and his failing in Jerusalem all you like, but let's not forget that open combat was always an option in AC1. It wasn't hard, but its slow-paced nature meant that you had to either run away or kill everyone quickly to catch your target before he escaped. A few of them just attacked you outright if spotted, so combat worked just as well there too. It's just that in AC3/4 you can kill an entire platoon of guards in under ten seconds, so stealth feels somewhat flat.


However, they are not as bad as you put.
I said you could dye the outfits. That means you don’t lose their bonuses.
Also, the “lay-low” idea is meant to complement the districts with individual notoriety. That way you don’t have to handicap yourself.
Yes, you could compare them with restricted zones, but the whole city has the potential to become a restricted zone. You could still walk in those areas but you would have to change your outfit and carry only weapons that can be concealed.

I suppose laying low wouldn't be bad if your notoriety was restricted to specific zones, but I still say that's really no different from a standard restricted zone. Just turn the district into a restricted zone after you pull off a major assassination there.


Well, the problem is, "completing the mission" often (or always) implies an assassination of a target. In other words, it's a crime. The game is based on the simulation of the behavior of conventional society. How on earth are we to expect getting away with murder, just for the sake of fun?

That's a two-way street; a public assassination means that guards will chase after us, so they'll be seeing a hooded man running away from their dead master even if we approached completely stealthily. You just murdered a high-ranking official and the guards have your description; would they really be on EXTRA high alert if you had fought your way to him instead of pouncing on him from above?

Take the Captain Xavier assassination from the E3 demo. Regardless of how you do that mission (air assassination, shoot him from the rooftop, sneak through the crowd before he gets to the guillotine, or just flat-out charge his escort and stab him in the face) you're going to be spotted by dozens (hundreds?) of people completing your kill. So if you've got the combat chops to beat his soldiers and Xavier himself, why should you be punished for that with notoriety? You weren't spotted by any more people than if you had air-assassinated him.

Dome500
08-02-2014, 06:24 PM
Do you remember AC1’s first mission? Altair did not think like an Assassin. And what were the consequences?
1 – He was not able to get the treasure. Like you said: “it's going to be really hard to fight my way through this if I'm spotted";
2 – And what was the second? He led the Templars right to the Assassins. By exposing himself, he made the Assassins notorious and announced them as the culprits behind the attack.

It is wrong to disregard the major advantages of stealth. Stealth is not just a way to avoid conflict. It is a way to keep enemies off your back.
So yes, the incentive for playing stealthily should also be “I’m not going to get myself or my allies into trouble because of my actions”.
The red bar you speak of is another issue.

There are reasons why stealth is superior to combat, why sneaky assassins live longer than strong warriors. Not only they avoid conflict, they also make sure they don’t show their face.


And this is not about punishing players. They simply have to weight their options. It’s a choice. Besides, they can still enter a fight and not raise their notoriety as long as they kill every enemy and any bystander.
However, when in the streets, where the crowds are so big it is impossible to kill everyone who sees you fight, this is the incentive for the player to use SOCIAL STEALTH. Be a blade in the crowd, be smart.
So you see, this is paramount to the execution of a good Assassin’s Creed game.









Sure, none of my options are perfect. You always have to give something up. And that is the point.
They are not meant to be exactly fun. They are meant to be minimally realistic, engaging and smart.
If they were fun then they wouldn’t incentive players to be stealthy. However they are not meant to feel punishing or boring, so I think the examples I gave are quite good.

However, they are not as bad as you put.
I said you could dye the outfits. That means you don’t lose their bonuses.
Also, the “lay-low” idea is meant to complement the districts with individual notoriety. That way you don’t have to handicap yourself.
Yes, you could compare them with restricted zones, but the whole city has the potential to become a restricted zone. You could still walk in those areas but you would have to change your outfit and carry only weapons that can be concealed.



I mostly agree with him.

It is mainly about giving the player something to think about.
Of course some basic rules have to be followed:

1. If all enemies in sight or close range are killed and there are no (or not many) witnesses there is no notoriety
2. reducing notoriety should work in at least 4 - 6 different ways to avoid boredom and frustration due to tedious tasks
3. The tasks should be done either quickly or be not tedious (preferably both) and should make sense
4. There shouldn't be a system like in ACR where purchasing shops (or whatever) will increase notoriety.

Also I would like some different levels of notoriety:

Lvl 1: Guards detect you faster
Lvl 2: Non guard NPC's (Mercenaries, Radical groups) might also search for you (detection not as fast and chase not as persistent as guards)
Lvl 3: You have become a threat to society. Citizens will sometimes call guards if they see you doing something unusual and notorious, all groups will be suspicious


If we make sure the notoriety has some interesting levels that have some nice mechanics and situations in there, if we make sure notoriety does not rise too fast, and if we - like HMS said - establish a notoriety system based on DISTRICTS which have a certain run-out time ( of course it can also be lowered instantly by doing those actions) and if there are enough not-tedious things to do to counter it, then the system can work and have actual BENEFITS for the overall feeling and gameplay.

They only need to make sure it's not like in the previous games. And I think especially in terms of Stealth they already changed a lot. So let's look what they have in store for notoriety.

HDinHB
08-02-2014, 07:03 PM
...On top of that notoriety shouldn't go up unless you do an illegal action within the line of sight of a guard.

I mean seriously how annoying was it that air assassinating a lone guard on a building in the Ezio trilogy gave you notoriety? How? Who saw you kill the guard?

In Skyrim, if you committed a crime, your notoriety (bounty) wouldn't increase if you also killed any witnesses. This worked most of the time, but sometimes you would still get a bounty. Someone eventually figured out that horses and other domesticated animals also counted as witnesses.


I totally disagree. The incentive for playing stealthily should be "it's going to be really hard to fight my way through this if I'm spotted," not "if I fight these guys I'm going to have to engage in a drag mechanic to lower that red bar." I'm completely opposed to the notion that players should be punished for completing missions the way they want; AC is supposed to be a stealth game first and foremost so the combat should provide a stiff challenge, but if you want to charge the army and fight your way to your target, go right ahead... IF you're good enough. That alone should be the sole factor in deciding how to approach your objective; challenging yourself with stealth, or challenging yourself with combat. If we truly want open-ended missions, we can't simultaneously ask to be slapped on the wrist with something as arbitrary and artificial as notoriety for successfully taking a high-profile approach.

This sounds like everything we have been hearing about Unity. Combat will be tougher to encourage stealth. We'll have to wait and see how that works out. Whether notoriety returns or not may be an indication of how confident Ubi is in their new combat. That, and it sounds like guards may be more aggressive about searching for you. That might be a deterrent.


Not to mention the problem of actually creating an engaging gameplay loop for lowering notoriety. I saw you put forth a few suggestions, but none of them are satisfactory IMO. Changing clothes would be bad since each article is tied to a gameplay boost, so you'd have to sacrifice the gear that augmented your playstyle for something else that provided a bonus you don't want. Laying low is also a poor choice considering there's no player agency involved at all, and the game would become a matter of handicapping yourself for an (again, arbitrary) amount of time until your notoriety reset. Individual notoriety for districts would be fine, but that essentially sounds like restricted zones, which don't require an actual notoriety meter mechanic (inside the zone, guards attack on sight, outside the zone they have to be provoked).

Yeah, there's only so many times you can pull down posters, bribe a herald, or kill a witness before it's just a chore. 5-6 games is more than enough of that. Fines, confiscations, or imprisonment aren't new, but would be new to AC. I don't know how long before that would get old too. Maybe if we have to escape from the Bastille before being guillotined...that might be fun once or twice.

As for changing outfits..."Hey, there is the guy in the hood!" "Non! We are looking for a man in a dark grey hood...that is a light grey hood. Keep looking!"

Xstantin
08-02-2014, 07:12 PM
Also I would like some different levels of notoriety:

Lvl 1: Guards detect you faster
Lvl 2: Non guard NPC's (Mercenaries, Radical groups) might also search for you (detection not as fast and chase not as persistent as guards)
Lvl 3: You have become a threat to society. Citizens will sometimes call guards if they see you doing something unusual and notorious, all groups will be suspicious


I like your ideas :) we had snitches in ACIII, but the citizens never called on guards so far (Watch_Dogs did that with cellphones, I thought it was a nice touch).

AssassinHMS
08-02-2014, 08:06 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't see how your ideas are not about punishing the player for choosing combat. Having to kill every single witness? How is that not punitive? Not to mention in flagrant disregard for the Creed, which you seem to be using to bolster your argument for a stealth approach.


I thought it was the way notoriety was implemented but now I see that the real issue here is the ďpunishmentĒ of the player.
Ok so, notoriety is, by its very nature, a punishment. But, it is also a reward. It is the reward of not having to clean up the mess, of not being forced to deal with the nasty consequences of murder.
And you canít have a reward without a punishment. Well, you can, but it will never feel like an actual reward.


You can look at notoriety as the punishment for not being stealthy enoughÖor as the reward for the effort needed to carry your Assassin duties to the letter.
Become a blade in the crowd. Kill only when you consider it a necessity. Follow these to the letter and your notoriety will not increase.
This is how you make a player think like an Assassin and act like one.


Now, I agree that the way it was implemented in past AC games wasnít the best and that is what Iím focusing on.

That being said, I am not trying to make notoriety into something else. Notoriety is either a reward or a punishment. If you canít handle the punishment then you canít have the reward.
So, the question is: Is the reward worth it?

Yes, because ACís concept is centered on social stealth and notoriety rewards you for thinking like an Assassin.
It is especially worth it, if it is well implemented. Like Dome said, if it is thought out and well executed, the system can work and have actual BENEFITS for the overall feeling and gameplay. Huge benefits I might add.








As for changing outfits..."Hey, there is the guy in the hood!" "Non! We are looking for a man in a dark grey hood...that is a light grey hood. Keep looking!"

Yes, I'm sure this is better: "Hey, there is the hooded guy who killed all those people!" "Non! We're not looking for anyone. We never look for anyone..."

Besides, it's a NOTICEABLE change. Changing the color of one single piece of clothing will not cut it. Perhaps it could escalate with notoriety. The higher the notoriety level, the greater the change needs to be.

WendysBrioche
08-02-2014, 08:44 PM
I want wave after wave of guards to arrive after you've murdured one of them in broad daylight. You shouldn't be able to do things like this and go unpunished. If you kill someone, some else is going to call guards to the area. Thats how it should be. This also provides an incentive for players to use stealth so as not to be bogged down by troops of guards called to the scene.

A way to stop guards from coming, for example a tackle the snitch option like watch dogs should be implemented to stop guards from arriving if done. Arno, or whatever assassin we're talking about can pull out his Assassin's blade and say, "Dont interfer with the order" or "assassins business" and such and such. Whatever sounds cooler. I've posted this in another thread.

It's absurd how you can kill a guard in AC 4 and just stand there for hours with no additional guards arriving to catch the killer. It's immersion breaking. Makes me feel like I'm walking in an empty video game map that doesn't repond to actions I make in game.

Wave 1: Guards investigate

if you fight the guards:

Wave 2: more guards

Wave 3: think a troop of 20 guards attacking you- you have to leave the scene.

SixKeys
08-02-2014, 08:58 PM
I don't think Unity necessarily needs a notoriety system. I didn't miss notoriety at all in AC4, since Edward was a notorious pirate anyway. In Unity we're talking about the French Revolution when everything was in turmoil. Who's gonna pay attention to one hooded guy when people all over the city are fighting over grain or killing each other over political disputes? Notoriety only makes sense when the setting calls for discretion and social stealth. The French Revolution is not such a setting.

Xstantin
08-02-2014, 09:50 PM
Who's gonna pay attention to one hooded guy when people all over the city are fighting over grain or killing each other over political disputes? Notoriety only makes sense when the setting calls for discretion and social stealth. The French Revolution is not such a setting.

That brings another question in a way: shouldn't people attack you as well when you look all fashionable like a little aristo?

FlamingMoh
08-02-2014, 10:03 PM
That brings another question in a way: shouldn't people attack you as well when you look all fashionable like a little aristo?
Don't the revolutionaries wear red scarfs? Or am I an idiot?

Xstantin
08-02-2014, 10:16 PM
^There were some "oppressors" in E3 demo or whatever they were called, I just assumed it's one of the factions.

joelsantos24
08-02-2014, 10:26 PM
(...)


That's a two-way street; a public assassination means that guards will chase after us, so they'll be seeing a hooded man running away from their dead master even if we approached completely stealthily. You just murdered a high-ranking official and the guards have your description; would they really be on EXTRA high alert if you had fought your way to him instead of pouncing on him from above?

Take the Captain Xavier assassination from the E3 demo. Regardless of how you do that mission (air assassination, shoot him from the rooftop, sneak through the crowd before he gets to the guillotine, or just flat-out charge his escort and stab him in the face) you're going to be spotted by dozens (hundreds?) of people completing your kill. So if you've got the combat chops to beat his soldiers and Xavier himself, why should you be punished for that with notoriety? You weren't spotted by any more people than if you had air-assassinated him.
I'm sorry, but honestly, I don't even know how to respond to that. You just assassinated a high-ranking official, publicly, which means that hundreds of people witnessed the event. Forget it's a game, do you honestly believe you'd get away with any of that (in a real world context, that is)? Of course not, within hours, the whole city would know your entire description, from head to toe. The game is based on the premisse of simulation of a conventional society's behavior, as I said before, so this is pretty much common sense.

And I still don't understand the "punished with notoriety" analogy. You just committed a brutal crime, publicly, notoriety goes with the shoes, I'm afraid.

FlamingMoh
08-02-2014, 10:34 PM
I'm sorry, but honestly, I don't even know how to respond to that. You just assassinated a high-ranking official, publicly, which means that hundreds of people witnessed the event. Forget it's a game, do you honestly believe you'd get away with any of that (in a real world context, that is)? Of course not, within hours, the whole city would know your entire description, from head to toe. The game is based on the premisse of simulation of a conventional society's behavior, as I said before, so this is pretty much common sense.

And I still don't understand the "punished with notoriety" analogy. You just committed a brutal crime, publicly, notoriety goes with the shoes, I'm afraid.
I'm not sure you understand...

Sushiglutton
08-02-2014, 10:37 PM
Again, it's not about having fun, some actions are socially acceptable, some are not. If your definition of having fun means climbing on walls and jumping off buildings, how can the crowd and the guards not notice you and label you a disturber of some kind?

So you want to force the player to tear down a poster (or some other chore) whenever he has climbed a wall in public? That would be some messed up design imo.

I also disagree with the notion that the notoriety system would somehow be more realistic. On the contrary, one of my biggets issues has been just how immersion breaking and silly the ways to lower notoriety have been. That's not to say it would be impossible to implement a "realistic" notoriety system, but it would have to be much more complex than in the past. And I don't think it's worth it. Imo open world games should primarily present gameplay opportunities to the player, rather than to force him/her to do a series of chores as a consequence of some action.

It's ok to have some kind of "punishment" when the player is actively pursuing it. However the standard game components such as navigation, assassinating some guard, a brawl etc should be doable with no "long term" punishment.

joelsantos24
08-02-2014, 10:56 PM
So you want to force the player to tear down a poster (or some other chore) whenever he has climbed a wall in public? That would be some messed up design imo.

I also disagree with the notion that the notoriety system would somehow be more realistic. On the contrary, one of my biggets issues has been just how immersion breaking and silly the ways to lower notoriety have been. That's not to say it would be impossible to implement a "realistic" notoriety system, but it would have to be much more complex than in the past. And I don't think it's worth it. Imo open world games should primarily present gameplay opportunities to the player, rather than to force him/her to do a series of chores as a consequence of some action.

It's ok to have some kind of "punishment" when the player is actively pursuing it. However the standard game components such as navigation, assassinating some guard, a brawl etc should be doable with no "long term" punishment.
Well, I feel the opposite. Honestly, I cannot envision a game like AC without a notoriety system, it is just nonsensical, in my humble opinion.

But you are absolutely right on one thing, though, the posters deed was very poorly constructed. More than anything, most of the times, the posters would not be the even accessible to the general public. One might wonder: how on earth can some regular person perceive a wanted poster hanging 60 meters on a rooftop wall or balcony? However, wanted posters are not the only variables in an effective notoriety system. The heralds were one of the most important communication media, centuries ago, or the use of the so-called newspaper delivery boys; I think the concept used in AC3 (the printing presses) was actually interesting, although poorly handled, I think.

Sesheenku
08-03-2014, 12:06 AM
Well, I feel the opposite. Honestly, I cannot envision a game like AC without a notoriety system, it is just nonsensical, in my humble opinion.

But you are absolutely right on one thing, though, the posters deed was very poorly constructed. More than anything, most of the times, the posters would not be the even accessible to the general public. One might wonder: how on earth can some regular person perceive a wanted poster hanging 60 meters on a rooftop wall or balcony? However, wanted posters are not the only variables in an effective notoriety system. The heralds were one of the most important communication media, centuries ago, or the use of the so-called newspaper delivery boys; I think the concept used in AC3 (the printing presses) was actually interesting, although poorly handled, I think.

Games should always be fun before realism.

There's a select few who would love having to purchase food and eat twice a day, shower, crap, sleep, gather water from streams, deal with exhaustion, deal with extreme temperatures and the like.

That's most definitely not the majority though. There's a point where reality gets in the way of fun. When it becomes inconvenient and even annoying. Games should be careful not to cross these lines.

AssassinHMS
08-03-2014, 12:25 AM
Games should always be fun before realism.

There's a select few who would love having to purchase food and eat twice a day, shower, crap, sleep, gather water from streams, deal with exhaustion, deal with extreme temperatures and the like.

That's most definitely not the majority though. There's a point where reality gets in the way of fun. When it becomes inconvenient and even annoying. Games should be careful not to cross these lines.


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


YES, AC is on the verge of realism...

LoyalACFan
08-03-2014, 01:44 AM
I'm sorry, but honestly, I don't even know how to respond to that. You just assassinated a high-ranking official, publicly, which means that hundreds of people witnessed the event. Forget it's a game, do you honestly believe you'd get away with any of that (in a real world context, that is)? Of course not, within hours, the whole city would know your entire description, from head to toe. The game is based on the premisse of simulation of a conventional society's behavior, as I said before, so this is pretty much common sense.

And I still don't understand the "punished with notoriety" analogy. You just committed a brutal crime, publicly, notoriety goes with the shoes, I'm afraid.

What I'm saying is, even if you do that mission stealthily (i.e. not engaging in combat before killing Xavier) people would STILL know your description because there's no possible way to do it completely unseen. Yet if you kill a few guys in combat before killing Xavier, you'll get notorious for it. Why should that matter? Combat shouldn't magically make you more notorious than stabbing someone in broad daylight on a crowded street. Both are crimes, both are highly visible, yet only one punishes you with an annoying red bar you have to spend ten minutes clearing. Why should that be? If you're good enough at combat to escape, it shouldn't be more of a crime than a stealth kill. Unless you're advocating making EVERY kill add to your notoriety, which would suck even worse.

Sesheenku
08-03-2014, 01:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzVWrOmFWpU


YES, AC is on the verge of realism...

Thanks for reinforcing my point. Realism in notoriety systems would just make the game a chore, just like if haystacks were gone in pre-Unity AC games.

HDinHB
08-03-2014, 02:22 AM
YES, AC is on the verge of realism...

Thanks, I was looking for this very video just a few days ago.


Well, I feel the opposite. Honestly, I cannot envision a game like AC without a notoriety system, it is just nonsensical, in my humble opinion.

How did you handle the land-based parts of AC4?



Besides, it's a NOTICEABLE change. Changing the color of one single piece of clothing will not cut it. Perhaps it could escalate with notoriety. The higher the notoriety level, the greater the change needs to be.

They tried the persona system in Liberations, which I thought was a clever effort. There was still the issue of having to find a changing room, and eventually notoriety for each persona had to be reduced via the tried and true poster/bribe/murder technique.


Games should always be fun before realism.

There's a select few who would love having to purchase food and eat twice a day, shower, crap, sleep, gather water from streams, deal with exhaustion, deal with extreme temperatures and the like.

That's most definitely not the majority though. There's a point where reality gets in the way of fun. When it becomes inconvenient and even annoying. Games should be careful not to cross these lines.

Yep. I did appreciate that Desmond had a working bathroom in AC1, and I appreciated even more that he never had to use it. If there are any dev's reading, yes I noticed there were fewer and fewer spare rolls as the game went on.

Sesheenku
08-03-2014, 02:27 AM
Yep. I did appreciate that Desmond had a working bathroom in AC1, and I appreciated even more that he never had to use it. If there are any dev's reading, yes I noticed there were fewer and fewer spare rolls as the game went on.

That kind of realism is cool and acceptable and doesn't get in the way. Like you said, thankfully they did not include an interactive segment of Desmond with diarrhea for ultra realism.

AssassinHMS
08-03-2014, 02:53 AM
Thanks for reinforcing my point. Realism in notoriety systems would just make the game a chore, just like if haystacks were gone in pre-Unity AC games.

Mindlessly ripping posters down is a chore and it is not realistic. I gave more realistic ideas that are much less of a chore.

This idea that realism is connected to boredom is nothing short of weakminded.

Truth is that realism, like anything else, is only a bad thing when taken to the extreme.


Why is combat boring? It isn't realistic enough. Enemies fight like ants, they attack in turns and wait for the player to strike. They are unrealistic.
Why is stealth boring? It isn't realistic enough. Enemy AI is either dumb or telephatic (like in AC3). Stealth mechanics aren't complex enough. You can't throw rocks to lure or distract enemies, you can walk between two npcs or sit on a bench and you become invisible. Light matters nothing. It is unrealistic.

Realism is a good thing as long as it isn't taken to the extreme and as long as it isn't everywhere (like in leaps of faith). The only reason why games aren't more realistic is because they can't. Realism is a goal, not something to be feared or to run away from, especially in AC's case, where it is DESPERATELY needed.

Moultonborough
08-03-2014, 03:10 AM
As long as I don't have to rip down thousands of posters.

Sesheenku
08-03-2014, 03:22 AM
Mindlessly ripping posters down is a chore and it is not realistic. I gave more realistic ideas that are much less of a chore.

This idea that realism is connected to boredom is nothing short of weakminded.

Truth is that realism, like anything else, is only a bad thing when taken to the extreme.


Why is combat boring? It isn't realistic enough. Enemies fight like ants, they attack in turns and wait for the player to strike. They are unrealistic.
Why is stealth boring? It isn't realistic enough. Enemy AI is either dumb or telephatic (like in AC3). Stealth mechanics aren't complex enough. You can't throw rocks to lure or distract enemies, you can walk between two npcs or sit on a bench and you become invisible. Light matters nothing. It is unrealistic.

Realism is a good thing as long as it isn't taken to the extreme and as long as it isn't everywhere (like in leaps of faith). The only reason why games aren't more realistic is because they can't. Realism is a goal, not something to be feared or to run away from, especially in AC's case, where it is DESPERATELY needed.


Please do find the part of my previous posts that raves that ripping down posters is so awesomely fun and fantastic that I just can't get enough of ripping down posters! MMMMMM posters!

Hint -> You won't find it cause I never said it and my first post in the thread says I would prefer to NOT have it that way anymore.

Weak minded? Oh dear, did my previous posts ruffle you that bad?

"Taken to the extreme" is 100% subjective, so that argument can go down the drain. You can argue what you like and dislike fine in this thread but there is no definition here for "extreme" you should know better than to approach me with such arguments by now.

Why is combat boring? Realism? Uh sure OR the mechanics are too simplistic, OR it's not brutal enough, etc. etc. There are plenty of ways to make combat enjoyable to people without realism. Can realism make it more enjoyable? To a DEGREE yes but it's not the only thing and it should be moderated imo unless they're looking to make a truly old school game difficulty type AC.

Why is stealth boring? Again you name realism but once it can always come down to simple mechanics, distracting enemies is a mechanic which btw were exactly what bombs did. Do you really think it would be more fun if they removed hiding on benches? That's ludicrous, it's an enjoyable feature that ties into the theme of social stealth. Realism is not required to enhance these mechanics. Simply making better programmed AI would do fine.

There you go with extreme again, it's a useless word in this debate, there can be no agreement on what is defined as extreme.

Many games can be more realistic actually but it would take fun out if they overdo it. Imagine if parkouring down too fast caused damage? Balancing on crosses at thousands of feet in the air? Let's undo that cause that's unrealistic. Let's get rid of all the creative weapons because they're unrealistic, let's get rid of the hooded character because it's conspicuous as hell and it's unrealistic. Let's get rid of the whole storyline because it's unrealistic.

Realism is only needed to a certain degree make no mistake.

HDinHB
08-03-2014, 03:28 AM
As long as I don't have to rip down thousands of posters.

Hundreds?

@AssassinHMS -- I agree with you about the throwing rocks. They coulda/shoulda added that when they added whistling to attract guards. As far as AC DESPERATELY needing more realism, I don't agree. I wouldn't even agree with a lower-case desperately. I would entertain a lower-case more. Realism is a means to an end, not the end itself. The ultimate goal is entertainment. As others have said, fun >> realism. AC needs to maintain enough realism to keep from being puerile or campy, but not so much that is becomes mundane or repetitious. I think Ubi has done a good job with that overall, but improvements are always welcome.

AssassinHMS
08-03-2014, 04:06 AM
Weak minded? Oh dear, did my previous posts ruffle you that bad?
Sorry, it's the truth. I do find that idea to be weakminded. I didn't say you were weakminded though so you can take that as a hint and calm down.




"Taken to the extreme" is 100% subjective, so that argument can go down the drain. You can argue what you like and dislike fine in this thread but there is no definition here for "extreme" you should know better than to approach me with such arguments by now.

Why is combat boring? Realism? Uh sure OR the mechanics are too simplistic, OR it's not brutal enough, etc. etc. There are plenty of ways to make combat enjoyable to people without realism. Can realism make it more enjoyable? To a DEGREE yes but it's not the only thing and it should be moderated imo unless they're looking to make a truly old school game difficulty type AC.

Why is stealth boring? Again you name realism but once it can always come down to simple mechanics, distracting enemies is a mechanic which btw were exactly what bombs did. Do you really think it would be more fun if they removed hiding on benches? That's ludicrous, it's an enjoyable feature that ties into the theme of social stealth. Realism is not required to enhance these mechanics. Simply making better programmed AI would do fine.

There you go with extreme again, it's a useless word in this debate, there can be no agreement on what is defined as extreme.

Many games can be more realistic actually but it would take fun out if they overdo it. Imagine if parkouring down too fast caused damage? Balancing on crosses at thousands of feet in the air? Let's undo that cause that's unrealistic. Let's get rid of all the creative weapons because they're unrealistic, let's get rid of the hooded character because it's conspicuous as hell and it's unrealistic. Let's get rid of the whole storyline because it's unrealistic.

Realism is only needed to a certain degree make no mistake.

I know everything is subjective but I guess you're right on one thing. I should know better than to approach you with such arguments. So be it. Well, you know, despite the subjectivity of this world, there is this trait that most, or at least some, possess: common sense. See, I thought you had such a thing, so forgive me for the arguments I approached you with. Anyway, common sense would tell you that, by realism taken to the extreme, I meant things like the ones you exemplified such as, the assassin taking a crap.

As for the rest of your post, well, you are, once again, running away. If the mechanics are too simplistic, then they obviously lack realism. And who said benches should be removed? By that logic, should crowds be removed as well? Obviously not, they only need to be more realistic.

And don't come with "realism would only make combat more enjoyable TO A DEGREEĒ. You know damn well it would be a lot better if it was more realistic. No enemies attacking in turns, no more predictable and slow AI but instead realistic combat with good sword fighting mechanics.


And again you say things like "Imagine if parkouring down too fast caused damage? Balancing on crosses at thousands of feet in the air? Let's undo that cause that's unrealistic.". Those are extremes but then again, if you had common sense, you would know that. Pitty

FlamingMoh
08-03-2014, 04:18 AM
And again you say things like "Imagine if parkouring down too fast caused damage? Balancing on crosses at thousands of feet in the air? Let's undo that cause that's unrealistic.". Those are extremes but then again, if you had common sense, you would know that. Pitty
Pity*
I think you need to change your tone...

Sesheenku
08-03-2014, 04:23 AM
Sorry, it's the truth. I do find that idea to be weakminded. I didn't say you were weakminded though so you can take that as a hint and calm down.




I know everything is subjective but I guess you're right on one thing. I should know better than to approach you with such arguments. So be it. Well, you know, despite the subjectivity of this world, there is this trait that most, or at least some, possess: common sense. See, I thought you had such a thing, so forgive me for the arguments I approached you with. Anyway, common sense would tell you that, by realism taken to the extreme, I meant things like the ones you exemplified such as, the assassin taking a crap.

As for the rest of your post, well, you are, once again, running away. If the mechanics are too simplistic, then they obviously lack realism. And who said benches should be removed? By that logic, should crowds be removed as well? Obviously not, they only need to be more realistic.

And don't come with "realism would only make combat more enjoyable TO A DEGREE”. You know damn well it would be a lot better if it was more realistic. No enemies attacking in turns, no more predictable and slow AI but instead realistic combat with good sword fighting mechanics.


And again you say things like "Imagine if parkouring down too fast caused damage? Balancing on crosses at thousands of feet in the air? Let's undo that cause that's unrealistic.". Those are extremes but then again, if you had common sense, you would know that. Pitty

Cute try.

You'll have to try harder though.

Here's why.

1 -> Common sense does not define extremes, common sense doesn't even have a solid definition. Get out of here with those pseudo arguments.

2 -> The examples are simply there to point out that realism is unnecessary to make things better, again better AI with current mechanics would be more than enough.

3 -> Do you even know what making the combat realistic means in regards to difficulty, speed, and enemy types? A brute should realistically send you flying or at least make you stumble with one swing of his axe and then have it impaled into your skull before you can even react, dazed as you would be from the strength of the blow. That's what you want? Cause that's realism. So yes it can improve the fun to a DEGREE, going full realism would mean you are capable of easily being stunned by larger foes and make you an easy target for them realistically.

4 -> Simplicity doesn't mean it lacks realism what kind of argument is this? That's like saying that cold is the lack of heat. No it doesn't mean it lacks realism, it means it's simplistic.

5 -> You mentioned a couple of things that you deem as extreme but one might not agree cause again extreme has no definition here and NO common sense doesn't define it either. Common sense does not define subjective terms.

Once again you come at me with a poor pseudo argument. You'll have to wake up much earlier in the morning to catch me off guard with such tripe. When you construct a sensible argument based on something more solid than what you define as "extreme" and "common sense" let me know.

Xstantin
08-03-2014, 05:40 AM
Stealth mechanics aren't complex enough. You can't throw rocks to lure or distract enemies, you can walk between two npcs or sit on a bench and you become invisible.

Dome mentioned distraction tools in the bombs thread, and it's something I want in the games as well, but I was replaying Black Flag for community challenges and actually decided to try something: it's possible but slow to move around and distract guards throwing the body from cover to cover based on the line of sight, I had trouble with one of the warehouses though, cause for some reason three guards decided to investigate at once, maybe I didn't run for the bushes fast enough :nonchalance:

EDIT: I'll try to do it on some islands, when they're restricted, but something like that wouldn't obviously work on the streets because of the larger guard groups and civ reactions.

im3jia
08-03-2014, 05:44 AM
I voted not sure. Didn't even notice it was gone on land.

Moultonborough
08-03-2014, 08:57 AM
Hundreds?.

I've played them enough times where I'm sure I've reached the Thousand or more mark lol.

joelsantos24
08-03-2014, 09:00 AM
Games should always be fun before realism.

There's a select few who would love having to purchase food and eat twice a day, shower, crap, sleep, gather water from streams, deal with exhaustion, deal with extreme temperatures and the like.

That's most definitely not the majority though. There's a point where reality gets in the way of fun. When it becomes inconvenient and even annoying. Games should be careful not to cross these lines.
Not when the game is supposed to mimic and/or simulate conventional society's rules. At some point, we must get passed the empty notion of just having fun, especially in the face of inevitable and indispensable realism.


What I'm saying is, even if you do that mission stealthily (i.e. not engaging in combat before killing Xavier) people would STILL know your description because there's no possible way to do it completely unseen. Yet if you kill a few guys in combat before killing Xavier, you'll get notorious for it. Why should that matter? Combat shouldn't magically make you more notorious than stabbing someone in broad daylight on a crowded street. Both are crimes, both are highly visible, yet only one punishes you with an annoying red bar you have to spend ten minutes clearing. Why should that be? If you're good enough at combat to escape, it shouldn't be more of a crime than a stealth kill. Unless you're advocating making EVERY kill add to your notoriety, which would suck even worse.
Because you just killed another person. And it isn't magic, it's logic. You're fighting guards, and then killing them. How hard to understand is this, truly? I do agree that, if you engage into combat with a few guards and manage to kill them, without anyone ever seeing you do it, you shouldn't get notorious for it. It's not logical.

Anyway, what you're telling me, is that you should be able to assault a few policemen on the street, for instance, not kill them, mind you, and still be able to get away with it without ever becoming notorious? However, if you indeed killed any of them, you'd eventually get notorious. Do you see a problem here?

From what I understand, all you want is a free pass for a battle royale killing extravaganza, and it just doesn't work that way. Killing guards with people around, should make you notorious; fighting guards with people around, and without killing them, should make you notorious, even if less; fighting guards without witnesses, and without killing them, should make you notorious (the guards survived and forwarded your description); killing guards without witnesses, shouldn't make you notorious (there was no one else around to see it, no one else around to know about it).

Sushiglutton
08-03-2014, 09:46 AM
Well, I feel the opposite. Honestly, I cannot envision a game like AC without a notoriety system, it is just nonsensical, in my humble opinion.

But you are absolutely right on one thing, though, the posters deed was very poorly constructed. More than anything, most of the times, the posters would not be the even accessible to the general public. One might wonder: how on earth can some regular person perceive a wanted poster hanging 60 meters on a rooftop wall or balcony? However, wanted posters are not the only variables in an effective notoriety system. The heralds were one of the most important communication media, centuries ago, or the use of the so-called newspaper delivery boys; I think the concept used in AC3 (the printing presses) was actually interesting, although poorly handled, I think.


I don't mind consequences per se, it's when basic actions are punished by forcing you to do menial tasks, that I think it's gone too far. Fleeing+hiding is exciting (at least it could be, it's too easy now) and a core pillar kind of activity. But once you have succesfully hidden I don't think it adds much to the experience to make you go to some point on the map and tap a button to clean your record.

I agree with you that heralds were better than the posters, both from a realism pov and because they were less annoying. But it never felt like a meaningful activity.

I think it's better to trigger hostile-city mode through some other means. Let's say for example you are spotted in one of the assassination side missions. Now the city could become hostile, meaning that even when you have broken the line of sight there will still be guards out there actively searching for you. And your goal is to get to a safehouse in some other part of the city. This would be better imo as it would not punish standard open world exploration and it would present a meaningful challenge.

joelsantos24
08-03-2014, 10:31 AM
I don't mind consequences per se, it's when basic actions are punished by forcing you to do menial tasks, that I think it's gone too far. Fleeing+hiding is exciting (at least it could be, it's too easy now) and a core pillar kind of activity. But once you have succesfully hidden I don't think it adds much to the experience to make you go to some point on the map and tap a button to clean your record.

I agree with you that heralds were better than the posters, both from a realism pov and because they were less annoying. But it never felt like a meaningful activity.

I think it's better to trigger hostile-city mode through some other means. Let's say for example you are spotted in one of the assassination side missions. Now the city could become hostile, meaning that even when you have broken the line of sight there will still be guards out there actively searching for you. And your goal is to get to a safehouse in some other part of the city. This would be better imo as it would not punish standard open world exploration and it would present a meaningful challenge.
I don't think it has anything to do with meaning, it's just how it works. I hate playing FIFA 14 in the rain, it makes me crazy when world-class players like Yaya or Silva can't make a decent ball reception, but that's how playing in the rain works in reality. All of us who play football know about this. It gets really difficult to run/play on those conditions and ball control is infinitely harder. Is it fun? Hardly. But that's the way it is. If you get notorious in AC, you should work on reducing notoriety, period. Is it interesting action? Not likely. Is it meaningful? Doesn't have to be. It's not suppose to help you get the meaning of life, it's just necessary action.

Anyway, how would it make it more interesting to carry out assassination missions, if the city is on hostile mode? How could you even move around the city? How on earth would it make it more interesting? The notoriety system works. Is it on the pinnacle of it's evolution? No. The are numerous ways to improve and build upon the previous notoriety systems, I think that's what we should focus on, not eliminating notoriety altogether.

Hans684
08-03-2014, 10:53 AM
That brings another question in a way: shouldn't people attack you as well when you look all fashionable like a little aristo?

Yes and no. Arno is noble so he do look aristo, makes a good target for the people but unlike the other aristo's Arno is fighting for the people as seen in both demo's.


I don't think Unity necessarily needs a notoriety system. I didn't miss notoriety at all in AC4, since Edward was a notorious pirate anyway. In Unity we're talking about the French Revolution when everything was in turmoil. Who's gonna pay attention to one hooded guy when people all over the city are fighting over grain or killing each other over political disputes? Notoriety only makes sense when the setting calls for discretion and social stealth. The French Revolution is not such a setting.

Exactly.


Well, not everyone is walking around hooded, not to mention no one walks around rooftops and jumps between buildings. The notoriety system is built on the basis of high-profile and not socially acceptable actions. Climbing a ladder, that's normal. But climbing through walls? Not really. See where I'm getting? In the gameplay trailers, we were able to acknowledge that when the guards are focused on a crowd about to riot, you're able to get by pretty easily. But apart from those particular contexts, guards are pretty much expected to maintain some degree of control.

Missed my point, the notoriety system shouldn't only go after us in a time where everyone is killing everyone. Black Flag did this right, Pirates where hunted in the open world. But that time wasn't as chaotic, it was a "clean" fight between authority and Pirates. Just like the AR was a "clean" revolution compared to the FR. The FR wasn't "clean" at all(prime example: The Reign Of Terror), everyone was fighting for a better France but they all disagreed where France should go. It's not "clean" enough for a focused system that only target us.

Sushiglutton
08-03-2014, 11:18 AM
I don't think it has anything to do with meaning, it's just how it works. I hate playing FIFA 14 in the rain, it makes me crazy when world-class players like Yaya or Silva can't make a decent ball reception, but that's how playing in the rain works in reality. All of us who play football know about this. It gets really difficult to run/play on those conditions and ball control is infinitely harder. Is it fun? Hardly. But that's the way it is. If you get notorious in AC, you should work on reducing notoriety, period. Is it interesting action? Not likely. Is it meaningful? Doesn't have to be. It's not suppose to help you get the meaning of life, it's just necessary action.

Anyway, how would it make it more interesting to carry out assassination missions, if the city is on hostile mode? How could you even move around the city? How on earth would it make it more interesting? The notoriety system works. Is it on the pinnacle of it's evolution? No. The are numerous ways to improve and build upon the previous notoriety systems, I think that's what we should focus on, not eliminating notoriety altogether.


I think we look at things very differently. I would never play a game of FIFA if I didn't think I would enjoy it. In real life there are ofc plenty of situations when it's worthwhile to do things you don't really enjoy. But the essence with games to me is to have a good time. Playing a FIFA soccer game in conditions you don't like is just a waste of time imo.

There are no "necessary actions" in games as they have been designed by humans and they make the rules. There's is no necessity in punishing standard parkour with tedious tasks.

I think you missunderstood my suggestion (it wasn't that well explained). In short think of it as the scenario after you assassinate someone in AC1. Bells are ringing and you have to get back to base with enemies being more suspicious than normal.

D.I.D.
08-03-2014, 02:42 PM
I kind of want notoriety, but it needs something different as the "fix". I understand that ripping down posters was meant to be representative of a lot more unseen work on the protagonist's part, but that doesn't make a lot of sense in a game that's leaning more and more towards a perfect, gapless simulation of a character's life.

Watch Dogs had a pretty good system, where rather than getting extra attention directly from police, it was the population you had to worry about. If you did bad things, the public was more likely to call the police when you committed crimes, shop owners might hit their alarms, and Blume agents would cause more intrusions/hackings from other real-world players. Conversely, you could boost your public image by intervening in street crimes and protecting the public, which made sense - each person tells their friends and family about you saving their life, and they tell their friends, and so on. Plus, in return the pedestrians would tell you they weren't going to call the police, when you did things like holding a gun in open view in the street.

I'd rather see notoriety dealt with by eliminating the robes after this game, though. I'd prefer to control a character who is a person of their times. If I need to be less recognisable, I'd change my hair and/or my clothes, and not for a different-coloured murderer uniform, with a hood nobody else wears.

AssassinHMS
08-03-2014, 03:14 PM
Sesheenku,
You can call them pseudo arguments all you want but anyone with, at least, a pseudo brain would understand the following:

Look at this:

2 -> The examples are simply there to point out that realism is unnecessary to make things better, again better AI with current mechanics would be more than enough.
Do you still fail to see the flaw in your reasoning?
You say better AI is enough. But what is “better”? What is “better AI”?
In AC’s case, it’s no less than “more realistic AI”.
You say realism is unnecessary and the next second you claim that better/more realistic AI is more than enough.
It just doesn’t make sense. You’re running away from the word “realism”.


Oh, and by the way, you say “taken to the extreme is 100% subjective”. You fail to understand what I mean with “more realistic combat” and yet, you seem to know what “better AI” is. It’s so hypocritical it’s almost cute.



And now observe how hilarious the following statement is:

3 -> Do you even know what making the combat realistic means in regards to difficulty, speed, and enemy types? A brute should realistically send you flying or at least make you stumble with one swing of his axe and then have it impaled into your skull before you can even react, dazed as you would be from the strength of the blow. That's what you want? Cause that's realism. So yes it can improve the fun to a DEGREE, going full realism would mean you are capable of easily being stunned by larger foes and make you an easy target for them realistically.
Oh, so now you know what full realism is? Wow. Bravo! But you still don't know what "taken to the extreme" is?
You should know that you can’t be approached with such arguments by now. You said so yourself!



And finally, the last excuse of yours:

4 -> Simplicity doesn't mean it lacks realism what kind of argument is this? That's like saying that cold is the lack of heat. No it doesn't mean it lacks realism, it means it's simplistic.
If guards can see the Assassin in a dark room that means guard AI isn’t sensible to light. In other words, the AI is too simplistic. Right? And, guess what, it is unrealistic. You make stealth more realistic by making it more complex. And now, enemies are complex/realistic enough to react properly (in a realistic way/in a complex manner).
Again, you refuse to understand the implications of the word “realism”. Reality is complex. In games, realism is connected to complexity.

Seriously, this is depressing, your arguments are nonsensical and you refuse to acknowledge the difference between “more realism” and “realism taken to the extreme” (which you use in your own arguments).
So yeah, it’s pointless to argue with you when you’re having an inner struggle over the meaning of simple words.



My advice:
Go read a book.

Sesheenku
08-03-2014, 03:16 PM
Not when the game is supposed to mimic and/or simulate conventional society's rules. At some point, we must get passed the empty notion of just having fun, especially in the face of inevitable and indispensable realism.


I almost want to laugh at this.

Might as well be saying "Please I want less fun in games and more simulators where I sort my socks in a drawer or in this case go and kill 5000 witnesses, heralds, officials, and etc. to clear my notoriety"

Realism is neither inevitable nor indispensable. It can stay as realistic as it is now and very very few will complain. That's a terrible argument and you should feel terrible for allowing your fingers to type it up onto the internet.

As I've already said realism can be valuable but games must be fun over realism, always, once something is so realistic that it becomes tedious the game is no longer doing it's job and entertaining the player.

If you want realism gtfo and go watch a painfully historically accurate movie. Nobody wants such levels of realism in games.

What's next? Will you petition in GTA to have your *** attacked by massive powerful swat teams? Will stealing be so difficult that you will be forced to purchase vehicles? Will you have to sit in an office for 2 hours after an hour of negotiation and paperwork in order to buy a vehicle? Will you be interrupted constantly to eat, bathe, use the bathroom, and sleep?

Fun is not an empty notion in video games it's the whole point of video games. They were created for fun, to entertain yourself. Not to simulate the most dull and tedious tasks reality has to offer.

Christ... of all my time on this forum I have never seen anyone type up such ludicrous and utter tripe as "fun is an empty notion"

I can't believe a fellow gamer is even thinking such things.

joelsantos24
08-03-2014, 04:45 PM
I think we look at things very differently. I would never play a game of FIFA if I didn't think I would enjoy it. In real life there are ofc plenty of situations when it's worthwhile to do things you don't really enjoy. But the essence with games to me is to have a good time. Playing a FIFA soccer game in conditions you don't like is just a waste of time imo.

There are no "necessary actions" in games as they have been designed by humans and they make the rules. There's is no necessity in punishing standard parkour with tedious tasks.

I think you missunderstood my suggestion (it wasn't that well explained). In short think of it as the scenario after you assassinate someone in AC1. Bells are ringing and you have to get back to base with enemies being more suspicious than normal.
Differently? Apparently so. I still have loads of fun with every game I play, otherwise I wouldn't play it. What I meant was that playing in the rain is hard, difficult and really demanding. And a game such as FIFA must capture as many (real) variables as possible. It wouldn't make any sense to play a match in the rain without the ball getting out of control and the players having difficulties with both the pitch and ball-control. It's the same with Notoriety in AC, you're an Assassin, fighting guards and taking out targets, publicly, and to assume you should do so without the consequence of notoriety, is nonsensical, in my opinion.


I almost want to laugh at this.

Might as well be saying "Please I want less fun in games and more simulators where I sort my socks in a drawer or in this case go and kill 5000 witnesses, heralds, officials, and etc. to clear my notoriety"

Realism is neither inevitable nor indispensable. It can stay as realistic as it is now and very very few will complain. That's a terrible argument and you should feel terrible for allowing your fingers to type it up onto the internet.

As I've already said realism can be valuable but games must be fun over realism, always, once something is so realistic that it becomes tedious the game is no longer doing it's job and entertaining the player.

If you want realism gtfo and go watch a painfully historically accurate movie. Nobody wants such levels of realism in games.

What's next? Will you petition in GTA to have your *** attacked by massive powerful swat teams? Will stealing be so difficult that you will be forced to purchase vehicles? Will you have to sit in an office for 2 hours after an hour of negotiation and paperwork in order to buy a vehicle? Will you be interrupted constantly to eat, bathe, use the bathroom, and sleep?

Fun is not an empty notion in video games it's the whole point of video games. They were created for fun, to entertain yourself. Not to simulate the most dull and tedious tasks reality has to offer.

Christ... of all my time on this forum I have never seen anyone type up such ludicrous and utter tripe as "fun is an empty notion"

I can't believe a fellow gamer is even thinking such things.
Whatever you say. I wouldn't play video-games if I didn't have fun while doing so, you can bet on it. Moreover, you obviously misunderstood my point completely, so...

And realism is, indeed, inevitable and indispensable, specially if the game means to capture/simulate/mimic a real society and it's defining features. If you cannot understand this notion, that's not my problem. Of one thing I am sure, though, you can say whatever you want, you will never be able to escape this reality: in the universe of AC, notoriety makes infinite sense, specially in the social context in which the game is integrated.

Sesheenku
08-03-2014, 05:59 PM
Whatever you say. I wouldn't play video-games if I didn't have fun while doing so, you can bet on it. Moreover, you obviously misunderstood my point completely, so...

And realism is, indeed, inevitable and indispensable, specially if the game means to capture/simulate/mimic a real society and it's defining features. If you cannot understand this notion, that's not my problem. Of one thing I am sure, though, you can say whatever you want, you will never be able to escape this reality: in the universe of AC, notoriety makes infinite sense, specially in the social context in which the game is integrated.

I am not advocating the removal of notoriety... I never ever said it didn't make sense. The problem is execution and as I said nobody wants notoriety to be so realistic that you have to go kill an entire bureaucracy just to get the papers they have on your deeds out of circulation. That would be nonsensical. More realistic? Sure but NEVER to the point where it gets in the way of the fun.

Games are games first, game play enjoyment must come far before full on realism, otherwise they might as well give us stamina meters, and limit all of our activity since there's no way in hell any human could parkour for 8 hours a day nearly non-stop.

More realism in these games is not inevitable or indispensable, I disagree entirely. The realism we have now should definitely be preserved but the game would be dull if they put too much realism into it, as I said everything would become a chore.

I don't want to play a simulation in which I break my leg coming down from parkour or have to kill an entire government to erase my notoriety, that's absolutely maddening.

There's no getting past fun basically, if a feature becomes dull and tedious it is no longer a welcome feature. Much like tower defense from Revelations. It was realistic but tedious and annoying. That's not the kind of realism I want in any game.

joelsantos24
08-04-2014, 03:04 PM
I am not advocating the removal of notoriety... I never ever said it didn't make sense. The problem is execution and as I said nobody wants notoriety to be so realistic that you have to go kill an entire bureaucracy just to get the papers they have on your deeds out of circulation. That would be nonsensical. More realistic? Sure but NEVER to the point where it gets in the way of the fun.

Games are games first, game play enjoyment must come far before full on realism, otherwise they might as well give us stamina meters, and limit all of our activity since there's no way in hell any human could parkour for 8 hours a day nearly non-stop.

More realism in these games is not inevitable or indispensable, I disagree entirely. The realism we have now should definitely be preserved but the game would be dull if they put too much realism into it, as I said everything would become a chore.

I don't want to play a simulation in which I break my leg coming down from parkour or have to kill an entire government to erase my notoriety, that's absolutely maddening.

There's no getting past fun basically, if a feature becomes dull and tedious it is no longer a welcome feature. Much like tower defense from Revelations. It was realistic but tedious and annoying. That's not the kind of realism I want in any game.
Perfect, then we agree notoriety makes sense, but there are serious issues with the execution, right?

Regarding the posters thing, I totally agree with you: it's ridiculous, to have to climb 60-70 meters to tear down a poster from an unreachable place where no one would ever see it. Posters make sense, if they're put in specific areas with lots of movement and access. But it's actually boring, no doubt, to run around looking for posters just to lower notoriety. Actually, I was more into the possibility of merging the purpose of decreasing notoriety with some side-missions. Once you'd get notorious, you'd have very restricted access and mobility, but there would be some side-missions tied to some sort of action that would lower your notoriety to some degree. Rather than running around looking for posters or heralds, you could engage in some of these missions, possibly get some appealing bonuses, while you're at it, and eventually decrease your notoriety.

Sesheenku
08-04-2014, 05:52 PM
Perfect, then we agree notoriety makes sense, but there are serious issues with the execution, right?

Regarding the posters thing, I totally agree with you: it's ridiculous, to have to climb 60-70 meters to tear down a poster from an unreachable place where no one would ever see it. Posters make sense, if they're put in specific areas with lots of movement and access. But it's actually boring, no doubt, to run around looking for posters just to lower notoriety. Actually, I was more into the possibility of merging the purpose of decreasing notoriety with some side-missions. Once you'd get notorious, you'd have very restricted access and mobility, but there would be some side-missions tied to some sort of action that would lower your notoriety to some degree. Rather than running around looking for posters or heralds, you could engage in some of these missions, possibly get some appealing bonuses, while you're at it, and eventually decrease your notoriety.

Now that's a golden idea.

HDinHB
08-04-2014, 11:17 PM
The problem is execution and as I said nobody wants notoriety to be so realistic that you have to go kill an entire bureaucracy just to get the papers they have on your deeds out of circulation.

Actually, that might be kinda fun, once. Sneaking into a building to steal records and evidence, as sort of a side mission to clear your name. Or may kill/scare off a few of the mayor's enemies to earn a get out of jail free card (or cape). As long as it's much less often and lasts much longer than the poster thing. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

I just hope they don't make us wash the blood out of our clothes after every kill.


Edit: Kinda like joelsantos said.

Sesheenku
08-04-2014, 11:46 PM
Actually, that might be kinda fun, once. Sneaking into a building to steal records and evidence, as sort of a side mission to clear your name. Or may kill/scare off a few of the mayor's enemies to earn a get out of jail free card (or cape). As long as it's much less often and lasts much longer than the poster thing. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

I just hope they don't make us wash the blood out of our clothes after every kill.


Edit: Kinda like joelsantos said.

That's not too horrid but you know it shouldn't be a pain or a chore. That's all I'm saying, there also needs to be an alternative way to do it when a player just wants to keep the flow going and feels like lowering their notoriety would be an interruption.

HDinHB
08-04-2014, 11:59 PM
That's not too horrid but you know it shouldn't be a pain or a chore. That's all I'm saying, there also needs to be an alternative way to do it when a player just wants to keep the flow going and feels like lowering their notoriety would be an interruption.

Yep. I'm also fine if they don't have any notoriety system in ACU at all. I think that would be a fine experiment. I don't remember a hue and cry about it in AC4.

Sesheenku
08-05-2014, 12:09 AM
Yep. I'm also fine if they don't have any notoriety system in ACU at all. I think that would be a fine experiment. I don't remember a hue and cry about it in AC4.

I don't mind either but mostly because AC3's was awful and because 15% of my time in the Ezio trilogy was spent ripping down posters, especially cause they were nonsensically placed in between high towers.