PDA

View Full Version : Direction



AssassinHMS
11-27-2014, 08:54 PM
Disregarding all the technical issues, Unity had a very mixed reception. The same ideas behind Unity are both praised by some and criticized by others. From big things such as the absence of naval gameplay to minor aspects like hidden blades that can only be used as a stealth weapon, these aspects seem to be equally welcomed and hated by the fanbase. To some, Unity is what Assassinís Creed shouldíve been since the beginning while others claim itís a step backwards or a product of Ubisoft playing it safe.

The objective of this thread isnít to support one side or the other. What I want is for Ubisoft to reflect and make a decision.



From the moment I realized what Ubisoftís goal with Unity was (gameplay wise), I knew it would have a mixed reception (of course not as mixed as this since I could not have predicted all the glitches that plagued the game).

Assassinís Creed huge fanbase is fragmented, split in two major factions. The franchise has never been very coherent in its approach and has never really chose what audience it wants to please. Between AC1 and ACU, Ubisoftís goal with AC was to please the common gamer while keeping the original fans hooked. To accomplish that, they casualized the franchise but kept some of its most iconic features in order to attract a new crowd without alienating most of the original fans.

From then on, Ubisoft has tried to play it safe. The fanbase grew larger but the games still had to please the majority. They found the balance and now they had to keep it. Throughout the years Ubisoft changed little in the formula and avoided to push the games forward while only making them larger. Moving forward, working on the core, improving the formula, all of this would mean change, this would mean the franchise would move in a direction instead of staying still and growing larger. Better stealth, better navigation and better combat. Better in this case would mean more realism or more complexity. But this would displease a lot of fans. This would ruin the balance. But, if Ubisoft didnít do anything with AC and instead kept it the same thing every year only slightly larger (more features), all the fanbase would end up complaining. They would start saying that Ubisoft was milking the franchise, that Assassinís Creed was getting stale, that Ubisoft had lost its touch, etc.
And that is what was happening before ACU. Had Ubisoft kept its strategy, releasing reskins every year with the addition of new features, more and more fans would start complaining until Assassinís Creed would become more hated than loved.

AC Unity marked an important change in Ubisoftís strategy. They decided to move on.
Thing is, no one can hope to please so many people forever. Assassinís Creed has been slowly building this huge and ďincoherentĒ fanbase that pushes in opposite directions.
Playing safe, selling reskins wonít help, it will only delay ACís eventual end. Keeping AC still and focusing on making it bigger to hold more people instead of moving forward and making it better wonít do any good.

What happened with AC Unity was inevitable.



Ubisoft, the only way you can ever hope to get out of this situation is to keep moving forward. You NEED to choose. What is AC? What kind of game is it? What is the core of the game? And, most importantly, who do you want to please?
Because you canít please everyone and you canít make AC a universal game that suits everyone.

You need to pick a side and go with it until the end. Go back now/play it safe and you will only make the situation worse. Pick a side, pick a fanbase and decide what you want to do with AC. Either you turn it into a real Assassin Simulator (which is what the core points at) or you turn it into a historical tour and change the core of the franchise (naval becomes part of the core and stealth becomes a side mechanic, for example).



Either way, you canít go back or stay in the same place.

AssassinHMS
11-27-2014, 08:55 PM
Anyway, thanks for reading and feel free to discuss. Do you think Ubisoft can keep the current fanbase happy? What side do you think you fall on? Where do you think the franchise should go?

rprkjj
11-27-2014, 09:13 PM
Disregarding all the technical issues, Unity had a very mixed reception. The same ideas behind Unity are both praised by some and criticized by others. From big things such as the absence of naval gameplay to minor aspects like hidden blades that can only be used as a stealth weapon, these aspects seem to be equally welcomed and hated by the fanbase. To some, Unity is what Assassinís Creed shouldíve been since the beginning while others claim itís a step backwards or a product of Ubisoft playing it safe.

The objective of this thread isnít to support one side or the other. What I want is for Ubisoft to reflect and make a decision.



From the moment I realized what Ubisoftís goal with Unity was (gameplay wise), I knew it would have a mixed reception (of course not as mixed as this since I could not have predicted all the glitches that plagued the game).

Assassinís Creed huge fanbase is fragmented, split in two major factions. The franchise has never been very coherent in its approach and has never really chose what audience it wants to please. Between AC1 and ACU, Ubisoftís goal with AC was to please the common gamer while keeping the original fans hooked. To accomplish that, they casualized the franchise but kept some of its most iconic features in order to attract a new crowd without alienating most of the original fans.

From then on, Ubisoft has tried to play it safe. The fanbase grew larger but the games still had to please the majority. They found the balance and now they had to keep it. Throughout the years Ubisoft changed little in the formula and avoided to push the games forward while only making them larger. Moving forward, working on the core, improving the formula, all of this would mean change, this would mean the franchise would move in a direction instead of staying still and growing larger. Better stealth, better navigation and better combat. Better in this case would mean more realism or more complexity. But this would displease a lot of fans. This would ruin the balance. But, if Ubisoft didnít do anything with AC and instead kept it the same thing every year only slightly larger (more features), all the fanbase would end up complaining. They would start saying that Ubisoft was milking the franchise, that Assassinís Creed was getting stale, that Ubisoft had lost its touch, etc.
And that is what was happening before ACU. Had Ubisoft kept its strategy, releasing reskins every year with the addition of new features, more and more fans would start complaining until Assassinís Creed would become more hated than loved.

AC Unity marked an important change in Ubisoftís strategy. They decided to move on.
Thing is, no one can hope to please so many people forever. Assassinís Creed has been slowly building this huge and ďincoherentĒ fanbase that pushes in opposite directions.
Playing safe, selling reskins wonít help, it will only delay ACís eventual end. Keeping AC still and focusing on making it bigger to hold more people instead of moving forward and making it better wonít do any good.

What happened with AC Unity was inevitable.



Ubisoft, the only way you can ever hope to get out of this situation is to keep moving forward. You NEED to choose. What is AC? What kind of game is it? What is the core of the game? And, most importantly, who do you want to please?
Because you canít please everyone and you canít make AC a universal game that suits everyone.

You need to pick a side and go with it until the end. Go back now/play it safe and you will only make the situation worse. Pick a side, pick a fanbase and decide what you want to do with AC. Either you turn it into a real Assassin Simulator (which is what the core points at) or you turn it into a historical tour and change the core of the franchise (naval becomes part of the core and stealth becomes a side mechanic, for example).



Either way, you canít go back or stay in the same place.

I think you told it like it is. Many critics of Unity are pointing to both Black Flag and Rogue as what they should be doing, which is very much contrasted to Unity which moved forward and made advances on every core mechanic of the series. Before launch, I knew Unity was either gonna get 9-10s for nailing the AC formula, or more mediocre scores for moving away from naval. It seems it was a bit of both. Obviously the game isn't perfect, even as a giant leap in the franchise, but Ubi is getting mixed signals from a multitude of different demographics.

What I want from Assassin's Creed is a gripping story and cast of characters, a sandbox world in a fresh setting filled with interesting things to do, a nice middle ground between Forest Gumping AC3 and backdrop Unity/1, where I'm given enough details and character interaction regarding the period and historical events of the setting but not at the sacrifice of design. I want large sandbox assassinations and cinematic yet open missions to fill the spaces in between. I want another legit modern day protag, I want the intrigue and cliffhangers, and I want the MD story to feel important and gripping overall.

Unity comes incredibly close to this, yet doesn't deliver at all on the MD and is only serviceable and at times interesting in the historical narrative.

Megas_Doux
11-27-2014, 09:25 PM
Considering the general outrage about the game being "too hard" and boring in both combat and mission design. I guess Ubi will listen to the majority of their customers and return to the days in which you carried 5898509892580980 weapons with 58993489348039 units of ammo per weapon while gaining an armor that made you stronger than Iron man in his Hulk-buster gear and so on.

Me????

I like the general direction Ubi took with Unity in terms of gameplay, bugs and performance aside, of course.


I think you told it like it is. Many critics of Unity are pointing to both Black Flag and Rogue as what they should be doing, which is very much contrasted to Unity which moved forward and made advances on every core mechanic of the series. Before launch, I knew Unity was either gonna get 9-10s for nailing the AC formula, or more mediocre scores for moving away from naval. It seems it was a bit of both. Obviously the game isn't perfect, even as a giant leap in the franchise, but Ubi is getting mixed signals from a multitude of different demographics.
.

I really liked AC IV and so did MANY critics, their main reason was the naval/pirate stuff, though. If you read between the lines, they enjoyed the game DESPITE being an Assassinīs Creed to the point some of them implicitly wished the game had nothing to do with AC to begin with.....

I can think of Angry Joe and the guy at IGN for instance.

Xstantin
11-27-2014, 09:36 PM
Unity reminded me of Dishonored in many ways and I think it's a good thing.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-27-2014, 09:57 PM
I don't buy the premise. The problem isn't that Ubisoft have been trying to please everyone - they have, but that's not the problem. The problem is that they don't have anyone who knows what the franchise is fundamentally all about (clue - it's not about the combat, or the stealth) - they fired the guy who knew (Patrice Dťsilets) in 2010 and replaced him with a couple of creative directors (Alex Amancio and Alex Hutchinson) who don't have a clue. Since then, the franchise has lurched about trying to figure out what it is. It came out best when Ashraf Ismail and Jean Guesdon took over for Black Flag. They at least knew how to merge the history into the game in a way that felt more like the old magic was returning, even though their pacing left a bit to be desired.

Rugterwyper32
11-27-2014, 09:59 PM
This is all based on what I've seen, so don't quote me on this. Might change next year when I get the chance to play the game, but from what I've perceived so far, maybe the best route would be to make two franchises. The Assassin's Creed series should keep heading in the direction of the original and Unity and try to focus further on what is essential for this series. Focus on the pillars, keep history as a backdrop and have the assassin-templar conflict.
However, historical tourism does have its merit. It's the one reason I got into the series, for one, but I believe it could simply be moved to another franchise. A series more focused around the element of exploration, a more relaxed-pace game that doesn't focus on the stealth and tension the Assassin's Creed franchise should have but something that works more like AC4, for instance. Focus on a rewarding exploration aspect rather than a rewarding stealth aspect, should we say. It definitely has merit, and truth be told, I find some joy in exploring in AC4 even if it's not as rewarding as it could be, and a series focused on that would definitely make things better in that sense.
So yeah, divide it. Focus Assassin's Creed on improving its core and having history as a backdrop while keeping modern day in mind, making it reach its potential; and create another series that can focus on the wanderlust, historical tourism aspect that works at a more relaxed pace and expands more on the history aspect without any care for a modern day aspect, stick purely to history.

Rafe Harwood
11-27-2014, 10:10 PM
The only thing I think I can add here, is the icons for everything.

It was dumbed down to find things for the masses because the avg iq is lower than the boiling point of water.

Half the exploration was killed off by just saying "here is where your thing is".

Maybe by making people actually 'search' for these things might bring back that feeling of having to work to find them. It would add hours to gameplay simply by removing that one thing.

It would frustrate us and annoy us and ultimately reward us when we finally managed to find all the little buggers.

rprkjj
11-27-2014, 10:14 PM
Considering the general outrage about the game being "too hard" and boring in both combat and mission design. I guess Ubi will listen to the majority of their customers and return to the days in which you carried 5898509892580980 weapons with 58993489348039 units of ammo per weapon while gaining an armor that made you stronger than Iron man in his Hulk-buster gear and so on.

Me????

I like the general direction Ubi took with Unity in terms of gameplay, bugs and performance aside, of course.



I really liked AC IV and so did MANY critics, their main reason was the naval/pirate stuff, though. If you read between the lines, they enjoyed the game DESPITE being an Assassinīs Creed to the point some of them implicitly wished the game had nothing to do with AC to begin with.....

I can think of Angry Joe and the guy at IGN for instance.

Exactly. Those reviewers came to mind. I remember a poll they had after Black Flag, where many voted to have the naval aspect become it's own series. I would be okay with this, I like both Unity and Black Flag's gameplay, and I wouldn't sacrifice core advancement to blend the 2 in an effort to appeal to everyone.

lukazdragon
11-27-2014, 10:34 PM
I'm taking a look at unity's combat, since I can't play it yet. It's looking good, you attack, defend, defending properly stuns the enemy, leaving them rendered for damage. Just two things I would change:
Lower the enemie's life, if Arno's so easily killed. If it's for realism, it's boring to see an enemy being cut in the chest, in the leg, in the neck, stabbed ion the stomach, and stil have half it's life left and no signal of the injuries affecting his skill; that bothers me in any combat system involving swords and realism.
I would also add some specific situations for counter-kills. Not just "B+X and BAM enemy's dead" but things like "if the opponent is low on health and you counter at the right time, you can counter-kill him. I would also add a bar that fills with efficient in combat, and it's filling adds an "Assassin token" that stays active only for that combat, allowing for one special skill use, like an instakill. This way, it would still be challenging, but you would still be able to make the so called "badass" things. The difference is that for the counter-kills, you would have to work to open way for one, and for the kill chains, you would have to fight well enough to acumulate the tokens for a kill chain, and even then, it would be a 2 or three kill one, not an infinite kill streak.
Also, more options and animations. The developers can find ways to add variability without lowering difficulty, having more tools in combat doesn't necessarily mean an easier fight. Too much repetition isn't good as weel.
We should have in mind that combat should not be the LAST resort, but an alternate strategy for those who can master it, instead of an easy way to go through the level.
Anyway, I'm anxious to play Unity, and test the combat myself.

Dev_Anj
11-28-2014, 03:22 AM
I don't buy the premise. The problem isn't that Ubisoft have been trying to please everyone - they have, but that's not the problem. The problem is that they don't have anyone who knows what the franchise is fundamentally all about (clue - it's not about the combat, or the stealth)

What is it about then? I remember the whole premise was that you used machines to access memories of assassins who lived in the past and used crowds and the like to hide yourself, killed major people of power in historical times, and explored historical cities and settings. Stealth and combat do sound like important things here given the premise.