PDA

View Full Version : Does a well executed Story make up for mediocre gameplay and mechanics



MasterAssasin84
01-02-2015, 05:18 PM
Ok Guy's what do we all think ?


Ever since the release of AC1 back in 2007 from then on there has been a divide of opinion as to what makes a great Assassins Creed game wether its the plot or gameplay ?

I would be inclined to leave graphics out of the equation for this debate as if its visuals the gamer is looking then they might as well watch a movie .

AC1's core mechanics was very realistic in terms of the climbing and Altair's ergonomics but they seemed to falter when AC2 was released.

After AC3 and Black Flag as much as I really enjoyed the Kenway games I did feel the games mechanics was far too automated and were there was a bit more control over the combat and parkour climbing then they would have been near on perfection but because of the immersive story and amazing settings I was very easily able to look further than that specific criticism .

ACU has gone the complete reverse upscaled mechanics and combat but a complete Mess of the games plot and character development ?

What are your views ?

Megas_Doux
01-02-2015, 05:27 PM
It really depends on who do you ask....

Fans that hold AC III their favorite certainly "ignore" the blatantly awful mission design in AC III because that is the most "story driven" game in the franchise. Personally I would love to have both, Unity was a step forwards in terms of the core mechanics, but the story lacked and the release was a total mess.

Again, annualization is to blame.

MasterAssasin84
01-02-2015, 05:31 PM
It really depends on who do you ask....

Fans that hold AC III their favorite certainly "ignore" the blatantly awful mission design in AC III because that is the most "story driven" game in the franchise. Personally I would love to have both, Unity was a step forwards in terms of the core mechanics, but the story lacked....


This is the interesting thing I really loved AC3 because of the setting but i have to be true to myself that the mission structure was not exactly great ! The Assassination contracts was a prime example of that ..

Black Flag improved on those elements whilst the core mechanics was somewhat mediocre and not much of an improvement .

ACU yes mechanics are a step and combat requires a bit more skill and I love the Assassination mission structure and getting creative with your opportunities but the story and character development is a total mess.

Kaschra
01-02-2015, 05:33 PM
Yeah, it depends on were your priorities lie.

For me it does, I can easily look past gameplay flaws if I enjoy characters and story enough.
Doesn't really work the other way for me though.

MasterAssasin84
01-02-2015, 05:36 PM
Doesn't really work the other way for me though.


Which IMO is were ACU has messed up .

Annualistion is the key to deivering an AC game that will give us the fans both, It needs to stop but then again as long as we keep buying the more Ubi will be churning them out .

Namikaze_17
01-02-2015, 05:39 PM
Yeah, it depends on were your priorities lie.

For me it does, I can easily look past gameplay flaws if I enjoy characters and story enough.
Doesn't really work the other way for me though.

This.

RinoTheBouncer
01-02-2015, 06:03 PM
It does for me. I’d rather have an AC which has a gameplay like Heavy Rain or Beyond Two Souls, where it’s mainly walking and pushing buttons, but amazing story both modern day and historical as well as the First Civ. parts, and everything is interconnected with the overarching story and the lore, than have a game full of new mechanics and gameplay styles like co-op, MP, sailing, and the likes. I’d choose the first in a heartbeat.

The story is the soul of the game. The gameplay comes second for me. I know you might say “then go watch a movie”. But no, it’s different. Here, I’m controlling this movie, and I’m having a much longer time watching the story unfold. I’d love to see good gameplay, that’s for sure, but if there’s no decent story in a franchise that built itself on important stories, interconnected events and a great overarching story and lore, it would definitely feel empty and pointless. However, I wouldn’t react the same if we were talking about Tekken, Devil May Cry or GTA, where the story is the not so important and all we care to see is cool moves and lots of gun fire and epic acrobatics and mechanics.

People still hold the classic ACs with such high regard because they had a wonderful, interconnected story and an episodic nature with amazing protagonists. But with all due respect, none of the new mechanics could make for the lack of modern day, lack of lore and lack of importance in the story.

MasterAssasin84
01-02-2015, 06:10 PM
People still hold the classic ACs with such high regard because they had a wonderful, interconnected story and an episodic nature with amazing protagonists. But with all due respect, none of the new mechanics could make for the lack of modern day, lack of lore and lack of importance in the story.


This is exactly what I was trying to understand, ACU had amazing visuals but it was severely lacking in the Story and Plot and I do not how many would agree with but Arno was not exactly great Protagonist .

Its a shame because I was so hyped for the french revolution as Paris was essentially the Home of the Masonic Masonry and on the subject Germaine was probably the un formidable Templar Ive ever encountered in an AC game


But I really enjoyed the new climbing system and the combat but I kind of felt lost in the game in a sense of were is this all heading ? it just felt like a random parkour and combat simulation rather than an Assassins Creed game .

RinoTheBouncer
01-02-2015, 06:16 PM
This is exactly what I was trying to understand, ACU had amazing visuals but it was severely lacking in the Story and Plot and I do not how many would agree with but Arno was not exactly great Protagonist .

But I really enjoyed the new climbing system and the combat but I kind of felt lost in the game in a sense of were is this all heading ? it just felt like a random parkour and combat simulation rather than an Assassins Creed game .

EXACTLY.

“Where was all this heading?” was the question I kept asking. I loved Arno, to be quite honest and I loved Elise and I loved them both as a couple as well. But the fact that the game was stripped of any lore and any progress to the overarching story or even a purpose and achievement from this particular mission, totally ruined the experience for me.

I loved the Parkour, I loved the characters and I loved the graphics so much. But it’s like all this was a beautifully decorated restaurant, but there was no main course. It’s like we just sat in a beautiful restaurant but the main course which is the lore (which was everything in the classics, ACI to ACIII) is absent. So this whole lavish place was beautiful on it’s own but could not make up for the lack of the main course. While on the other hand, when you order home deliver or any type of take-away food that you love so much and eat it anywhere, it will still be delicious and that’s what used to happen before in the classics when there were no next gen graphics nor too many side missions and co-op or even multiplayer, yet the story itself was more than enough.

Assassin_M
01-02-2015, 06:32 PM
If a game has either, it's a good game to me. I don't look for a good "something" in a game. Both can redeem a game in my eyes. If it has mediocre or uninspired gameplay but a good story, it's a good game and vice versa.All that matters is the experience to me.

GoldenBoy9999
01-02-2015, 06:36 PM
Yes, I play AC for the story and the historical aspects. Ubisoft has done great on the history so far, but if they could also include a great story, I'd excuse mediocre gameplay.

Unity's gameplay was already good, and I don't see it getting worse. But if there was no improvement in the gameplay, I'd still be happy. Good gameplay is nice, but I can get that in my other games. I want AC to shine in what I love about it, the story.

MasterAssasin84
01-02-2015, 06:39 PM
If a game has either, it's a good game to me. I don't look for a good "something" in a game. Both can redeem a game in my eyes. If it has mediocre or uninspired gameplay but a good story, it's a good game and vice versa.All that matters is the experience to me.AC2 ACB are very good examples of this whilst Ezio's character was very cliche and fabricated I did enjoy the rennaisance setting beautiful architecture and the Templar conspiracy during a time were art, banking and trade was prominent.. But in terms of the game play mechanics they seemed to me a step backwards from AC1 .AC3 and Black Flag I hold dear to my heart !! due to the settings the story and the mechanics was not terrible but not exactly good but they was a step up to what the Ezio trilogy was !

But AC2 did introduce the double Assassination skill as a result of Altair's codex but one thing that did disappoint me was the removal of the human shield

EmbodyingSeven5
01-02-2015, 06:53 PM
If a game has either, it's a good game to me. I don't look for a good "something" in a game. Both can redeem a game in my eyes. If it has mediocre or uninspired gameplay but a good story, it's a good game and vice versa.All that matters is the experience to me.

http://www.niemanlab.org/images/This.1.jpg

JustPlainQuirky
01-02-2015, 07:13 PM
It has to at least have passable gameplay

and even then it wouldnt be a fav

ac3 i love but its not even in my top 10 games
same with rogue

needs a good balance of story/gameplay/presentation (holy trinity)

EmbodyingSeven5
01-02-2015, 07:24 PM
it has to at least have passable gameplay

and even then it wouldnt be a fav

ac3 i love but its not even in my top 10 games
same with rogue

needs a good balance of story/gameplay/presentation (holy trinity)


skyrim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

GunnerGalactico
01-02-2015, 07:27 PM
To me it is a 50/50 thing. A game has to at least have an interesting and well written story, as well as good gameplay mechanics and features. When I play a game, I enjoy the story and the gameplay. I agree with M about having a decent experience.

EmbodyingSeven5
01-02-2015, 07:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSReSGe200A

Shahkulu101
01-02-2015, 07:46 PM
No, but great mechanics make up for a poor/mediocre story.

Unity had neither. Mechanics were alright, story was abysmal.

Bleem7
01-02-2015, 07:48 PM
I could most likely pass, say 70/30. The story is the element which gives life to a game and if it's good enough, I can overlook the mechanics. Although I do want to play through the story fluidly so completely neglecting gameplay is unreasonable as well.

But yeah, having equally both would be a bullseye. It's just really hard to accomplish that since everybody's opinion varies.

Assassin_M
01-02-2015, 08:11 PM
AC2 ACB are very good examples of this whilst Ezio's character was very cliche and fabricated I did enjoy the rennaisance setting beautiful architecture and the Templar conspiracy during a time were art, banking and trade was prominent.. But in terms of the game play mechanics they seemed to me a step backwards from AC1 .AC3 and Black Flag I hold dear to my heart !! due to the settings the story and the mechanics was not terrible but not exactly good but they was a step up to what the Ezio trilogy was !

But AC2 did introduce the double Assassination skill as a result of Altair's codex but one thing that did disappoint me was the removal of the human shield
Indeed, it's why I keep saying I don't dislike any of the AC games. They all had substantial "good" that gave me great experiences.

Jackdaw951
01-02-2015, 08:23 PM
No. They're called "games" for a reason. Gameplay is king. Everything else is secondary, even the story. The story rules movies and books.

RADAR__4077
01-02-2015, 09:11 PM
No. They're called "games" for a reason. Gameplay is king. Everything else is secondary, even the story. The story rules movies and books.

Looks like someone jumped in at black flag.

Seriously dude, go play cod if that's how you feel.

Myself and all of my friends started playing ac FROM GAME 1 and stuck with it because it was one of the few games left that cared about a well thought out single player story. Ubisoft has forgotten about fans like us who got the series off the ground and are now targeting the "oooooooooo shiney!" crowd. Call of duty can get away with cranking out a "new" game every year with a couple new features and slightly updated graphics because that's all that crowd cares about. AC was built on a foundation of a good story, but that has been abandoned for a shameless money grab catering to the masses.

Assassin_M
01-02-2015, 09:17 PM
Looks like someone jumped in at black flag.

Seriously dude, go play cod if that's how you feel.

Myself and all of my friends started playing ac FROM GAME 1 and stuck with it because it was one of the few games left that cared about a well thought out single player story. Ubisoft has forgotten about fans like us who got the series off the ground and are now targeting the "oooooooooo shiney!" crowd. Call of duty can get away with cranking out a "new" game every year with a couple new features and slightly updated graphics because that's all that crowd cares about. AC was built on a foundation of a good story, but that has been abandoned for a shameless money grab catering to the masses.
Woah woah, hold your horses. Not that I necessarily agree with him but come on, man....AC "sold out" since AC II. AC II was the first attempt in "catering to the masses".

Take this advice, don't make weird assumptions about others based on abstract facts that may or may not be true. I started all the way back in 2008 with AC I and I think Black Flag is a much, MUCH better story and game than AC II ever was.

RADAR__4077
01-02-2015, 09:27 PM
Woah woah, hold your horses. Not that I necessarily agree with him but come on, man....AC "sold out" since AC II. AC II was the first attempt in "catering to the masses".

Take this advice, don't make weird assumptions about others based on abstract facts that may or may not be true. I started all the way back in 2008 with AC I and I think Black Flag is a much, MUCH better story and game than AC II ever was.

Yeah I did get a little excited.

Maybe it's just me, but it at least appeared to have a well thought out, and MD relevant story up until they killed off Desmond. Black flag was fun, but Edward just felt weird to me as an assassin and the MD side doesn't interest me at all anymore.

Also having the name "Jackdaw" was a clue...

Assassin_M
01-02-2015, 09:32 PM
Yeah I did get a little excited.

Maybe it's just me, but it at least appeared to have a well thought out, and MD relevant story up until they killed off Desmond. Black flag was fun, but Edward just felt weird to me as an assassin and the MD side doesn't interest me at all anymore.

Also having the name "Jackdaw" was a clue...
It's all subjective. To me, AC II was when things started going downhill for modern day. There was barely any of it and NOTHING happened....Oh apart from the sun. Everything established in AC I was gone. Who was Leila Morino? What happened with the satellite? Who were the Assassins that tried to break me out of Abstergo? People seem to forget that AC II had just as much responsibility in leaving these questions unanswered as every other AC game up until AC III.

Ehhhhh, he joined in July 2014. BF may have been his newest game, so.

Hans684
01-02-2015, 09:39 PM
Yes it does, that's why I [for the most part] buy it for the story. The story alone don't determine how the gameplay is going to be unless it's the kind of style like Beyond: Two Souls. AC has far more factors than simply an assassination simulator alone. Assassin simulator is the series described at it's simplest, have a simulator like that without AC's lore and it's just Hitman in random eras with no story reason to exist(sadly Unity).

It's things like rear opportunitys like if a game was set in the Golden Age of Piracy, not playing a pirate turned Asssasin would be a miss. Same with naval, nailing the era is an important story/lore and gameplay factor. What AC is is far more set in stone because of it's main [and strongest] factor. History, history determine how a new AC can be or whey it can be. Limiting AC instead of embracing everything and every view(of the AvsT war) is done thing that will hurt the series. Both the core and story ends with history, it's what this series is based on. It's why the games can be so much more. Take away history and AC is basically Star Wars. It would pure fantasy by that point, it would have no limit(AC current limit is history, First Civ. and MD).

AssassinHMS
01-03-2015, 12:40 AM
NOTHING can replace good gameplay just like nothing can replace a good story. Now, subjectively speaking, one could replace the other depending on the person's taste.

That being said, games are fundamentally about gameplay. If it has a story but no gameplay (no way for the viewer to interact) then it isn’t a game, it’s a movie. Story isn’t a requirement, gameplay IS. The story is there to complement the gameplay, to give a “reason”/“purpose” for its existence.

RADAR__4077
01-03-2015, 02:06 AM
NOTHING can replace good gameplay just like nothing can replace a good story. Now, subjectively speaking, one could replace the other depending on the person's taste.

That being said, games are fundamentally about gameplay. If it has a story but no gameplay (no way for the viewer to interact) then it isn’t a game, it’s a movie. Story isn’t a requirement, gameplay IS. The story is there to complement the gameplay, to give a “reason”/“purpose” for its existence.

I agree up to a point.

Yes, without gameplay you have no game, BUT in the case of assassin's creed, it was the story that made it something more than just another open world action game. It was the story that drew you into another world and made you want to continue playing. Without the story you are just some random guy with some cool toys killing people. Case and point, Unity.

So yes, gameplay is very important, but you cannot focus only on gameplay when it means you are neglecting the story which gave many people REASON to play.

Assassin_M
01-03-2015, 02:31 AM
Yes, without gameplay you have no game, BUT in the case of assassin's creed, it was the story that made it something more than just another open world action game.
Not to me, really. What drew me to Assassins Creed was the fantasy of free roaming in a historical setting.

SOLIDSOUTHCENTRA
01-03-2015, 02:47 AM
It is funny you create this thread because I was replying to people in other threads regarding this same topic. IMO I feel with AC gameplay and mechanics and content (Which AC Unity has an abundance of) is far more important then plot and story. Like I said in another thread AC is basically about Assassins and Templars. AC Unity is the best AC to date KEEP IT COMMING UBISOFT.

SOLIDSOUTHCENTRA
01-03-2015, 02:55 AM
AC Unity is the best AC game to date and I have played everyone of them. 1)AC Unity 2) AC Brotherhood.

dargor5
01-03-2015, 03:12 AM
To me is gameplay over story. For instance take ACB and ACR, they had very good story as they filled in the gaps for the modern day story and the first civ, but the gameplay to me was just repetitive with not many changes since AC2. Unity story is not that compeling and has almost zero modern world (thank you) but it has kept me playing because of the mechanics

D.I.D.
01-03-2015, 03:33 AM
Gameplay first for me, no question, or at the very least I want to feel atmosphere in the things that "I do" (that is to say, "the behaviour I direct with the controller").

Story is nice to have, but it's less important. There are very, very, few games with truly interesting writing, but there are loads of games with thrilling gameplay and/or atmosphere. Truly good writing in games is an even rarer thing than merely interesting writing at this point, which is a shame but that's still where we are. It will be a great day when the position of a writer is firmly on the inside the core design crew for games rather than as a satellite position, and a better day still when AAA projects become more predictable and fewer scenes and chapters need to be cut.

Perhaps we've got a longer wait on our hands than that, and we'll need fast, cheap global internet, the death of the disc market for consoles, and consoles with high capacity SSDs to allow games studios to fully exercise their ambitions.

RADAR__4077
01-03-2015, 04:17 AM
Not to me, really. What drew me to Assassins Creed was the fantasy of free roaming in a historical setting.

Let's just agree to disagree.

The historical settings are another key part of the series but when one part is neglected the whole game suffers for me.

Hans684
01-03-2015, 04:26 AM
Try making an AC without history [MD and First Civ.] and you will see.

SpiritOfNevaeh
01-03-2015, 04:34 AM
I asked Darby about this same thing about gameplay/story elements a while back (specifically when I asked him about so many cut dialogues and such from AC3) and this is what he said:

http://i58.tinypic.com/11tnd42.png

And I kinda agree with this.

The_Kiwi_
01-03-2015, 05:23 AM
I don't care if you can kill people just by pushing one button
As long as the story is inspired and fascinating, I don't care about how bad the gameplay is.

Namikaze_17
01-03-2015, 05:33 AM
It goes both ways for me...

Gameplay is great, but once I master and complete everything, there's nothing left but a bad story.

On the other hand, there's a fantastic story yet the gameplay isn't all there.

Both are terrible in the long run, but the latter is the lesser of two evils for me.

JustPlainQuirky
01-03-2015, 06:01 AM
I asked Darby about this same thing about gameplay/story elements a while back (specifically when I asked him about so many cut dialogues and such from AC3) and this is what he said:

http://i58.tinypic.com/11tnd42.png

And I kinda agree with this.

lmfao seeing all these tweets reminds me of how much we harassed Darby senpai :rolleyes:

when he said "boring gameplay" I was SOOOO tempted to reply "Then why does ACIV modern day SUCK SO BAD, EY?" coupled with the sound effect of "OOOOOOHHHHH"

king-hailz
01-03-2015, 11:32 AM
I'm probably 70% for the story and 30% for the game play! To be honest I do think that game play and story can work hand in hand which is how I felt AC2 did it, when I think of that game I think of how much I loved the story buy I also think how much fun I had fighting and running around the cities! With AC3 I really didn't like the game play and although I like the plot I think the story was executed poorly, also the game play felt like a chore to me which made me have to do things to see the story! So I would prefer a game with an amazing story as long as the game play is somewhat fun! I think if victory has a great story, with slightly improved game play from unity that it will be an amazing game!

I also think that if Arno was given a real good character development and if I really liked him that I would enjoy playing th game more! If I like the main character that makes it more fun for me to play as them doing awesome stuff!

SixKeys
01-03-2015, 12:38 PM
In response to the title: no. ACR and AC3 are proof of that to me. Both games had the makings of a compelling narrative, some truly memorable scenes, great voice-acting (for the most part) and especially AC3 had good cutscene directing designed to suck you into the story. But both games suffered from lacklustre mechanics and downright terrible gameplay. ACR is only higher in my estimation because of some good stand-out missions that allowed for freedom of approach, like the Yerebatan Cistern which allows for a different experience upon each replay. AC3, OTOH, plays pretty much the same on every replay because of its linearity. If you're not invested in the narrative (and I wasn't, in both cases) then it needs some solid gameplay to save it. Unity and ACB had lacklustre stories, but the gameplay was some of the best in the series. I don't even remember most of Unity's story anymore, TBH, but I can sure recall the exhilarating feeling swelling inside me every time I successfully pulled off a mission exactly the way I planned it. When I was allowed to ignore the obvious breadcrumb path laid out by the designers and forge my own narrative. I'm the type of person who likes to wander around the game's world making up my own stories about its inhabitants. If the world is alive enough and captures the imagination, why should I care if the main story written by someone else is lacking?

JonoLee
01-03-2015, 12:50 PM
I've said this many times and I'll say it again: What sets Assassin's Creed apart from other video game franchises is the depth of the storytelling/writing.

While everyone prefers great game play and mechanics, a well executed story, when done right, will overshadow that. Look at AC1 for example. The mechanics and game play were the most simplistic in the series; yet, the memory of playing such a game still lies near and dear to my heart. Why? Because the storytelling and writing was fantastic.

Look at the game as a whole. In terms of combat/parkour/stealth aspects, AC isn't really the gold standard in any of those in the gaming industry. The best combat system IMO goes to Batman, parkour to Mirror's Edge, and stealth to more games than I can count. When it really comes down to it, AC doesn't really innovate in terms of mechanics. Is that a bad thing? Nope. Let me explain.

Assassin's Creed is unique because it combines all of the elements stated above with a compelling story that blends the modern world with a historical perspective, which, to my knowledge, no other game does it quite like Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed without good writing is just pretty meh. What made people fall in love with the franchise originally was the phenomenal writing and plot direction that the folks at Ubisoft did. And this is exactly where AC: Unity failed in every regard.

Mechanically, AC: Unity is the best in the series by a mile. The new downward parkour is a fantastic addition. The multiple points of entry presented in each mission is a nice withdrawal from the linear nature of game play seen in past AC games. However, due to the story being absolute dog**** and the game being unfinished (unpolished is too nice of a compliment), it is by far the worst AC game in the franchise IMO.

topeira1980
01-03-2015, 06:48 PM
For me gamea are for gameplay. Everything should serve that. I turn to movies or tv for story and am deeply let down if the story isnt good in a tv show, but i forgive games for bad story line. Acu has a shallow story with a lot of missed opportunities, but the mechanics are the best in the series ever. Yeah, we have fewer tools or options in combat but everything serves a much better balance. It isnt perfect and its easy for me to point out the problems in gameplay but in spite of the issues in mechanics i think the gameplay is so vastly improved over any other AC game.
So much so that ACU is my favorite AC game ever.
The open ended nature of the missions, the better combat, stealth and free running, costumization, the fun side missions collectables (the chests are like tiny missions on their own... Unlike the cockades which arent interesting to me)... Everything is so much better.

Assassin_M
01-03-2015, 08:23 PM
For me, games are for gameplay. Everything should serve that.
Truest statement said in this thread. Although, to expand. Lets take the midnight ride. Unfortunately, story overrode gameplay in this mission. The developers wanted a thrilling experience with history and so designed this mission with nothing but story in mind. "Imagine, riding with Paul Revere, that would be amazing" It turned out to be a terrible mission.

What should have been done is the gameplay should have served and complimented the story. Okay, we want Connor to be present in this event and directly aid Revere. How could we use the CORE PILLARS to design this mission? That's right, riding horses is not a core pillar, not to mention that it's not exactly "crisp" Horses are clunky and unreliable, so lets look at what makes our games fun and what they stand on. How about we have Connor follow Revere through the trees and he'd stop at every town he enters because there are too many redcoats. Connor would go down and into each town, incapacitate soldiers and open the way for Revere to warn people. These would be designed like the plantations from AC IV. A small box where enemies are scattered and you have hiding spots and stalking zones placed around so you can lure enemies and move around, it's perfect. It allows the story that the writers wanted to say to remain AND it also offers a fun mission that builds on all the core aspects of the game. Stealth and Navigation. If you get spotted, everybody attacks you. It's great.

HDinHB
01-03-2015, 09:10 PM
Truest statement said in this thread. Although, to expand. Lets take the midnight ride. Unfortunately, story overrode gameplay in this mission. The developers wanted a thrilling experience with history and so designed this mission with nothing but story in mind. "Imagine, riding with Paul Revere, that would be amazing" It turned out to be a terrible mission.

What should have been done is the gameplay should have served and complimented the story. Okay, we want Connor to be present in this event and directly aid Revere. How could we use the CORE PILLARS to design this mission? That's right, riding horses is not a core pillar, not to mention that it's not exactly "crisp" Horses are clunky and unreliable, so lets look at what makes our games fun and what they stand on. How about we have Connor follow Revere through the trees and he'd stop at every town he enters because there are too many redcoats. Connor would go down and into each town, incapacitate soldiers and open the way for Revere to warn people. These would be designed like the plantations from AC IV. A small box where enemies are scattered and you have hiding spots and stalking zones placed around so you can lure enemies and move around, it's perfect. It allows the story that the writers wanted to say to remain AND it also offers a fun mission that builds on all the core aspects of the game. Stealth and Navigation. If you get spotted, everybody attacks you. It's great.

And you think that is somehow better than two dorks riding a horse?

Assassin_M
01-03-2015, 09:52 PM
And you think that is somehow better than two dorks riding a horse?
The horse is the dork but yes.

GunnerGalactico
01-03-2015, 09:59 PM
And you think that is somehow better than two dorks riding a horse?

Personally, I would rather take that than be Revere's personal chauffeur any day. :)

MasterAssasin84
01-03-2015, 10:02 PM
about we have Connor follow Revere through the trees and he'd stop at every town he enters because there are too many redcoats.


Agreed totally with this !!

I don't know since AC1 horse riding kind of went backwards and the broken Trust sequence was a prime example of that.

However being Connor was marketed as a Hunter and an expert in guerrilla warfare tactics this would have made the sequence much enjoyable rather than Connor having bang on each door in full view of potential hidden enemies .

SpiritOfNevaeh
01-03-2015, 10:33 PM
Truest statement said in this thread. Although, to expand. Lets take the midnight ride. Unfortunately, story overrode gameplay in this mission. The developers wanted a thrilling experience with history and so designed this mission with nothing but story in mind. "Imagine, riding with Paul Revere, that would be amazing" It turned out to be a terrible mission.

What should have been done is the gameplay should have served and complimented the story. Okay, we want Connor to be present in this event and directly aid Revere. How could we use the CORE PILLARS to design this mission? That's right, riding horses is not a core pillar, not to mention that it's not exactly "crisp" Horses are clunky and unreliable, so lets look at what makes our games fun and what they stand on. How about we have Connor follow Revere through the trees and he'd stop at every town he enters because there are too many redcoats. Connor would go down and into each town, incapacitate soldiers and open the way for Revere to warn people. These would be designed like the plantations from AC IV. A small box where enemies are scattered and you have hiding spots and stalking zones placed around so you can lure enemies and move around, it's perfect. It allows the story that the writers wanted to say to remain AND it also offers a fun mission that builds on all the core aspects of the game. Stealth and Navigation. If you get spotted, everybody attacks you. It's great.

I kinda agree with this. Could have made that mission much more enjoyable.

Lord Yesua
01-04-2015, 02:09 AM
I thought the story and character development was excellent, especially when compared with the story in Destiny. It was a breath of fresh air to have such excellent cinematic, characters, plots, and twists.

The graphics and gameplay are awesome. I mean, I'm dressed like a musketeer and shooting people with a pistol .... epic.

The only thing that bugs me is going in and out of windows. It almost never works properly, especially so when under duress.

P.S. I'm new to this game.

MasterAssasin84
01-04-2015, 02:11 AM
Arno had Character development :confused:

Assassin_M
01-04-2015, 02:18 AM
Arno had Character development :confused:
As hard as it is to believe, yeah. it's sort of....different.

MasterAssasin84
01-04-2015, 02:23 AM
As hard as it is to believe, yeah. it's sort of....different.

Hm i am going to have to play though it again as it was not really noticible to me ?

I understand that he joined the Assassins out of guilt but a large part of his emotions in the game was directed towards his Templar girlfriend !

Assassin_M
01-04-2015, 02:26 AM
Hm i am going to have to play though it again as it was not really noticible to me ?

I understand that he joined the Assassins out of guilt but a large part of his emotions in the game was directed towards his Templar girlfriend !
Try and see. Many times I find myself noticing many new things upon replay.

You correct. Most of his character development is about dependence. Arno is not self motivated. He needs people to keep him going. He's confident but a lot of that confidence and the strength to have it stems from the people around him and those dear to him.

MasterAssasin84
01-04-2015, 02:31 AM
Try and see. Many times I find myself noticing many new things upon replay.

You correct. Most of his character development is about dependence. Arno is not self motivated. He needs people to keep him going. He's confident but a lot of that confidence and the strength to have it stems from the people around him and those dear to him.

But then again Altair fell in Love with a templar ! But you are right he finds his determination from those around him which IMO is a poor quality for an Assassins to Have.

When you look at Connor who was firm in his beliefs and Edward who's convictions was literally untested because of the strength he showed ! and Altair who was the classic example of a Stoic .

Assassin_M
01-04-2015, 02:42 AM
But then again Altair fell in Love with a templar ! But you are right he finds his determination from those around him which IMO is a poor quality for an Assassins to Have.

When you look at Connor who was firm in his beliefs and Edward who's convictions was literally untested because of the strength he showed ! and Altair who was the classic example of a Stoic .
I don't think Altair's relationship with Maria is in any way similar or comparable to Arno's with Elise. The characters are very different and the circumstances are very very different but anyways, Sure. When compared to some, Arno may seem weak but it's no different from Altair's arrogance or Ezio's brashness or Connor's naivete or Edward's selfishness. They're all qualities that make the characters in the beginning of their stories and gradually, over time, these qualities change. They become humility, wisdom, realism and conviction respectively.

SixKeys
01-04-2015, 03:19 AM
But then again Altair fell in Love with a templar ! But you are right he finds his determination from those around him which IMO is a poor quality for an Assassins to Have.

When you look at Connor who was firm in his beliefs and Edward who's convictions was literally untested because of the strength he showed ! and Altair who was the classic example of a Stoic .

Assassins are just people like everyone else. They're not all perfectly stoic and focused like a proper assassin "should" be. That's what makes them all unique and interesting. A character is far more relatable if they have weaknesses and flaws. Arno's flaw is being too clingy. He's afraid to let other people make their own decisions out of fear that they will choose to reject him. It happened with both Bellec and Elise. He's stuck in his own past due to feelings of guilt and can't - or won't - move on. In the end losing Elise - and realizing that her fate was out of his control - was the push he needed to understand what was holding him back and allowed him to finally move on with his life. This is evidenced by the fact that his watch, which has been broken ever since his father's death, is fixed by the end, and Arno's speech about dogma and fanaticism shows that he understands what drove Bellec and Elise and why he wants to be different from them.

Assassin_M
01-04-2015, 03:36 AM
Assassins are just people like everyone else. They're not all perfectly stoic and focused like a proper assassin "should" be. That's what makes them all unique and interesting. A character is far more relatable if they have weaknesses and flaws. Arno's flaw is being too clingy. He's afraid to let other people make their own decisions out of fear that they will choose to reject him. It happened with both Bellec and Elise. He's stuck in his own past due to feelings of guilt and can't - or won't - move on. In the end losing Elise - and realizing that her fate was out of his control - was the push he needed to understand what was holding him back and allowed him to finally move on with his life. This is evidenced by the fact that his watch, which has been broken ever since his father's death, is fixed by the end, and Arno's speech about dogma and fanaticism shows that he understands what drove Bellec and Elise and why he wants to be different from them.
Exactly. It's what makes each protagonist human.

Fatal-Feit
01-04-2015, 10:05 AM
/Copy and pastes all of _M and Sixkey's post into a notepad for future references.

phoenix-force411
01-04-2015, 11:11 AM
ACIV had a good story execution, but the mechanics were not very good. Removing the manual lock was one of its major flaws. The over simplified combat was also bad too.

Megas_Doux
01-05-2015, 09:02 PM
In response to the title: no. ACR and AC3 are proof of that to me. Both games had the makings of a compelling narrative, some truly memorable scenes, great voice-acting (for the most part) and especially AC3 had good cutscene directing designed to suck you into the story. But both games suffered from lacklustre mechanics and downright terrible gameplay. ACR is only higher in my estimation because of some good stand-out missions that allowed for freedom of approach, like the Yerebatan Cistern which allows for a different experience upon each replay. AC3, OTOH, plays pretty much the same on every replay because of its linearity. If you're not invested in the narrative (and I wasn't, in both cases) then it needs some solid gameplay to save it. Unity and ACB had lacklustre stories, but the gameplay was some of the best in the series. I don't even remember most of Unity's story anymore, TBH, but I can sure recall the exhilarating feeling swelling inside me every time I successfully pulled off a mission exactly the way I planned it. When I was allowed to ignore the obvious breadcrumb path laid out by the designers and forge my own narrative. I'm the type of person who likes to wander around the game's world making up my own stories about its inhabitants. If the world is alive enough and captures the imagination, why should I care if the main story written by someone else is lacking?

That was/is my problem with AC III and ACR to a certain extent.




Truest statement said in this thread. Although, to expand. Lets take the midnight ride. Unfortunately, story overrode gameplay in this mission. The developers wanted a thrilling experience with history and so designed this mission with nothing but story in mind. "Imagine, riding with Paul Revere, that would be amazing" It turned out to be a terrible mission.

What should have been done is the gameplay should have served and complimented the story. Okay, we want Connor to be present in this event and directly aid Revere. How could we use the CORE PILLARS to design this mission? That's right, riding horses is not a core pillar, not to mention that it's not exactly "crisp" Horses are clunky and unreliable, so lets look at what makes our games fun and what they stand on. How about we have Connor follow Revere through the trees and he'd stop at every town he enters because there are too many redcoats. Connor would go down and into each town, incapacitate soldiers and open the way for Revere to warn people. These would be designed like the plantations from AC IV. A small box where enemies are scattered and you have hiding spots and stalking zones placed around so you can lure enemies and move around, it's perfect. It allows the story that the writers wanted to say to remain AND it also offers a fun mission that builds on all the core aspects of the game. Stealth and Navigation. If you get spotted, everybody attacks you. It's great.

This!

My main problem with ACU´s story is that you dont feel you are playing AC aside from the gameplay and that the love story itself was not that good either. I hope Ubi continues to improve the core mechanics and the open assassinations though.

Farlander1991
01-05-2015, 09:54 PM
Here's the thing about games.

If a game has great gameplay and great story, it's a good game.
If a game has great gameplay and ****ty story, it's a good game.
If a game has ****ty gameplay but great story, it's not a good game. If you have to force yourself to go through the interactive part to try and enjoy the narrative, that's not signs of a good game.

That said, despite gameplay being 'king' in games (every art form has a 'king' of one sort or another, and with games it's gameplay) I don't think that narrative is NOT important or that gameplay is more important than narrative. Neither one of them is better than the other. What IS important, however, is how gameplay and narrative play off each other.

As a very simple example: Thomas Was Alone. Now, this game doesn't really have anything ground-breaking. It's a game about boxes, essentially. But, damn, those boxes have more charisma and character development than like 75% of triple-A characters (and EACH one goes through some sort of character development) and the narrative and gameplay play off eachother (for example, Chris, who's got an inferiority complex of sort, is very short and can't jump much, while John, who's very showmany and full of himself, is a very tall box that can jump higher than anyone, and it seems like a simple thing, and one can say that it is, but it's very important).

VestigialLlama4
01-14-2015, 08:59 AM
NOTHING can replace good gameplay just like nothing can replace a good story. Now, subjectively speaking, one could replace the other depending on the person's taste.

Yes then all games will look the same, sound the same and bore people to death.


Story isn’t a requirement, gameplay IS. The story is there to complement the gameplay, to give a “reason”/“purpose” for its existence.

I think that's a really stupid simplification of issues, I am sorry. Without a story, the gameplay does not become fun, meaningul or pleasurable, there's no rhythm to it, the sections go out of order and the game crashes as a whole. I am speaking of the single-player story and not the co-op or online games which are all about social interaction and the like.

Games like AC have interesting gameplay and concepts but without the story it doesn't work. If the story is weak, then the games fall.

AssassinHMS
01-14-2015, 09:53 AM
Yes then all games will look the same, sound the same and bore people to death.
According to you, right? Then there’s really nothing to worry about.



I think that's a really stupid simplification of issues, I am sorry. Without a story, the gameplay does not become fun, meaningul or pleasurable, there's no rhythm to it, the sections go out of order and the game crashes as a whole. I am speaking of the single-player story and not the co-op or online games which are all about social interaction and the like.

Games like AC have interesting gameplay and concepts but without the story it doesn't work. If the story is weak, then the games fall.

Don’t be sorry. A person who (according to your words) is unable to enjoy games like Packman or Tetris simply because there’s no story whatsoever is the one who deserves to be pitied (especially if you take into account the ramifications of such words).

I can only trully enjoy AC games if the gameplay is good. I really don’t need a story because I have the ability to create one (in my head). I can give purpose to the gameplay because I enjoy creating stories that justify my character’s actions, although I appreciate if I am given some context. Of course, I prefer if the game offers me a good story and doesn’t leave most to my imagination. Problem is, I usually don’t care for AC’s stories….I find them boring or not exactly to my liking. I only really liked AC1’s story so far and Altair is the only protagonist I’ve liked to this day (haven’t played Unity or Rogue though).
Regardless, as long as the gameplay is good, I am able to enjoy it. Does that mean that good gameplay is enough? Yes, for ME. It’s subjective. Objectively speaking though, none can replace the other. Understand that.
But, back to my original point, games are fundamentally about gameplay, not because I PERSONALY place gameplay above story, but because a game is, in its core, a challenge that the player has to overcome (that’s the most basic definition of game). The story is there simply to give context to the situation, to give a reason for that challenge. It is not needed, it is simply an extra (how important it is depends on the person because it is subjective).
Gameplay, on the other hand, is necessary. Why? Because gameplay is the ACTUAL challenge. Gameplay is the bond between the player and the game (maybe not exclusively the emotional bond as the story is also responsible for that too, but it is the physical bond. It is what allows the player to interact with that virtual world.) In other words, gameplay IS the Challenge which means that the gameplay is the actual game. That is why you can have games without story but you can’t have games without gameplay. To put it bluntly/roughly, games are about gameplay.

If you still think this is a stupid simplification of issues then I can guarantee you that the issue is entirely yours.

VestigialLlama4
01-14-2015, 10:32 AM
I really don’t need a story because I have the ability to create one (in my head). I can give purpose to the gameplay because I enjoy creating stories that justify my character’s actions, although I appreciate if I am given some context.

Yes well, I never bought the whole "ludonarrative dissonance" caveat people apply to games. It's a very simplistic look at gaming. The fact is you play a character in a game because the story defines his role and the setting places him in context, all of that flows from the story and nothing you create out of that character or try to justify in your head, can depart from anything that is actually written. It's like an actor playing a part in a play, the role is fixed and written, different actors play the roles and deliver the lines(or here perform the actions) in different styles, but the role and character stays the same as it is written.


But, back to my original point, games are fundamentally about gameplay, not because I PERSONALY place gameplay above story, but because a game is, in its core, a challenge that the player has to overcome (that’s the most basic definition of game). The story is there simply to give context to the situation, to give a reason for that challenge.

The problem is you talk of context as if its meaningless, it isn't. In the 8-bit era, that might have been true, but it isn't true of gaming these days, the context is as fundamental to the game as the gameplay. Hitman games for instance have a similar mission design as Assassin's Creed in terms of the fact that you have to infiltrate and find these targets, yet the context for those actions makes AC a different game, more interesting and open to a wider range of possibilities. At the end of the day, Hitman will never be more than a gangland, mafia game while the AC games have a metaphor that allows it a wider scope and a broader definition.


That is why you can have games without story but you can’t have games without gameplay. To put it bluntly/roughly, games are about gameplay.

If you still think this is a stupid simplification of issues then I can guarantee you that the issue is entirely yours.

You say that you are putting it bluntly and then denying that it's a simplification. Quibbling aside, gameplay is obviously important to every game but the story and style is equally important. In the case of AC, it's the story that made it stand out among other games of a similar nature - it's an open-world game, it's about Assassinations, it's got platforming and Parkour. I don't think that AC originated anything truly different in gameplay, except for the social stealth aspect and even that can be argued. But it's the story and plot and theme that made it stand out.

AssassinHMS
01-14-2015, 11:02 AM
Yes well, I never bought the whole "ludonarrative dissonance" caveat people apply to games. It's a very simplistic look at gaming. The fact is you play a character in a game because the story defines his role and the setting places him in context, all of that flows from the story and nothing you create out of that character or try to justify in your head, can depart from anything that is actually written. It's like an actor playing a part in a play, the role is fixed and written, different actors play the roles and deliver the lines(or here perform the actions) in different styles, but the role and character stays the same as it is written.



The problem is you talk of context as if its meaningless, it isn't. In the 8-bit era, that might have been true, but it isn't true of gaming these days, the context is as fundamental to the game as the gameplay. Hitman games for instance have a similar mission design as Assassin's Creed in terms of the fact that you have to infiltrate and find these targets, yet the context for those actions makes AC a different game, more interesting and open to a wider range of possibilities. At the end of the day, Hitman will never be more than a gangland, mafia game while the AC games have a metaphor that allows it a wider scope and a broader definition.



You say that you are putting it bluntly and then denying that it's a simplification. Quibbling aside, gameplay is obviously important to every game but the story and style is equally important. In the case of AC, it's the story that made it stand out among other games of a similar nature - it's an open-world game, it's about Assassinations, it's got platforming and Parkour. I don't think that AC originated anything truly different in gameplay, except for the social stealth aspect and even that can be argued. But it's the story and plot and theme that made it stand out.

Look, I get it. Story has weight, especially in games like AC. I never said story is meaningless but, it is not as central as gameplay when it comes to games (for the reasons I stated in previous posts). That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant or meaningless in any way. I value a good story and I understand how so many people are drawn into AC because of it. AC’s stories are, in my opinion, special and add a lot of “soul” to the games. You are right when you say that AC distances itself from Hitman because of the story. After all. The story, like the gameplay, add to the uniqueness of the product.

Now, you say it was the story that made it stand out. Yes, the story stood out for sure, but it wasn’t the only one. The gameplay was revolutionary back then. The parkour and the social stealth were, in fact, truly different. The puppeteer system was also new and awesome (imo).

Anyway, I can agree with you on one thing. Both story and gameplay are important assets to this franchise. However, I think we shouldn’t pin them against each other or pretend one replaces the other, but instead “demand” that they both get better and better (regardless of the other) so that they become the ultimate union. Contests here, in this case, would be futile and stupid as far as I can see.

VestigialLlama4
01-14-2015, 11:20 AM
Look, I get it. Story has weight, especially in games like AC. I never said story is meaningless but, it is not as central as gameplay when it comes to games (for the reasons I stated in previous posts). That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant or meaningless in any way. I value a good story and I understand how so many people are drawn into AC because of it. AC’s stories are, in my opinion, special and add a lot of “soul” to the games. You are right when you say that AC distances itself from Hitman because of the story. After all. The story, like the gameplay, add to the uniqueness of the product.

Now, you say it was the story that made it stand out. Yes, the story stood out for sure, but it wasn’t the only one. The gameplay was revolutionary back then. The parkour and the social stealth were, in fact, truly different. The puppeteer system was also new and awesome (imo).

Anyway, I can agree with you on one thing. Both story and gameplay are important assets to this franchise. However, I think we shouldn’t pin them against each other or pretend one replaces the other, but instead “demand” that they both get better and better (regardless of the other) so that they become the ultimate union. Contests here, in this case, would be futile and stupid as far as I can see.

I apologize for being rude earlier (as disingenous as that might sound to you) that was not seemly or correct. It's just that too often I hear improvements or tweaks in gameplay (as in UNITY) being an apology for weak storytelling or people thinking that good storytelling doesn't provide avenue for better gameplay.

I am complete agreement that the story and gameplay(and more importantly level design-which can be considered the middle-ground between story and gameplay) should be improved constantly and they should try for a more cohesive approach. Like I suppose they could introduce a Hard Mode or New Game Plus (which can keep synchronization out of the general playthough, I never liked it precisely for its imposition of linearity).

AssassinHMS
01-14-2015, 11:44 AM
I apologize for being rude earlier (as disingenous as that might sound to you) that was not seemly or correct. It's just that too often I hear improvements or tweaks in gameplay (as in UNITY) being an apology for weak storytelling or people thinking that good storytelling doesn't provide avenue for better gameplay.
No problem and I agree. A good story is no excuse for bad gameplay or vice-versa. As long as both the story and gameplay are treated as two important elements that NEED to complement each other and not like rivals competing for the spotlight, there is no reason why both can’t be great or even revolutionary.


I am complete agreement that the story and gameplay(and more importantly level design-which can be considered the middle-ground between story and gameplay) should be improved constantly and they should try for a more cohesive approach. Like I suppose they could introduce a Hard Mode or New Game Plus (which can keep synchronization out of the general playthough, I never liked it precisely for its imposition of linearity).

Exactly. I wouldn’t mind a hard mode at all (given how Ubisoft will likely make combat even easier after Unity’s feedback, tragic I know). I think I actually asked for a new game plus option some time ago in the forum, it would definitely add replay value especially if the game doesn't allow you to get all the upgrades on a single playthrough.
I dislike synchronization as well. I personally think the whole “desynch” thing is just an excuse for poor, linear gameplay. And the optional objectives for extra synch should not be present, at least, in assassination missions. I mean, the whole purpose of assassinations is (or used to be back in AC1) to give the player the freedom to plan and carry out them ANY way he/she wanted. Optional objectives restrict creativity and discourage exploration. There should be multiple ways to carry out assassinations and all the information about the many ways to infiltrate or assassinate a target should be scattered around the world (people, notes, etc.) waiting for the player to discover them through investigations and not handed to us through annoying “optional objectives”.
Anyway, you’re right, gameplay and story should serve each other’s interests and not impose restrictions to each other. Of course that’s easier said than done, but just because it’s not a piece of cake doesn’t mean bad gameplay or a bad story are excusable.

VestigialLlama4
01-14-2015, 02:54 PM
Exactly. I wouldn’t mind a hard mode at all (given how Ubisoft will likely make combat even easier after Unity’s feedback, tragic I know).[/QUOTE

Well, the hard combat was the least of their concerns (that would be the poor storytelling mainly, lazy attention to detail, general bugginess, and a kind of static mission design where choice is essentially a matter of five different days to break into a door and where the level design is clunky and also Crowds for the sake of Crowds).

[QUOTE]I think I actually asked for a new game plus option some time ago in the forum, it would definitely add replay value especially if the game doesn't allow you to get all the upgrades on a single playthrough.

They should do what Arkham City did, where the New Game Plus had harder enemies but gave you all the advantages up front and mixed and shared collectables from a normal playthrough, that made going 100%(which I never did in a game before) actually fun.


I dislike synchronization as well. I personally think the whole “desynch” thing is just an excuse for poor, linear gameplay. And the optional objectives for extra synch should not be present, at least, in assassination missions. I mean, the whole purpose of assassinations is (or used to be back in AC1) to give the player the freedom to plan and carry out them ANY way he/she wanted.

I agree with that. I recently replayed AC1-Brotherhood(and Black Flag). Even in AC2, there was no Full Synchronization either and while some of the missions were linear, it still had an element of choice in completing the mission, especially the one where you attack the guy on top of the tower, there were four or five ways to scale it and each time you climb up you have to see which one suits you. The Full Synchronization really started in Brotherhood where you had a grand total of "Two" Assassination missions.


Optional objectives restrict creativity and discourage exploration. There should be multiple ways to carry out assassinations and all the information about the many ways to infiltrate or assassinate a target should be scattered around the world (people, notes, etc.) waiting for the player to discover them through investigations and not handed to us through annoying “optional objectives”.

That's one thing I noted in replaying AC1, when I first played it, I did it after AC1 and did it in a linear fashion(I didn't even discover those mini-maps that you find in your investigations). This time, I actually found you could plan your route. I managed to do three perfect Assassinations (that is target is unaware till they are dead).


Anyway, you’re right, gameplay and story should serve each other’s interests and not impose restrictions to each other. Of course that’s easier said than done, but just because it’s not a piece of cake doesn’t mean bad gameplay or a bad story are excusable.

Yeah, and ultimately the developers need to decide if they want to make a historical game when they aren't interested in the period. Like it's obvious that they enjoyed doing the Renaissance Games and the Pirate game, where as a whole the period recreations is worthy of the best of historical fiction and they had a real love for the period. Whereas AC3(which I still like on the whole) is more staid and textbook like and UNITY is absolutely shallow as both a game and historical adventure. Both of them are at the extreme ends of the historical approach in the series. The fact is that they are under no obligation to do the complete history of the world and as a metaphor, Assassins and Templars cannot apply to every period, and at this point, it might be a good idea to go back to the Crusades when the Assassins and Templars were actual organizations.

dimbismp
01-14-2015, 03:22 PM
Here's the thing about games.

If a game has great gameplay and great story, it's a good game.
If a game has great gameplay and ****ty story, it's a good game.
.
Actually the first category represents excellent gakmes,not just good.There are very few games like this,like RDR,TLoU etc,which results in being remember for as classics.

Regarding the thread discussion and AC series,i would love if no gameplay change is made at all for ACV,as long as it has a nice story.Also,ACU is the absolute best,in my mind,in all categories except from story.So,instead of being the absolute favourite of mine,the ****ty story makes it 3rd favourite etc

These staments say everything about story vs gameplay