1. #41
    I have to agree with AnimusLover. Each game now has been a standalone adventure and basicly making the next entry pointless, while some games succeeded to still give you this feeling that the previous adventures matter AC doesn't do that anymore.
    They are basicly ignoring the previous events enterily or give the characters unsolved endings and never come back to them and when they do it's years to late or a comic. This really demotivates playing the games or get invested into the storylines because I know whatever I do the previous event gets sideland.

    Sorry Shawn but I fully mentally disagree with you on Unity, that story and game made me stop with the franchise because I felt so insulted by how I as an consumer, fan, gamer and story lover was handled it took me 2 years to get back to it and I made people hate AC who have never played the games which I regret now but ooh well of happened.
    Look you can enjoy unity as much as you want I can't take that away from you but believe me objective the story falls apart vrij the start to finish... like nothing works in it.

    Witcher games even reward the player who read the novels and the comics. You get the fully experience out of the games to! Believe me I read 2 of the novels

    I was typing this on my phone btw hope it's readable.
    Share this post

  2. #42
    Hey guys that's why we come to this little corner of the world to disagree heavily and enjoy the lore of a videogame that one way or another has changed our view on gaming culture in the past decade.
    I guess mainly with Unity is the setting. I figured surely Ubisoft could get their own backyard modeled and told correctly in a game. And I love the time period!! It was kind of stupid that you went through the entire game not having any clue who killed your birth father and thinking that you would find out only to have to downgrade back down to last gen and play rogue to even know.
    We had to wait an extra year on Origins with nothing but Nikolai Orelov and Michael Fassbender to give us our fix while that year we got both Rogue and Unity simultaneously. My oh my the things we took for granted. And I didn't say Unity was the high point of story telling I just said it was good after the kinks were worked through. Good and Black Flag are two different points on the AC spectrum
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #43
    I've tried to avoid this thread because I love this game and I don't want to get started. lol. Trolls.
    Share this post

  4. #44
    cawatrooper9's Avatar AC Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A Bathtub with Caterina Sforza
    Posts
    5,641
    Looking back on Origins, I'm reminded of former series writer Darby McDevitt's tweet from last June
    IMO any open world game that has too much narrative momentum is risking failure. You should want to roam the world.

    I think Origins did do a good job of encouraging the player to explore the world. It even handled ludonarrative dissonance pretty well- as a Medjay, it is Bayek's job to help all people, and often that is going to put him into dangerous and violent situations (by the way, for similar reasons, I'd say Far Cry 5 excels at that, too).

    And while I totally agree with Darby here, I do think that this type of storytelling can feel really disjointed at times. For instance, how the first half of the game feels relatively open-ended, but the pacing totally changes later. I think it's probably a difficult balance to maintain, encouraging the player to explore the world at their leisure but also trying to tell a story with some agency.
    Share this post

  5. #45
    Originally Posted by cawatrooper9 Go to original post
    Looking back on Origins, I'm reminded of former series writer Darby McDevitt's tweet from last June
    There's so much garbage in his quote I think I might vomit. Oddly enough, I actually think he got the balance right with Black FlagÖ my issue with that game was that the story, itself, was uninteresting and the characters very weakÖ but thatís nether here nor there.

    A well-paced open world usually starts off quite linear because the story has not dictated that the character spread out yet. The entire point is that eventually the story will enable the character Ė and in turn, the player - to explore the world. If you're roaming the world from the start then it feels aimless and, like you say, disjointed (which is partly the issue I had with Fallout 4ís story).

    I know I keep using this example but it really is the gold standard for this series imo: in ACII there is no reason for Ezio to go off wandering the world from the start. He needs to perform menial tasks for his family and then he needs to train to be an Assassin so keeping the approach fairly linear. This is important because it helps us understand him, his life and his motivations.

    I also think Witcher 3 does it brilliantly. That game starts off with a dream, a couple of cut scenes, a tutorial with Ciri before throwing the player into White Orchard which gets the player up to speed who Geralt is and why he is on his quest.

    Origins and Syndicate is how you do it wrong. It would have been nice to meet the entire council that Jacob and Evie come from, seeing their relationship with the others etc just like Altair. But no, they do one tutorial mission each before running off to London. The entire scene with George felt like I was being given cliff notes as to their backgrounds.
    Share this post

  6. #46
    cawatrooper9's Avatar AC Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A Bathtub with Caterina Sforza
    Posts
    5,641
    Originally Posted by AnimusLover Go to original post
    There's so much garbage in his quote I think I might vomit. Oddly enough, I actually think he got the balance right with Black Flag… my issue with that game was that the story, itself, was uninteresting and the characters very weak… but that’s nether here nor there.

    A well-paced open world usually starts off quite linear because the story has not dictated that the character spread out yet. The entire point is that eventually the story will enable the character – and in turn, the player - to explore the world. If you're roaming the world from the start then it feels aimless and, like you say, disjointed (which is partly the issue I had with Fallout 4’s story).

    I know I keep using this example but it really is the gold standard for this series imo: in ACII there is no reason for Ezio to go off wandering the world from the start. He needs to perform menial tasks for his family and then he needs to train to be an Assassin so keeping the approach fairly linear. This is important because it helps us understand him, his life and his motivations.

    I also think Witcher 3 does it brilliantly. That game starts off with a dream, a couple of cut scenes, a tutorial with Ciri before throwing the player into White Orchard which gets the player up to speed who Geralt is and why he is on his quest.

    Origins and Syndicate is how you do it wrong. It would have been nice to meet the entire council that Jacob and Evie come from, seeing their relationship with the others etc just like Altair. But no, they do one tutorial mission each before running off to London. The entire scene with George felt like I was being given cliff notes as to their backgrounds.

    I'm not sure he's equating "narrative momentum" with "narrative".

    The way I read it was like Mass Effect 2 vs. Mass Effect 3.

    Spoilers for them, obviously:


    Spoiler:  Show


    In Mass Effect 2, the narrative momentum gives the player breathing room. You're encouraged to explore the galaxy, because you're assembling a team and doing research for a mission.

    In Mass Effect 3, the game ends with Earth being invaded, causing the plot to feel constantly pressuring the player to rush and return to help Earth as quickly as possible.


    I don't feel guilty enjoying ME2's world and doing sidequests to see what the game has to offer. In ME3, I feel like I have to finish off the Reaper invasion immediately, and even awesome stuff like the Citadel DLC feels like a diversion from what I should actually be doing.




    I think you're right that ACII is a pretty good example, too. The narrative momentum of that game ebbs and flows really well. For instance, it might feel weird to go hunting treasure chests between the sequence where the Pazzi attack Lorenzo and when Ezio assassinates Francesco, but the game gives you plenty of breathing room to play in the world, too,
    Share this post

  7. #47
    Gold31415's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    64
    The Call of Duty crowd killed the modern day sections in AC:Or. They are the younger kids who just want to hack and slash and not think.

    That's why the modern day sections in AC:Or were vomit inducingly bad.

    But why blame Ubisoft and Ashraf Ismail? It makes absolutely no financial sense to spend time and resources to craft quality when mediocricity sells more units.
    Share this post

  8. #48
    Originally Posted by Gold31415 Go to original post
    The Call of Duty crowd killed the modern day sections in AC:Or. They are the younger kids who just want to hack and slash and not think.

    That's why the modern day sections in AC:Or were vomit inducingly bad.

    But why blame Ubisoft and Ashraf Ismail? It makes absolutely no financial sense to spend time and resources to craft quality when mediocricity sells more units.
    Yeah, I kind of Agree. The story in ACO is very progressive. There are multiple parts to it. But, they all come together seamlessly. You have Bayek's story. You have Aya's story. You have the mission stories. The Mission stories I thought were excellent. Each Mission story is like a TV series episode unto itself. Then, you have the assassination stories. You have the Phylakes stories.
    You have Khemu's story. You have the Hidden Ones story. You have the Cursed Pharoah's Story. And, they are all seamlessly woven together.

    I have played Black Flag and a couple of the other AC games. I got almost instantly bored. The graphics are so tiny, its hard to really see the detail. And, the stories didn't seem complete like ACO. I think ACO spoiled me. With ACO, it's kind of like watching a full screen movie, where you are actually participating in the story, and each episode/mission is another exciting part of the story. They are a little short, but there are hundreds of them, and each one is complete. And, you are drawn to the plight of each of the character's in the mission stories.

    If you just want to follow a straight line of thought, then you probably won't like the story in Assassin's Creed Origins. But, I'm sort of a complex thinker. I get bored if there is only one storyline idea. What kept me so interested in this game is because there are so many stories taking place at the same time. You go from one story to another, and then back to Bayek's Story, which is really Layla's story in a way. And, all these other stories really helps one to understand the main character, Bayek, through the story and loss of his son, Khemu, and story of his wife, Aya. Or, should I say his ex-wife?

    This is why the game was great. It had so many ideas taking place, where as something like Call Of Duty is just to shot guns and kill, without a family story. And, in ACO, you are actually participating in the family story development. There is a great family love story in ACO. It was instantly heartbreaking too, with the loss of Khemu, very early in the story, and the loss of Bayek's wife, Aya, late in the story. Or, should I say, Amunet. Amunet and Aya was kind of another facet in the story. I think I am correct using "was" because they were a single person. ACO was just a multi-faceted story for complex thinkers.

    There is a reason why ACO was GOTY. It is great, so don't hate. Don't hate the greats.
    Share this post

Page 5 of 5 ◄◄  First ... 345