🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Assassin's Creed forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.
  1. #391
    fishbone76's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    switzerland
    Posts
    233
    I'll just leave this here
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  2. #392
    Originally Posted by JKAC2013 Go to original post
    What would the it help by putting the eagle bearer in the position of natakas/neema? Your comparison show how Ubisoft give us luckily more gameplay content instead of focus to much on unnecessary things. You can know decide if you get the child because of love or for the Bloodline I think this is enough. The entire story is about the bloodline and again you need an hetero romance to create a bloodline.

    Odyssey had a lot of choices and romances where never a big part of the features of the game and where mention and advertised incidental.

    It give so many AC Fans who doesn't like the new choices and romantics and hate odyssey for that. Many of them did think that this controversy is exaggerated and what I mean with my last sentence was true. Most of the critics of the LoftB Dlc where new players who doesn't know anything about the series and their lore. The really thinked that the eagle bearer is their own character like in many of the other RPGs on the market but it isn't so. He is a person who has already lived and you experience his memories through the animus.

    I really hope that for the next game we have great and allready written romances like in the old games.


    Speaks volumes that you think that consistency in writing/choice options in an RPG-structured story are "unnecessary things" - good job you don't work in game dev...


    And "the eagle bearer is their own character like in many of the other RPGs on the market but it isn't so. He is a person who has already lived and you experience his memories through the animus" - er, the eagle bearer is a fictional character, in an RPG-structured game with branching choices. They aren't real, and even without branching choices, it's not like the writers can't just make up whatever they like - that's the definition of "fiction"!

    I mean, this is a game where you can choose whether or not every single member of your family lives or dies - so which ones are the 'correct' memories you experience through the Animus, then? It's weird that you're only taking issue with players complaining about a lack of consistency in the relationship options, when your complaint actually covers a core design principle for the entire game.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #393
    JKAC2013's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,046
    Originally Posted by USSExcelsior Go to original post
    Speaks volumes that you think that consistency in writing/choice options in an RPG-structured story are "unnecessary things" - good job you don't work in game dev...


    And "the eagle bearer is their own character like in many of the other RPGs on the market but it isn't so. He is a person who has already lived and you experience his memories through the animus" - er, the eagle bearer is a fictional character, in an RPG-structured game with branching choices. They aren't real, and even without branching choices, it's not like the writers can't just make up whatever they like - that's the definition of "fiction"!

    I mean, this is a game where you can choose whether or not every single member of your family lives or dies - so which ones are the 'correct' memories you experience through the Animus, then? It's weird that you're only taking issue with players complaining about a lack of consistency in the relationship options, when your complaint actually covers a core design principle for the entire game.
    It give many games who doesn't include choices in them and much of them are very popular Last of Us, God of War, Uncharted. Why could you judge what a bad game dev is and what not I think you have no idea.

    That the eagle bearer is fictional doesn´t mean that he is not already a written character, have you even played any of the other AC games? I think you don't understand the Animus or modern day story from Assassins Creed. You could choose choices for the Eagle Bearer but he is not you and will it never be he has already lived and you see his memories trough the Animus.

    The Choices where the baddest design idea the ever have for this series. Assassins Creed should never had choices and it doesn't fit in the series and the lore and make such problems like the DLC controversy, it was nothing wrong with the romances in the old games and in comparison with odyssey the had a story and where meaningful. One thing this controversy shows us is that Assassins creed should remove this useless romantic system.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #394
    Originally Posted by JKAC2013 Go to original post
    It give many games who doesn't include choices in them and much of them are very popular Last of Us, God of War, Uncharted. Why could you judge what a bad game dev is and what not I think you have no idea.

    ...except that's not what I said, was it? I said it's probably good that you aren't a game developer (particularly working on a game with RPG-style dialogue choices), since you consider consistency of choices and characterisation "unnecessary things" - not 'games without choices r bad'.


    Originally Posted by JKAC2013 Go to original post
    That the eagle bearer is fictional doesn´t mean that he is not already a written character, have you even played any of the other AC games? I think you don't understand the Animus or modern day story from Assassins Creed. You could choose choices for the Eagle Bearer but he is not you and will it never be he has already lived and you see his memories trough the Animus.

    That's not the point: the point is that real-life history is unchangeable - for instance, you can't suddenly decide that Henry VIII was really a mutant with superpowers, because that's not how real-life works. Fictional characters, on the other hand, are entirely at the whim of writers - to the point where a hard-and-fast rule in an earlier story can be amended in a later one.

    In this case, Elpidios didn't exist before Legacy of the First Blade, and the entire storyline wasn't some pre-determined bit of Assassin's Creed canon that had been established. It wasn't a story that 'needed' to be told, so ...why tell it? Particularly when the end result is invalidating player choices in a game marketed around the new addition of narrative choice.


    And again, I get that you don't like the addition of choices to the series, but that doesn't magically make them disappear from Odyssey - even if the next AC game goes back to a choice-free fixed narrative, that doesn't change the fact that Odyssey will always have them as part of the core design.


    ...all of which has managed to take this thread off-topic and into a ditch: personal preference as to whether or not AC should have choices or not is moot, when the topic here is dealing with how one particular aspect of choice has been undermined (with some really not great implications) by careless writing for the DLC.
    Share this post

  5. #395
    JKAC2013's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,046
    Originally Posted by USSExcelsior Go to original post
    ...except that's not what I said, was it? I said it's probably good that you aren't a game developer (particularly working on a game with RPG-style dialogue choices), since you consider consistency of choices and characterisation "unnecessary things" - not 'games without choices r bad'.

    That's not the point: the point is that real-life history is unchangeable - for instance, you can't suddenly decide that Henry VIII was really a mutant with superpowers, because that's not how real-life works. Fictional characters, on the other hand, are entirely at the whim of writers - to the point where a hard-and-fast rule in an earlier story can be amended in a later one.

    In this case, Elpidios didn't exist before Legacy of the First Blade, and the entire storyline wasn't some pre-determined bit of Assassin's Creed canon that had been established. It wasn't a story that 'needed' to be told, so ...why tell it? Particularly when the end result is invalidating player choices in a game marketed around the new addition of narrative choice.


    And again, I get that you don't like the addition of choices to the series, but that doesn't magically make them disappear from Odyssey - even if the next AC game goes back to a choice-free fixed narrative, that doesn't change the fact that Odyssey will always have them as part of the core design.


    ...all of which has managed to take this thread off-topic and into a ditch: personal preference as to whether or not AC should have choices or not is moot, when the topic here is dealing with how one particular aspect of choice has been undermined (with some really not great implications) by careless writing for the DLC.
    Your entire debate goes about the choices in RPG what I described as unnecessary was their including in a AC game and that It doesn´t fit in the series. I never said that other RPGs shouldn't have them but in the case of AC that doesnt work. Are you a game dev yourself that you could decide such things? If you want to talk about game design you could talk private with me because this would go to much off topic.

    The real reason why Legacy of the First Blade is so different to the original game is because it was made by a different studio then the main game. Ubisoft Singapore. That explain why this dlc is so different to the original game and doesnt pay attention to the events in the main story.

    What I fear is how this debate will effect future games of the series. That Ubi give us a protagonist with choosable gender, but no personality, no story etc. just to offend no one. It worked so well in older games and the Legacy of First Blade story could have been also good but the bad writing destroyed it for old and new fans.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #396
    Originally Posted by JKAC2013 Go to original post
    The real reason why Legacy of the First Blade is so different to the original game is because it was made by a different studio then the main game. Ubisoft Singapore. That explain why this dlc is so different to the original game and doesnt pay attention to the events in the main story.

    Not just a different studio, but a different lead writer - and one of the project leads on Odyssey as a whole wasn't involved with Legacy of the First Blade, either.

    It all smacks of a lack of communication between the main team and the DLC team - that's why the lack of consistency in choices, because Legacy of the First Blade was bolted on to Odyssey after the fact, by people who clearly weren't familiar enough with the main game.

    That's why I find the PR statements from folk like Jon Dumont so disingenuous: it's obviously damage control, trying to spin the failings of the DLC as being minor issues of storytelling clarity (but with the implication that no, really, they totally meant for the story to do that, guys!), and not as a result of poor communication/coordination between studios/creatives.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #397
    JKAC2013's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,046
    Originally Posted by USSExcelsior Go to original post
    Not just a different studio, but a different lead writer - and one of the project leads on Odyssey as a whole wasn't involved with Legacy of the First Blade, either.

    It all smacks of a lack of communication between the main team and the DLC team - that's why the lack of consistency in choices, because Legacy of the First Blade was bolted on to Odyssey after the fact, by people who clearly weren't familiar enough with the main game.

    That's why I find the PR statements from folk like Jon Dumont so disingenuous: it's obviously damage control, trying to spin the failings of the DLC as being minor issues of storytelling clarity (but with the implication that no, really, they totally meant for the story to do that, guys!), and not as a result of poor communication/coordination between studios/creatives.
    I know and made already a Thread about this.

    For the Future I think it is important that a Story should be told by one studio and written by only one and not to many different writers because this could made misunderstandings and Lore breaking. I also think that Ubi should return to linear story telling and writing because romances in the older games worked much better this way.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post