🛈 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. #1
    SixKeys's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    11,767

    Mentors Guild Community Discussion - Breaking Series Traditions

    Hi everyone,

    This week's Community Discussion is inspired by a recent Kotaku interview with some of AC Odyssey's key developers. Please read the linked article in its entirety before sharing your thoughts!


    MAKING SURE THE FANS ARE HEARD

    As part of a set of new Community Initiatives, we'd like to give opportunities to the community to give more direct feedback, and will now host weekly discussion on specific topics that relate the Assassin's Creed Franchise. These community discussions will take place on the AC subreddit, the Official Ubisoft Forums, and on the Mentors Guild Twitter. These discussions will be open for 1 week. The threads and responses will be shared directly with the Assassin's Creed Community Development team, who will then pass that info on to concerned parties within Ubisoft itself.

    While the Mentors get opportunities to speak directly with the creators of Assassin’s Creed and frequently communicate with the Community Development Team, this is not the case for every fan. We want to change that. We want fans to have their voices heard directly, in the same ways the Mentors do. These activities are a step towards meeting this goal. If you want Ubisoft to see what you have to say, this is the place to do it.


    THIS WEEK'S TOPIC

    Topic:
    Breaking Series Traditions

    Info: Recently, Kotaku published an article with two lead developers on Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, Creative Director Jonathan Dumont, and Senior Producer Marc-Alexis Côté, discussing how Odyssey kept and broke some of the series traditions.
    Before you participate in this week's discussion we HIGHLY suggest you read the article in its entirety: https://kotaku.com/assassin-s-creed-...ies-1835696764


    QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:

    -Would you agree or disagree that Odyssey bent or broke series traditions?


    -Do you think bending or breaking the series traditions made for a better or worse game?


    -Do you think the changes made in Odyssey were necessary and justified?


    -Do you think Odyssey and its gameplay and storytelling mechanics remain faithful to the lore of the franchise?


    -Would you like future games to be an RPG experience similar to Odyssey?


    -Do you think Assassin's Creed needs to continue to evolve, beyond the RPG genre?

    -Do you think it's okay when Assassin's Creed adds more supernatural/fantasy elements?


    -How do you think the changes made in Odyssey will affect the future of the franchise?



    As always, please feel free to add any thoughts you might have that are not covered by these example questions!


    REMEMBER:

    While these discussions are meant to allow for honest and raw feedback directly from the community, the best way to ensure your voice is heard is to be constructive - be critical of the process, not the people. Be specific with your criticisms and suggest tangible solutions and improvements.
    We hope to see active participation and that this will be a successful way of getting the fans' voices truly heard.
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Olympus2018's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    4,625
    QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:


    -Would you agree or disagree that Odyssey bent or broke series traditions?

    To some extent, yes I agree. Not broken though..... The traditions have been bent somehow...




    -Do you think bending or breaking the series traditions made for a better or worse game?

    Better game for sure.




    -Do you think the changes made in Odyssey were necessary and justified?

    Yes, the series needed some fresh changes.




    -Do you think Odyssey and its gameplay and storytelling mechanics remain faithful to the lore of the franchise?

    To a large extent yes. Leap of faith, stealth assassinations and parkour have not changed dramatically.




    -Would you like future games to be an RPG experience similar to Odyssey?

    Yes, absolutely.


    -Do you think Assassin's Creed needs to continue to evolve, beyond the RPG genre?

    Yeah


    -Do you think it's okay when Assassin's Creed adds more supernatural/fantasy elements?

    Not really. Stick to history.




    -How do you think the changes made in Odyssey will affect the future of the franchise?

    The game will become richer with dialog tree options, larger maps, RPG elements, story creator modes and possibly map editors. Replay value will increase even further.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    cawatrooper9's Avatar AC Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A Bathtub with Caterina Sforza
    Posts
    6,141
    One thing I think Assassin's Creed has always been great with is constant evolution. While I agree that the differences between Unity/Syndicate and Origins/Odyssey are significant, it's far from the first time that a big change like this was made.

    Things like Brotherhood recruits, sailing, social stealth, tools... nearly every aspect of the series has waxed and waned over time, with different games putting different emphasis on them. I think Odyssey's big changes may be more obvious than most, but if the past is anything to go on, those will specifically be Odyssey's changes. I'm sure some stuff will stick around and be improved on, but I don't expect future games to feel exactly like Ody.

    Personally, I've heard more complaints about how Odyssey conflicts with the series' lore rather than its gameplay. And I get that- Assassin's Creed fans are passionate about our lore, and rightly so.

    Stuff like dialogue choices and minor quest variables don't bother me. We've always had choices, even if it was something as simple as deciding which haystack to hide in or which tower to climb. The idea of viewing an ancestor's memories exactly as they happened and actually playing an interactive game don't perfectly gel- so, I've always thought of it more like Desmond/Layla/etc were more akin to someone watching an AC game being played, with the actual player representing the ancestor's actions. The new choice mechanics might highlight these differences more, I guess, but... c'est la vie. They just don't really bother me too much.

    Same with the mythology, for the most part.
    Spoiler:  Show


    I didn't mind how the mythological creatures (at least the first four) were products of Pieces of Eden. I actually thought that was kind of cool, and if anything would've liked the Eagle Bearer to have learned more about these processes. I was less of a fan of the crazy huge animals in the Artemis hunts, and the other cyclops brothers who weren't as obviously ties to POEs.

    That, and the way the myths are handled in the Atlantis DLC. I'm enjoying it so far, but being inside a simulation of a simulation just really makes me feel removed from the drama, and I would've loved to see the Isu as they really were, as opposed to a Greek reinterpretation of them (especially since one of the big draws of the Isu is that they were the inspiration for things like the gods already).

    That being said, I'm curious what'll happen in the last Atlantis chapter. Seems like some pretty wild stuff is happening in MD lately, and I'm into its potential.


    I also don't really mind some of the sillier stuff, like flaming horses or cue tip weapons. I kind of agree with the response given in the Kotaku article, at least in regards to totally optional stuff like this. Optional items like that aren't meant to be taken seriously, and are surely not considered canonical. Like, my first console was a Nintendo 64, and every game in that era had wacky cheat codes that were a blast to play with- basketball players made to look like Bobble Heads, Luke Skywalker flying a TIE Interceptor, cars with machine guns in the middle ages in Age of Empires... they're just for fun, and no one forced them on you. That being said, I don't really personally use any of these, other than the fact my wife's Phobos has the unicorn skin now.

    The main other story related item that causes some complications are the bigger choices- stuff that has much more world-shaking consequences (including the Eagle Bearer's own identity). Again, I personally don't mind suspending my disbelief enough for "Animus Magic" to account for it,but I can understand how that's not satisfactory for all fans (the poor wiki editors!). Still, I think it's pretty clear that even though many of the long-time fans dislike these aspects, they appear pretty popular among newer fans.

    I think when it comes to tradition, perhaps the biggest factor I can think of is how the newly announced Gods & Monsters is going to affect the Assassin's Creed series. I know some people are expecting more of a return to form for the series, with G&M taking on a lot of Odyssey's more fantasy RPG traits. Then again, Odyssey was pretty immensely popular, controversial aspects and all. I'm curious to see how that pans out, for sure!
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #4
    -Would you agree or disagree that Odyssey bent or broke series traditions?

    They may have changed the formula but the ingredients are still there.
    If the game plays differently mechanically, that doesn't mean it's not an AC game.

    Traditions need to evolve too.



    -Do you think bending or breaking the series traditions made for a better or worse game?

    Odyssey is a better game overall than the other recent AC games, even if some individual aspects of the predecessors might be better. Apparently the overall player numbers and player retention reflect this, and that makes me happy.



    -Do you think the changes made in Odyssey were necessary and justified?

    It makes sense because the playerbase is evolving. It makes sense for production reasons. The end result is well reviewed, well received by the average player, the game sold well and player retention numbers are apperently good. I'd say this justifies their blueprint for the game.



    -Do you think Odyssey and its gameplay and storytelling mechanics remain faithful to the lore of the franchise?

    It doesn't matter in the slightest.



    -Would you like future games to be an RPG experience similar to Odyssey?

    Absolutely. But that direction requires a high level of effort put into the product. Rush it, and it will be terrible. Let it develop to a mature and polished experience, and it will be excellent, like Odyssey.



    -Do you think Assassin's Creed needs to continue to evolve, beyond the RPG genre?

    Everything must evolve. The question is, how and when. Television follows a 7-year rule (although it's about repetition rather than evolution).

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p....SevenYearRule

    If that means a generation of entertainment consumers is roughly 7 years long, that implies we have 5 years remaining before AC will have to reinvent itself again.

    We had roughly that amount of time of the first AC "formula" (between AC1 and Syndicate) until the "AC is the same every year" arguments got so loud the franchise had to be re-engineered into the RPG-lite it is now.)



    -Do you think it's okay when Assassin's Creed adds more supernatural/fantasy elements?

    I think it's okay that RPG's and RPG-lites are video games and not a simulation of reality.

    Design a game like this for realism and I guarantee you it will not be fun until it's made into more of video game again.



    -How do you think the changes made in Odyssey will affect the future of the franchise?

    Yes. Origins started it. The most major impact this new formula has is that it shows by copies sold and player retention, that the formula is more successful than the previous one.

    There are certain overall design principles mentioned by the devs in the article such as freedom, choice, openness, inclusiveness, and failure tolerance. How the franchise evolves in the future is anyone's guess but it's pretty much guaranteed those principles guide the future evolutions. I think that's an excellent direction.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Skins:

    The focus in the article on the flaming horse is a bit off. AC Odyssey is not the first AC to allow for non-canonical skins. It's all just pawned off as whimsical things you can do with the animus. I wouldn't call that breaking a tradition so much as just letting the art team be flashy. Same with micro-transactions. That's not new to AC Odyssey, prior AC games had it and tried to push it. AC Odyssey might push it a bit more, but it's pretty standard.

    Mythological Creatures:

    I didn't mind the inclusion of the mythological creatures aspect. In reality, they took up a very trivial amount of the game's story and time (4 mythic creatures, with an additional cyclops or two scattered around a world it takes over 100 hours to explore fully - it easily took up less than 1% of my gametime). And in terms of leeway, the writers are right that the audience gives extreme leeway for mythological things if they're tied into the Isu. "Oh, this thing people believed was a fantasy creatures was actually some genetically modified Isu guardian or an Isu illusion" or some such thing. That stuff is fine. If it took up a lot of time and was woven throughout the historical world, it'd be a real departure, but as it is, it just gets filed away as, "that tiny little part of the game where the ancient hero encounters some Isu stuff." It's normal in any AC game, even if it's a bit flashier here.

    RPG aspects - Mechanical gameplay:

    AC is moving away from what I originally loved about the series. In terms of gameplay, as an action oriented RPG, it's not that special or unique. It's giving me gameplay that's done better by other games, like God of War. I liked the social stealth element of the older games, but the current AC doesn't function like that at all anymore. It's a giant world of camps and forts and prohibited buildings where you're attacked if you're spotted and slaughtering hapless guards who've done nothing to you is the goal. It's no longer "social" stealth, it's just regular stealth - staying out of line of sight of enemies, until eventually you're seen and then just slaughter the camp of people in their entirety anyway in open combat (assuming the player is competent with the combat mechanics). My favorite gameplay period of the past AC games was AC Brotherhood and AC Revelations, primarily for the multiplayer. The current AC gameplay couldn't really support that kind of multiplayer anymore - where kills are instantaneous and your mind focuses on hunting your target while trying not to give yourself away to the guy hunting you. I always hoped AC would develop the single player to better approximate what players were capable of when fighting each other in a world of assassins. Certainly at its best, the single player of Assassins Creed games would get CLOSE to that high stakes, silent stalker vibe.

    Now nothing feels like "high stakes" anymore in gameplay mechanics. The stakes are just a matter of convenience now, a question of whether I'll kill everything quickly (by not being spotted) or kill everything a bit slower (by being spotted). Your assassinate ability only outright kills very weak soldiers, and is just an opening move on everything else. (Though with assassinate-rush, you can kill 3-4 people often, or use it multiple times on mercenaries if you have another soldier near them to bounce it off of, which while effective, definitely highlights the silliness of the combat - your character just throwing his spear over and over again to slaughter hapless guards who lose sight of you when you duck behind bushes for 4 seconds, then you restart with process). I can't think of a single time in AC Odyssey where it felt like I was engaged in a high stakes, quiet assassination of an important historical figure. Something of value in the gameplay has really been lost.

    That said, I do recognize that the open combat mechanics of AC Odyssey are the best of the series. It's not that I would want to scrap open combat, which was a weak side of the early AC games. There's also value there. But I wish open combat felt like an exception, like something your assassin SHOULDN'T be engaging in often, the exception rather than the rule to being as assassin.

    RPG aspects - Plot choice gameplay:

    This is what gets the most focus in discussion about how AC has broken with tradition. As a game trying to give options with the plot, it's a shallow experience, an overarching plot (re-living history) mashed together with a concept that is doomed to fit awkwardly into it (player choice). In order for significant impacts on history to occur, player choice has to be removed for critical decisions your character makes when it comes to those moments. The alternative is for those historical moments to essentially be skipped over in favor of allowing player choice throughout everything, leading to a kind of vague anti-climax, which is arguably more the path AC Odyssey took with the main plot (but not the DLC).

    And that main plot anti-climax is worth mentioning here. It was unavoidably baked in from an early state of the writing of the game's plot, a reality intertwined with player choice being a desired mechanic. We go throughout the world getting to decide whether to fight for Athens or Sparta. And it makes zero difference. That's how it had to be! Could you imagine fighting for Athens the whole game, turning the whole map blue, only to find out that Sparta won the Peloponnesian war? The players of AC Odyssey, unless they were independently aware of the history, don't even find out who wins the Peloponnesian war. Player choice didn't expand what could be done with the narrative, it constricted it.

    Prior AC games could do more with time-skipping through the life of the main character, showing the outcome of their decisions on history years down the line. AC Origins could make great use of this. AC Odyssey, in contrast, could do very little of this. Player choice is easiest to design in a big world with a static environment where your actions in one place haven't filtered down to other places on the map. So that's what they did with Odyssey - a world designed around a static moment in history, where the player visits everywhere in this static moment in time. The Peloponnesian war is always in this undefined, early state, and your choices that decide who conquers which part of the world, or which leaders or commanders you aid and which you kill, make zero difference. Every romance until the DLC is a one-night stand.The end of the main plot with your sibling and the cult is utterly anti-climactic. By the time you make your final decisions on those, it turns out it won't matter to the Greek world what you do. Compared to what prior AC protagonists did, nothing you do in this game feels like it mattered to history.

    It's the only way player choice fits neatly into an AC game - make the player less consequential to history (which is what AC Odyssey did) or allow the player to make choices that conflict with history of how major events actually worked out (given the way the modern day segments are hinting at reality being a simulation and Layla working towards an outcome that lets her change history using the Animus.... I'm honestly wondering if this is what Ubisoft if working up to). It's not a great look for an Assassin's Creed plot.

    The size and scope of the world is the most impressive any AC games has ever done, but it all feels so poorly used in the writing department because of this break from tradition forcing player choice onto the plot. Pick a main character, stick with it. Pick a story to tell, then develop it and polish it. Dialogue trees, and writing different outcomes that influence small, bite-sized narrative chunks, is the definition of quantity of plot over quality of plot. With player choice, we can see many new ways each part of the story can play out... and they're all shallow.

    RPG aspects - The replayability factor is not that useful:

    While player choice on plot is sometimes cheered as adding replayability, very few people will actually replay this game - they will only go through the one time, and my guess is that many won't even finish. I've had a shocking number of interactions with people who told me they never finished some of the prior AC games after buying them, and those games were even shorter and didn't make you wait as long to continue the plot between major events.

    I'm sure Ubisoft has better data available than we do as players. But just looking at the PS4 trophies for simply completing Odyssey (PS4 trophies show what percentage of players with the game have acquired the trophy), it displays that only 1/3 of players have finished it. With the game having been out now for 8 months, those numbers are unlikely to shift much anymore. The numbers get even smaller with finishing the main plot of the DLC's. So while it's true that the RPG elements add more hours to the game, and that they add replayability, I think those are not worth much.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #6
    JKAC2013's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,048
    The Article of Kotaku was very interesting and I am excited that the Mentors Guild want to discuss about that. Because Odysseys biggest point of criticism was how it breaks the traditions of the Series. I am glad that I could give you my opinion on that.

    -Would you agree or disagree that Odyssey bent or broke series traditions?
    I would agree that Odyssey bent and broke a lot of the Series Traditions.
    Even in the interview the developers stated that the want to make an other game instead of Assassins Creed.The reveal of the game shocked me it feels not like a evolution of the series rather like a copy of other RPGs in the Genre, but later I accept it that Odyssey try to be different and made things on its own way but I think it fails in that case.

    Origins showed us that is possible too made an Assassins Creed what respect the series traditions and bring in a new RPG way. It has a good mix of that. Odyssey fails in that way and feels like a game that doesn't care about the Name Assassins Creed.

    -Do you think bending or breaking the series traditions made for a better or worse game?

    Well Odyssey is not a Bad Game but a bad Assassins Creed. For me the own way that Odyssey goes couldn't keep up with the top Games of the Franchise and the concept of the game doesn't rise up.

    In the RPG Genre it couldn't keep up with Games like Skyrim or Witcher 3 and has not the complexity of other RPG Genre Games and that is an important point. With Odyssey the Series forget a lot of good things that made the series great and special it goes more in the direction of other generic RPGs. Thats the Point, the traditions are what distinguish the Series from other RPGs and stand out, with despise that traditions they take away what the series made special.

    In the interview I read that the devs always want to made a great RPG but I think the forget that they are making an Assassins Creed. They should use their ideas in a new IP like Gods and Monsters. A Game like Odyssey will not pleasant RPG Fans and will furious AC Fans. Assassins Creed should find is own way on not be such a mix like Odyssey. It is not a bad Game but far away from being a Top Game it feels more like a Game who doesn't know what it want to be.

    Remember you can not satisfied everyone.

    -Do you think the changes made in Odyssey were necessary and justified?
    No. The Changes of Odyssey are things that no one asked for and give the series more weak points instead of improve it. Fans asked for change not to remove features and replace it with others that don't work. Here are some examples:

    Choices:
    The break the Lore and entire Concept of the Animus. The Storytelling suffers from that a lot because the devs could no longer focus on a linear and thoughtful Story instead we have not so well designed options. The Only Good Moments in the Story where that what we couldn't change with choices that moments where build up by the story, lead there and where fleshed out with choices this would not be possible because we always have that if or else situation. Even the Mission Design suffers of that but that's my next point.

    Mission Design:
    Old Titels had a lot of Different Mission Types and possibilities. Odysseys Mission focus just on one thing and that's the combat. A lot of the Missions lead me to an location just to fight someone or let me follow an ally just to get raid by bandits/warriors or animals and fight. The choices doesn't make that design any better the give me just the option to fight or not. I really miss the Assassinations, Races and Escape Missions the Series has a lot more mission types to offer but Odyssey use nothing of that. The Ship combat goes under that design and has not the complexity as the Ship Missions and battles from Black Flag.

    Focus on Combat:
    We are no longer an Assassin we are now a Greek Superhero with Demi God powers, the game throw this really in the face of the Players. Now everything is about fighting most missions lead us straight to one point where we forced to fight. Stealth is optional and nothing meaningful it feels like
    disadvantage if you chose this game style. This change destroyed everything what the Name ASSASSIN CREED means.

    Selectable Gender:
    This Change made the Lore and Storytelling even Worse. Our Hero is a replaceable Avatar with no own personality. No matter who we play the Interactions from NPCs to Alexios or Kassandra and their reactions remain always the same. In Syndicate Quebec did a good job with choosable Protagonists with different personalities but this is a huge backsteep in form of writing and story.


    -Do you think Odyssey and its gameplay and storytelling mechanics remain faithful to the lore of the franchise?
    No. Odyssey handled the gameplay of Assassins creed just like an gimmick that is in the game. The could explain the leap of faith, why we see trough Ikarus eyes and the spear of Leonidas is there just to be an Excuse so that they can use Magic in this game.

    I liked the Idea but the Cult System is the best Example how Odyssey fail in term of storytelling and gameplay. We have a few Cultists with personality in the main story and some side quests but the rest? Just some random NPCs that walk trough the world and need to be killed. Specially the Sages. Everyone of them seems important to the cult in their descriptions but they are just there in the world and wait to be killed by us, no special assassination mission or something and then they didn't have dialogue or sequence nothing. Just like one of the endless Kill missions on the boards.

    The Storytelling mechanic suffers just like the gameplay. No more great and atmospheric cutscenes like the other AC Games most of the Time we just watching two persons talking three feet from each other. Most of the Story has this forced Humor that discourage me to take it serious.

    The Modern Day had a lot of Potential that wasn't used. Its like the Legacy of the First Blade and Atlantis DLC. The only things that really connect Odyssey with the Series storylines where not important in the main game just moved in the dlc to let pay fans of the series twice.

    -Would you like future games to be an RPG experience similar to Odyssey?
    Absolute No. Odyssey should be its own Entry in the Series and not more. Future Games should look at Origins that mixed the Old Formula with new RPG Elements pretty well. If Future Games will be like Odyssey and move more away from the Series Traditions, Assassins Creed is Dead for me and maybe so for many fans who follow the series since the first entry.

    -Do you think Assassin's Creed needs to continue to evolve, beyond the RPG genre?
    Hard to say the RPG genre is very big and diverse and all of that wouldn't fit in an Assassins Creed. I think the Series should make its own way under consideration of the series traditions it could add new elements and be unique. I think an Assassins Creed with the strengths of the old titles and the RPG formula origins introduce could be very unique and great instead of an Assassins creed that just try to copy Witcher 3 and other RPGs we already seen.

    -Do you think it's okay when Assassin's Creed adds more supernatural/fantasy elements?
    No. Assassins Creed is about History and not Fantasy. Skins that are supernatural are ok the are optional and we have something like that in the older Games like that modern Suit in Brotherhood.

    But Elements like the mystical beasts and the overpowered spear of Leonidas doesn't fit into the series. Remember Al Mualims speak about the Apple of Eden and how a lot of Historically Events base on an Illusion or when the First Civilization where just Scientists that live before the humans? These things made the Series mysterious and unique.

    Now we have real Monsters, Magic and since the DLC real Gods just like in any other Fantasy Game. Odyssey really destroys the lore with this. These Elements are no Isu Story explantation the Isu Story is just used as an Excuse to add those Elements because the Devs want to made a Fantasy Game not an Assassins Creed.

    I remember they days when I was fascinated of the series because it managed it to be an unique game because of History, realistic Gameplay and a Story with no need of magic or fantasy monsters.


    -How do you think the changes made in Odyssey will affect the future of the franchise?
    Thats in the Hands of the Developers In my Opinion Odyssey creates more problems for the series as it solves. Odyssey should be an example how an Assassins Creed should not be and bring the devs back to the roots of the series. Future Entry should be develop with the tought to make an Assassins Creed Game not something that has only the name in it. If Future games will focus to be like odyssey this will kill the series and everything it stands for.

    At the end I must say my feedback should not made the impression that I hate Odyssey I liked the Game and on my List of favorite Assassins Creed it would stand in the middle Its something different but this difference should not be a new standard for the series. Ubisoft Quebec made and good game but it seems for me they want to made something other than an Assassins Creed. I hope the can use their ideas and creative freedom in their new IP Gods and Monsters where the not be limited.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by cawatrooper9 Go to original post
    One thing I think Assassin's Creed has always been great with is constant evolution. While I agree that the differences between Unity/Syndicate and Origins/Odyssey are significant, it's far from the first time that a big change like this was made.

    Things like Brotherhood recruits, sailing, social stealth, tools... nearly every aspect of the series has waxed and waned over time, with different games putting different emphasis on them. I think Odyssey's big changes may be more obvious than most, but if the past is anything to go on, those will specifically be Odyssey's changes. I'm sure some stuff will stick around and be improved on, but I don't expect future games to feel exactly like Ody.

    Personally, I've heard more complaints about how Odyssey conflicts with the series' lore rather than its gameplay. And I get that- Assassin's Creed fans are passionate about our lore, and rightly so.

    Stuff like dialogue choices and minor quest variables don't bother me. We've always had choices, even if it was something as simple as deciding which haystack to hide in or which tower to climb. The idea of viewing an ancestor's memories exactly as they happened and actually playing an interactive game don't perfectly gel- so, I've always thought of it more like Desmond/Layla/etc were more akin to someone watching an AC game being played, with the actual player representing the ancestor's actions. The new choice mechanics might highlight these differences more, I guess, but... c'est la vie. They just don't really bother me too much.

    Same with the mythology, for the most part.
    Spoiler:  Show


    I didn't mind how the mythological creatures (at least the first four) were products of Pieces of Eden. I actually thought that was kind of cool, and if anything would've liked the Eagle Bearer to have learned more about these processes. I was less of a fan of the crazy huge animals in the Artemis hunts, and the other cyclops brothers who weren't as obviously ties to POEs.

    That, and the way the myths are handled in the Atlantis DLC. I'm enjoying it so far, but being inside a simulation of a simulation just really makes me feel removed from the drama, and I would've loved to see the Isu as they really were, as opposed to a Greek reinterpretation of them (especially since one of the big draws of the Isu is that they were the inspiration for things like the gods already).

    That being said, I'm curious what'll happen in the last Atlantis chapter. Seems like some pretty wild stuff is happening in MD lately, and I'm into its potential.


    I also don't really mind some of the sillier stuff, like flaming horses or cue tip weapons. I kind of agree with the response given in the Kotaku article, at least in regards to totally optional stuff like this. Optional items like that aren't meant to be taken seriously, and are surely not considered canonical. Like, my first console was a Nintendo 64, and every game in that era had wacky cheat codes that were a blast to play with- basketball players made to look like Bobble Heads, Luke Skywalker flying a TIE Interceptor, cars with machine guns in the middle ages in Age of Empires... they're just for fun, and no one forced them on you. That being said, I don't really personally use any of these, other than the fact my wife's Phobos has the unicorn skin now.

    The main other story related item that causes some complications are the bigger choices- stuff that has much more world-shaking consequences (including the Eagle Bearer's own identity). Again, I personally don't mind suspending my disbelief enough for "Animus Magic" to account for it,but I can understand how that's not satisfactory for all fans (the poor wiki editors!). Still, I think it's pretty clear that even though many of the long-time fans dislike these aspects, they appear pretty popular among newer fans.

    I think when it comes to tradition, perhaps the biggest factor I can think of is how the newly announced Gods & Monsters is going to affect the Assassin's Creed series. I know some people are expecting more of a return to form for the series, with G&M taking on a lot of Odyssey's more fantasy RPG traits. Then again, Odyssey was pretty immensely popular, controversial aspects and all. I'm curious to see how that pans out, for sure!
    I wouldn't group Syndicate with Unity when it is actually closer to Origins than it is to Unity

    Syndicate introduced the Skill Tree not only for yourself but also for your gang and the way clothing and gear worked was similar to Origins. It was also the 1st AC game where you didn't climb up every frigging wall you came close to when running, like Origins and Odyssey you had to push the "A" button to climb ..... I hated Unity because all you did was run run run and anytime you got close to anything you automatically tried to climb it ..... The only difference between Syndicate and Origins is you still had to pull the trigger to run. ..... Because of this and those wrist gimmicks Syndicate has the best parkour of any of the games especially using Evie.....The only downside to me was it still had those stupid "optional objectives" that forced you to do a mission one specific way if you wanted to get 100%

    Syndicate was the real break from tradition not Origins it's just that because of Unity Debacle everyone just overlooked Syndicate and it suffered the lowest sales but was actually one of the better AC games ... My preferred order is

    Odyssey
    Origins
    Black Flag
    Syndicate
    Rogue
    ACIII

    I've never been able to finish any of the others because of their wonky controls making the game more of a drag and not much fun
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #8
    -Would you agree or disagree that Odyssey bent or broke series traditions?


    It changed it, but I really don't mind and I really like thew direction Odyssey has taken. The spirit of Assassin's Creed is still there though.

    -Do you think bending or breaking the series traditions made for a better or worse game?

    For me, it did an amazing game. Odyssey is probably my favorite AC game along with Brotherhood, and played all of them. So it could be for the better for me.

    -Do you think the changes made in Odyssey were necessary and justified?

    Not necessarily, but again, I like how it ended up.

    -Do you think Odyssey and its gameplay and storytelling mechanics remain faithful to the lore of the franchise?

    Yes. I played in a stealthy way as much as I could and I really like the general gameplay, even if I wish we could double kill enemies :P Legacy of the First Blade was also more than great about the lore, and I think it could have been part of the main game because of that.

    -Would you like future games to be an RPG experience similar to Odyssey?

    Yes, I really the choices and the different outcomes, but I understand the lore has to be respected, and this is why Ithink Odyssey made a wonderful job.

    -Do you think Assassin's Creed needs to continue to evolve, beyond the RPG genre?

    I don't think it absolutely should, but I'm not against it either.

    -Do you think it's okay when Assassin's Creed adds more supernatural/fantasy elements?

    Yes because it's linked to the Isus, and it has always been part of those games.

    -How do you think the changes made in Odyssey will affect the future of the franchise?

    I think it will bring more new fans. And I think real old fans of the series will stay, too.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    cawatrooper9's Avatar AC Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A Bathtub with Caterina Sforza
    Posts
    6,141
    Originally Posted by longjohn119 Go to original post
    I wouldn't group Syndicate with Unity when it is actually closer to Origins than it is to Unity

    Syndicate introduced the Skill Tree not only for yourself but also for your gang and the way clothing and gear worked was similar to Origins. It was also the 1st AC game where you didn't climb up every frigging wall you came close to when running, like Origins and Odyssey you had to push the "A" button to climb ..... I hated Unity because all you did was run run run and anytime you got close to anything you automatically tried to climb it ..... The only difference between Syndicate and Origins is you still had to pull the trigger to run.

    Huh, that's an interesting take, longjohn119.

    I've generally seen ACU and ACS grouped together (and ACO/ACODY) but you make a good case. I'll have to think about that.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    JKAC2013's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,048
    Originally Posted by Torvaldesq Go to original post
    RPG aspects - The replayability factor is not that useful:

    While player choice on plot is sometimes cheered as adding replayability, very few people will actually replay this game - they will only go through the one time, and my guess is that many won't even finish. I've had a shocking number of interactions with people who told me they never finished some of the prior AC games after buying them, and those games were even shorter and didn't make you wait as long to continue the plot between major events.

    I'm sure Ubisoft has better data available than we do as players. But just looking at the PS4 trophies for simply completing Odyssey (PS4 trophies show what percentage of players with the game have acquired the trophy), it displays that only 1/3 of players have finished it. With the game having been out now for 8 months, those numbers are unlikely to shift much anymore. The numbers get even smaller with finishing the main plot of the DLC's. So while it's true that the RPG elements add more hours to the game, and that they add replayability, I think those are not worth much.
    The RPG Elements more stretch the Game in Odyssey instead of improve it. The Reason I don't replay it is because of the lot Grinding Sections the Game have and how that forced leveling throw me out of the Main Story.

    Originally Posted by longjohn119 Go to original post
    I wouldn't group Syndicate with Unity when it is actually closer to Origins than it is to Unity

    Syndicate introduced the Skill Tree not only for yourself but also for your gang and the way clothing and gear worked was similar to Origins. It was also the 1st AC game where you didn't climb up every frigging wall you came close to when running, like Origins and Odyssey you had to push the "A" button to climb ..... I hated Unity because all you did was run run run and anytime you got close to anything you automatically tried to climb it ..... The only difference between Syndicate and Origins is you still had to pull the trigger to run. ..... Because of this and those wrist gimmicks Syndicate has the best parkour of any of the games especially using Evie.....The only downside to me was it still had those stupid "optional objectives" that forced you to do a mission one specific way if you wanted to get 100%

    Syndicate was the real break from tradition not Origins it's just that because of Unity Debacle everyone just overlooked Syndicate and it suffered the lowest sales but was actually one of the better AC games..
    I wouldn't agree. Syndicate is more like Unity with improved mechanics. It have same new things but doesn't go such a new way like Origins for me it feels more like a AC Brotherhood in London. With the reconquest of the City of London, The Assassinations and the Gang mechanics it was a very good Game that fleshed out the old formula pretty good and doesn't deserve that hate, the only reason it receive this hate was because of Ubisofts Yearly AC Releases and the Terrible Launch of Unity. For me Syndicate is more polished than Odyssey.
    Share this post