View Poll Results: How narrow view do have on the series?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Narrow view on the series

    2 11.76%
  • Open minded view on the series

    12 70.59%
  • Labeling fans, labeling fans everywhere.

    3 17.65%
  1. #1
    Hans684's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The city between the seven mountains
    Posts
    3,662

    Assassin's Creed: The voice of the [forum] people. [WARNING HOT THREAD]

    As everyone know, this series is based on history but how what settings is "to far" for AC? Lets take Naval, it's navigation, stealth and combat. Every core pillar in one pakage but do you consider it an "AC" mechanic or just something for the money? A mechanic that uses every core pillars is deffently a waste of time nor it new to AC in any way. Naval can't even be used in an open world, impossible anyway. So why care, right? What would not be "AC"?

    What do you think when you see/hear the title Assassin's Creed? Should "AC" take advantage of the history of each new setting or not(example: an "AC" in The Golden Age of Piracy without naval, pirates, guns etc...)?How narrow minded is your view on what you consider "AC"? Lets take Wild West, is to modern? We already have modern day in the series, wierd right? To dismiss a setting with potential becouse of something that had been part of the series since day one and yet peope ask for an modern day AC or an World War AC... Yet say things like "It's to modern for AC" Or the sceary guns? They destroy every kind of game becouse it makes them midless, there is no way to use a brain with a gun. You gett a gun, then you shoot first and ask questions later just like the Hitman series. The Golden Age of Piracy/Wild West never happend, that's why it's not worthy enough for "AC" becouse "AC" is based on history... It's all created by Hollywood. Or is AC just a [narrow] concept where you only have to play an assassin no matter setting and time, only use a simulator style gameplay no matter the setting and time, only the same thing(gameplay) without additions(random events, naval ect...), and on and on... We have heard it before but it is limiting. So why limit AC(psudo(AC2 and onward) or not(AC1)(both created by Patrice)) and the potential it has. Fans ask for a diffrent and innovative AC but when they have one they refuse to look. Labeling it everything from "Pirate's Creed" to Pirates of the Caribbean, such nonsense. Soon after that the nostalgia hits and everything is fuc!ked(sorry) up about the series and they wish that happend and that didn't while acting like a baby not knowing what to do but cry for mommy(no offence and sorry). Or can this series be anything? No, only heritics and new fans think that. Only "H4r4c0r3" fans and elites(sorry) only knows what the series is. Back on topic, can the series be anything, well yes. We have had stuff like alternate realitys since the comic series(the one that only was French to begin with) or The Apples of Eden(since the first game, ability first shown in TOKW) or The Eye, then we have history(full of midless events, explosions and quiet times) that can let this series be anything from an AC pirate game(history and expanded concept(psudo)) or an AC in Wild West, First Civ, Japan, Greek, Modern.... You gett the point.

    To make it easy for everyone, I just want your take on the entire series. What you would love/hate, what you consider it ect...

    Disclaimer: There is a lot of stuff here that other people have said(sorry and no offence) so calm down before attacking. For [special] people with to little IQ to uderstand, I'll be a weak minded extremist with no imagination that cry over magisine covers :P.
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Dome500's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    - Access Denied -
    Posts
    10,434
    An Assassin Creed game should evolve around and Assassin plot.

    I do not consider a particular form of gameplay as "not Assassins Creed" and I am open for new perspectives and new elements.

    I don't even mind a game were 60 - 70% of the content is naval, but that should only be for 1 game.
    A spin-off is okay for the pirate setting, but the main game should do something different next time around.


    I think that Assassins Creed can have every historical era they want as playground and I thin innovation is the best the series can get at the moment, considering all those not-enough-improved controls and gameplay mechanics (such as the combat system and a only half-supported and not yet fleshed out (though thoroughly improved in AC4) stealth system) in the last games.

    I like the increased Stealth. For me, an AC game is only AC if the stealth is a viable option for 90% of the game
    I like the variety of side missions. Keep on doing that, like you did it in AC4 (I think the most variety of side activities in an AC game to date).

    I'd like to have more tools, a distraction tool especially, I'd like to have a manual crouch. And Assassins being more involved next time around (no matter how),

    The wild West is to modern. Why? Because the gameplay does not work that way with guns. We had a modern-day storyline yes, but the only reason we (or I) accepted the little bit unrealistic combat there, involving a lot of weird modern-day sword/stick fights and just pistols, no machine guns, is because there was so little of it and it served the purpose to tell a story. But if you make an AC game in a more modern (19th century +) setting then this all becomes problematic because the whole game will be about that.

    Of course new systems can be developed. But for that kind of gameplay the combat needs a complete revamp. And such changes need time.


    In short, no I do not think an AC games "should only be made for certain time periods". I am very open toward any setting, even if I have my preferences. But modern day is still too complicated to realize IMO, and the developers seem to also think along those lines.
    An Assassins Creed game furthermore has to be about Assassins (and Templars). I like different perspectives, but a game like AC4 should be a one-time-only case because it was very disconnected to the rest of the games due to:

    1. Different (First Person) Moder Day story
    2. More a Pirate game than an AC game
    3. Had more Naval Combat than Parkour and Free Running

    While refreshing for 1 game, I think the next game should be more along the lines of the AC series.

    Of course innovation is something I am open to, and if they find new and refreshing ways which are not too disconnected to the general ideas and concepts of the franchise I am all open for it.
    I liked AC4 as a one-time-game in the series that is responsible for variety and something new and refreshing in the series.

    So I am open for most things, but not too open.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Megas_Doux's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    4,648
    I really dont know what to say....

    I mean, my two favorite games in the franchise are its "purest" form, AC I and the one that had most "non AC elements", AC IV. I am a little bit close minded in terms of any post 1870 settings, because I like swordplay more than shooting for this franchise, with ALL of heavy flaws it has, like being uber and or static at times. However I am open in terms of adding other elements because I LOVED naval, but at the same time I was eager for the old freedom and stealth muission design of the first game, which we got in AC IV.

    However, I am looking for a revamp in those gameplay aspects -combat, stealth- and I do NOT want another AC heavily naval game anytime soon.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Hans684
    Fans ask for a diffrent and innovative AC but when they have one they refuse to look.


    That sounds a bit like what Prince Ahmet said ("Yes people desire the truth. But even when they have it they refuse to look.").


    Anyway, I think they can do anything they want/can... as long as there is stealth, parkour, real cities, real cultures, basis on "historical" events, conspiracies, aliens, etc. Can't wait to see what's next after naval.

    I guess the fans that argue that AC doesn't feel fresh enough, want to continue loving the series, but feel that this "relationship" is getting stale. They want it to undergo drastic changes, yet knowing that it can't because it would lose it's fundamental identity. This frustrates immeasurably.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Dome500's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    - Access Denied -
    Posts
    10,434
    I guess the fans that argue that AC doesn't feel fresh enough, want to continue loving the series, but feel that this "relationship" is getting stale. They want it to undergo drastic changes, yet knowing that it can't because it would lose it's fundamental identity. This frustrates immeasurably.
    Yeah, agreed.

    At least those people who are very radical in this demand will probably cease to like the series at a point.
    At on point the series looses it's magic for some players.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Hans684's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The city between the seven mountains
    Posts
    3,662
    Originally Posted by Ureh Go to original post
    That sounds a bit like what Prince Ahmet said ("Yes people desire the truth. But even when they have it they refuse to look."). [/COLOR]


    One of my favorite quotes.

    Anyway, I think they can do anything they want/can... as long as there is stealth, parkour, real cities, real cultures, basis on "historical" events, conspiracies, aliens, etc. Can't wait to see what's next after naval.
    I just want Ubisoft to make each AC different(fresh & innovative) but still the same(the core but deeper & better). For me AC4, AC1 is the AC's that stand out among the rest. Sure they are not PERFECT(nothing is, be happy what you've have) but they feels different.

    I guess the fans that argue that AC doesn't feel fresh enough, want to continue loving the series, but feel that this "relationship" is getting stale. They want it to undergo drastic changes, yet knowing that it can't because it would lose it's fundamental identity. This frustrates immeasurably.
    It is getting stale, that's why I want each AC to be different but still the same. Fans thats like "combat eras only" etc... Are just as much too blame as Ubisoft. They narrow what AC is capable of while forcing what Ubisoft can do or not "just course xxxx". That way of thinking is the main reason AC is the same each year, why would Ubisoft take a risk since they know fans will not accept it becouse it's not "AC" anymore while asking for diffrent and innovative. Being disrespectful to developer/writers ect... Is just as bad, they are properly just as big fan as you(not you as in YOU but you gett the point.), even Yves. A game company that's wants money, nothing new. Been that way with every company since day 1 but they can still care for the games. I mean they are humans too, treating everything and everyone involved in the series shi! will give a bad impression on the fans side either casual, hardcore, elite ect... While being just bad as they claim the teams for. It's one of the thigs I wanted to point out. As someone who deliver news to the AC Wiki(name: ACsenior) I read almost every comment on every article I post. It's sad to read the comments, it has made me respect the teams(developers/writers etc...) for games more that the fan bases. With this tread I wanted to also show how narrow, disrespectful and stupid a fan base is either they are on a forum, an article, a Wiki.

    QESTION FOR EVERYONE: Does my original post make me appear like an narrow minded, disrespectful, stupid assho!e AC fan? If anyone thinks that, then I succeeded. That's how everyone(maybe not everyone) is going to be looked at from their view, think beyond yourself and have some sympathy for the teams.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Dome500's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    - Access Denied -
    Posts
    10,434
    You came of a little aggressive....

    But I still don't know what do you want with this thread.

    I told you my opinion, I hope it way not "disrespectful".
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Hans684's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The city between the seven mountains
    Posts
    3,662
    Originally Posted by Dome500 Go to original post
    You came of a little aggressive....
    That's how most fans properly is viewed too, that's why I choose to be aggressive. To show people just how bad they can be or is, if I told people instead it would be ignored.

    But I still don't know what do you want with this thread.
    Every awnser is here:

    "Being disrespectful to developer/writers ect... Is just as bad, they are properly just as big fan as you(not you as in YOU but you gett the point.), even Yves. A game company that's wants money, nothing new. Been that way with every company since day 1 but they can still care for the games. I mean they are humans too, treating everything and everyone involved in the series shi! will give a bad impression on the fans side either casual, hardcore, elite ect... While being just bad as they claim the teams for. It's one of the thigs I wanted to point out. As someone who deliver news to the AC Wiki(name: ACsenior) I read almost every comment on every article I post. It's sad to read the comments, it has made me respect the teams(developers/writers etc...) for games more that the fan bases. With this tread I wanted to also show how narrow, disrespectful and stupid a fan base is either they are on a forum, an article, a Wiki."

    I told you my opinion, I hope it way not "disrespectful".
    I respect opinions even if they are limiting. It's just that I want to show everyone instead of telling it, only for it to be forgotten. What I meant with disrespectful is people who say things like "Ubisoft only care about money", "AC died when Petrice left", "ACIVBF is not an AC" ect... People who don't think about what they say.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    dxsxhxcx's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    3,186
    Originally Posted by Hans684 Go to original post

    "Ubisoft only care about money"
    it's hard to not think that way when it's obvious and even acknowledged by the devs that the current schedule they have isn't ideal to properly work in the game.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Hans684's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The city between the seven mountains
    Posts
    3,662
    Originally Posted by dxsxhxcx Go to original post
    it's hard to not think that way when it's obvious and even acknowledged by the devs that the current schedule they have isn't ideal to properly work in the game.
    Didn't say they didn't care about money but that they(entire Ubisoft(every employe)) only care about money. I don't like the yearly releases either and I know it has some effect on the games. And it's human nature, people think that they only care about money becouse of yearly releases, been disepointed(AC3, ACR), Patrice left... And many more.
    A game company that's wants money, nothing new. Been that way with every company since day 1 but they can still care for the games.
    Share this post

Page 1 of 7 123 ... Last ►►