1. #1
    Dieinthedark's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    'merica
    Posts
    1,505

    Why I am done with the Assassins Creed franchise (no rant/constructive feedback only)

    After playing all of the Assassinís Creed games that have been released on console, excluding Rogue, I felt compelled to offer a bit of insight into why I am finished with this franchise. This is absolutely NOT a simple trolling post of why I think AC sucks, nor is this a rant about bugs or glitches or questionable marketing practices by Ubisoft. Rather this is a collection of points that I hope are well enough supported to be constructive. Obviously we all hope that our posts reach the higher ups, but as I doubt that will be the case, hopefully this can spark some discussion anyway. Without further ado, letís get started:

    Issue #1: Creditability with gameplay elements

    When a player begins any new game in franchise they are starting the game with an open mind, open to the ideas and the concepts that the development team have put forth. That initial creditability must be great enough to both entice the player (making them feel powerful generally) and hold them over until the narrative can provide more ďconcreteĒ creditability for the game. Narrative is what holds gameplay elements together; having thirty different gameplay elements for no reason other than the sake of having them is simply poor game design. The following are a few select gameplay elements I thought were worth mentioning:

    Example: Renovating buildings (AC2-ACU)

    Best implementation: AC2- This gameplay element works in AC2 as Monteriggioni is the location that Ezio resides. It makes sense in the narrative that Ezio would renovate buildings to provide better conditions for the citizens with which he lives. It serves as a sort of parallel in progression to the character development of Ezio. As your character progresses and acquires more money, Monteriggioni also progresses from an old, run down village, to one a bit more vibrant and thriving.

    Worst implementation:
    ACU - This gameplay element is never explained in the narrative as to why it would be important. Players who have played the previous entries may (correctly) assume that renovating social clubs will bolster their income but why would Arno undertake this responsibility? He does not rule over Paris, nor does he alone control the districts in which these social clubs are located. In fact, he is not connected to this clubs in any way. However, renovating these clubs provides monetary income, new missions, and nomad points for the companion app (more on that later).

    Example: Hunting (AC3)

    Although I did not find this gamplay element enjoyable in the slightest, it was implemented well. It made narrative sense that Connor, as a Native American, would hunt animals and trade their pelts for money.

    Example: Crowd Mechanics and Density

    Best implementation: ACR Ė Civilians reacted to what was going on around them. Numerous types of bombs would draw civilian attention to an area thus causing guards to investigate. Two combating factions caused panic between the civilians. Generally felt more alive, as did AC2.

    Worst implementation:
    ACU Ė The most frustrating reason, and the sole reason I give this the title worst implementation, is because it was such an incredibly hyped feature. Ubi told us that new consoles could render thousands of NPCs on screen at once, at certainly that seemed promising. But the problems with the crowds are numerous. Unlike previous entries, players no longer have the ability to shove people out of the way which mean crowds now become a hindrance to movement. Second, blending into a crowd and throwing a cherry bomb several feet away causes you to lose your blend ability though you are still standing in the midst of the crowd of hundreds. Third, guards who fire into the crowds while chasing you either never hit civilians or even if they do kill them, they donít provoke fights. We all know that civilians attacked ruthlessly during the French Revolution but they simply stand by idly. Having dense crowds for the sake of having them is not a worthy feature, give us systemic crowds that react to what we are doing, to how guards treat them. Finally, fear does not propagate well in the crowds nor does it do much to attract guard attention away from you.

    Issue #2: Creditability with narrative elements

    Assassinís Creed 1, you play as Desmond Miles in what seems to be a fairly intriguing, modern storyline. The Animus, Abstergo, and how this entire technology works is explained right off the bat. AC2 you realize you need to continue using the Animus for the bleeding effect to take hold and gather the experience of your ancestors in a short period of timeÖfor the purpose of fighting Abstergo. Abstergo has constantly been painted as the bad guys, the modern day Templars, your sworn enemy. But by ACR, you realize all of your training isnít really doing much for Abstergo. Sure, there are modern day sequences but they are terribly linear and donít offer but a smidgen of content in the franchise. Certainly there are fans who said that they didnít find the modern day story line all that interesting, and perhaps Ubi listened more strongly to them than to the others. But modern day was never given the attention or the care that the historical settings were given. The other possibility is that it would have been difficult to justify using melee weapons in a modern time period but Iím sure that with the numerous numbers of talented people Ubi employs, something believable could have been written.

    Anyway, as we know Desmond dies, saves the world, woohoo! But now your narrative has taken a severe hit. We were never playing a strictly historical game, the modern time period has always existed. But we are then told to believe in just a matter of seconds that Subject 16ís body was recovered and now we can access his memories from anyone, at any time. And there goes the narrative credibility. The concept perhaps could have worked but as a fan of the franchise it is rather disheartening to see five gamesí worth of credibility simply overwritten by one poorly executed cinematic sequence.

    Player trust is now broken, the modern setting might as well be disbanded after such a poorly written excuse. But nevertheless, Mr. Floating Tablet now can walk around to get into an Animus or hack an occasional computer. But these gameplay elements serve no narrative purpose. They might add a little back story but they are not compelling, nor do they work with the gameplay elements that are created in the Animus. Desmond was at least able to climb and attack as in the Animus. The new gameplay elements (hacking, walking around at a painfully slow pace) simply break immersion. Do not ďoption awayĒ your game; if it is included it needs to be important, tied to the overall narrative or in meaningfully furthering the game as a whole.

    Issue #3: Setting (time period) Ė Real enemies vs generic terminology

    I strongly believe that the Assassinís Creed franchise is going the wrong way in history for several reasons. First and foremost, the narrative no longer supports the time period. AC1 (and AC2 but for the sake of argument I shall stick with AC1) arguably had the best settings in all of the franchise history, for the simple reason that the setting, mainly the time period, not the location, made the narrative more credible. As an Assassin, our sworn enemies are Templars, who truthfully did exist during the Crusades. Mixing parts of fact with fiction creates a very strong narrative if done properly, and by my judgment, that was executed well. However, previous iterations see the Templars simply become a name. Perhaps our targets wear the Templar Cross or our characters find out they are working for the Templars, and granted, no one knows what happened to the remnants of them but with each game, it seems as though Ubi is simply pointing a finger at a bad guy, calling them a Templar and having us kill them. Thereís not the same level of intrigue or solid bits of history to reinforce the claims. Being a ďTemplarĒ is simply becoming a go-to term for the bad guy(s).

    Issue #4: Setting/Technology

    Another point to make is that by continually advancing the time period in which AC games occur, technology advances and by that I mean guns. Lots and lots of guns. I stated in the title that this is not going to be a rant thread; I am truly trying to be constructive so I will not turn this into a ďguns killed Assassinís CreedĒ thread. But it is still worth a short examination.

    Sword or any other blade combat in AC offers two methods of approach: One can either attack their opponents with their own blade or defeat them, or they can play defensively and attempt to parry attacks and counter attack. (Dodging I am omitting for the sake of argument because it is merely a tool, you cannot win a melee encounter by dodging)

    Gun combat also offers two methods of approach: One can attack with their own guns, or they can attempt to dodge their shots. There are two differences in this however. First, blade combat offers the ability to counter attack. By correctly timing a button press you can momentarily gain a foothold which you can potentially turn into an advantage by attacking. However, dodging in gun combat offers you NO same foothold, no even ground to potentially turn the encounter around. In fact, you may dodge one gunman, simply to have another trained on you for as soon as your dodge roll animation completes. Couple this with the fact that one cannot dodge roll indefinitely (there is a small enough window between repeatedly rolling that you can still be shot) and you have a recipe for failure. Additionally, there are numerous instances when engaging in melee combat that armed riflemen will not show up on screen with icons notifying the player to dodge. Subtle sound cues would be a lot more reliable in these instances.

    The second point is that should a player be able to dodge out of harmís way, I do not believe that enemy soldiers with guns have a limited ammo count (please correct me if I am wrong). Certainly, looting riflemen can yield different amounts of ammo but in combat I have yet to see an enemy run out of ammo and switch to melee combat. Contrastingly, the player character is severally limited in ammo. This is not to say that the player character should also have unlimited ammo but rather, enemy soldiers ought to be limited.

    The reason for this however seems pretty clear. Many (including myself) have wanted AC to return to the stealth principles. Playing stealthily is a reward in and of itself as it (ideally) gives the player an upper hand in what would otherwise be an unmanageable situation. For that, I praise Ubi. Stealth is now indeed a fundamental priority, and leaps and bounds beyond that of previous games. That being said, forcing the player into stealth gameplay to achieve an upper hand without also having some sort of balancing factor should the player attempt to play in another fashion simply causes frustration.

    Final note on stealth: if stealth gameplay is going to be pushed to this level, it needs to be fully functional. I loved finally having a stealth system, being able to take cover and slide to cover beside you. But take a page from your own Splinter Cell franchise Ubi, the player needs options in cover. We need to be able to move to cover positions in front of us, preferably with arrow markers showing us where we will be should we swap cover (Splinter Cell Conviction/Blacklist). This would make stealth much more feasible than simply running to cover position and taking cover, or needing to move to a cover position in front of you and being forced to slowly crouch walk forward. Stealth movement needs the same level of fluidity as free running if it is to be taken seriously.

    Issue #5: Player value/respect

    This is the first time I have ever truly felt like Ubisoft does not care about their consumer base at all. First off, when we first open the map in ACU, I am sure we were all overwhelmed by the number of icons on screenÖso much to do! But then we start realizing that things are locked behind Initiates, vaguely telling us we arenít at a high enough level to access it, or the dreaded companion app. The point to be made is not the black and white approach, donít waste your time on casual/tablet games, but rather just respect the player. Many of us went to a midnight release of what is probably our favorite franchise, we shell out 60 hard earned dollars, or more with the season pass, and we expect to be able to access everything we pay for. So Iím not saying, donít make a companion app, (personally I donít enjoy it, in fact Iíd say I hate it, but some might like it).

    What I am saying is respect the player; donít show us all the things that we canít get at first. For the first say two hours, the only job you should have is to amaze us. Show us the gameplay, show us the narrative, and entice us in your world. Locked chests and other side programs and apps we have to play to get the rest out of our game are brick walls. Introduce those to us later, slowly. Tell us why they are important before you just throw everything in our face and make us feel cheated that we donít get everything we paid for.
    Iím not going to go on about the problems with the companion app or whether it is feasible or reasonable to spend so much time designing those as Iím sure new business models pretty much require that. I ask that you respect us, the player, and we in turn will respect you, or at least more than we would otherwise.


    Alright folks, thatís it! If you managed to read all that, pat yourself on the back I hope this spawns some good discussion and can hopefully be passed along to some of the higher ups. I donít care if you agree, disagree or a little of both with this, letís get some conversation going.

    Regards,
    Dieinthedark

    PS: If thereís any part of the story descriptions you feel I messed up in explaining, cut me a little slack, I donít usually replay an AC game once I complete it
    Share this post

  2. #2
    shobhit7777777's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,375
    Originally Posted by Dieinthedark Go to original post
    Example: Crowd Mechanics and Density

    Best implementation: ACR – Civilians reacted to what was going on around them. Numerous types of bombs would draw civilian attention to an area thus causing guards to investigate. Two combating factions caused panic between the civilians. Generally felt more alive, as did AC2.

    Worst implementation: ACU – The most frustrating reason, and the sole reason I give this the title worst implementation, is because it was such an incredibly hyped feature. Ubi told us that new consoles could render thousands of NPCs on screen at once, at certainly that seemed promising. But the problems with the crowds are numerous. Unlike previous entries, players no longer have the ability to shove people out of the way which mean crowds now become a hindrance to movement. Second, blending into a crowd and throwing a cherry bomb several feet away causes you to lose your blend ability though you are still standing in the midst of the crowd of hundreds. Third, guards who fire into the crowds while chasing you either never hit civilians or even if they do kill them, they don’t provoke fights. We all know that civilians attacked ruthlessly during the French Revolution but they simply stand by idly. Having dense crowds for the sake of having them is not a worthy feature, give us systemic crowds that react to what we are doing, to how guards treat them. Finally, fear does not propagate well in the crowds nor does it do much to attract guard attention away from you.


    The above is by far the most glaring and troubling issue with ACU IMO

    Large crowds - do nothing

    I too am done with the franchise. ACU is an extremely 'dumb' game. Nice concepts but shockingly poor execution. It lacks the finesse one would expect from Ubi. For me, the assassin experience was at its pinnacle in ACR and the last fun AC game was AC4.

    The stealth is clunky and derivative. The social stealth is a huge step back thanks to dumb ****ing AI and crowds...not to mention the absolutely idiotic design decisions example - cherry bombs. The huge crowds populating the city are wasted. The AI is thick as ****....its atrocious. The game is chock full of freemium mobile game practices (I would know).

    Absolutely **** all works

    ACR - a game released ages ago - outdoes ACU from a strictly assassin experience POV. The tight urban geometry of Istanbul was perfect. The crowd was dense and provided equal blending oppurtunities. The Templar Dens were urban forts. The bombs could be used to spark off faction fights. The crowd manipulation elements were there.

    You'll also notice that they 'Blacklist'd Arno's movements...remember the terrible inertia when moving Sam Fisher around....its here...in spades. Little things like the crowd parting as Arno passes through are rough and immersion breaking

    ****

    In a game with such HUGE crowds as a USP and a core gameplay mechanic...there is no smooth movement through the crowd....something that the last AC game had.

    I was recently playing some assassin contracts in AC4 (Kingston) and it does as good a job as Unity when it comes to the urban assassin experience...which is a ****ing shame because thats exactly what ACU was built up on.

    Ubisoft has been consistently over promising and underperforming when it comes to gameplay design. Watch_Dogs, Splinter Cell Blacklist, AC Unity....some of the most boneheaded and horrible design decisions which completely shaft the original concept....and I'm ****ing tired of it.

    It irks me more when the same publisher comes out with games like AC4 and FC4. Two extremely well designed games. It baffles the brain.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    I do also agree with a lot of your points here. However I am not done with the franchise, I'm in way too deep to stop playing now I guess. Had unity been a standalone game I probably wouldn't purchase any sequels but I am a huge assassins fan, which is another reason why a poorly executed game is all the more frustrating.

    The crowds:
    I remember one of the coop demos, and it showed the assassin killing a guard in front of thousands, this prompted the crowd to storm the palace killing the guards. Not once have I seen this in action, I've even deliberately tried but I concur that the crowds feel like they are there for the sake of crowds! I think it would really cool if you could actually interact with the crowd, say for example; spread a rumour, which you see spread throughout the mass of people, this could force them to react angrily, passively etc.

    Stealth:
    In honesty the stealth was the best in any assassins game, the ability to cover etc really did promote a more hidden gameplay style. Me personally, I love playing stealthily and would rather not commit open combat unless I had no other option. I agree however the stealth gameplay could be fleshed out further, having a cherry bomb as the only means to distract is clumsy. If I want to alert just one guard and beckon him to my cover spot I can't because now the whole of paris hears me lol.

    Story:
    The fact that the story is the least relevant story yet is also frustrating, the concept of assassins creed originally was excellent because we were going back for some real important reasons, finding out that the work we did in unity was for naught just doesn't make sense! It's huge kick in the teeth to fans who want to see a progression in the story. I haven't yet played rogue but that sounds like it progressed the modern arc infinitely more than unity!

    As a whole I am disappointed with unity, it's just quite a pretty game with some nice vistas but aside from that it feels unfinished! I sincerely hope that DLC answers a few questions and silences critics.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Megas_Doux's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    4,648
    A really good post, full of interesting points truly worthy of mention and that I would like to elaborate further on.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Shahkulu101's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    8,613
    I agree with this post, Unity is deeply flawed BUT in comparison to previous titles the core mechanics are much better - which goes to show how poor they were beforehand. I don't know why you'd hop off now, when things are improving, after the mechanics effectively stalled since AC2. Unity is the first actual innovation of the core mechanics since AC1, so why were you not quitting the series after 3 games in a row with the exact same poor design time after time (Ezio trilogy)?

    I don't understand why Unity is somehow the greatest of evils for you when the Ezio trilogy abandoned the original games concepts and turned the series into a historical GTA and AC3 tried to make the series into a linear action orientated 'cinematic' experience. As for AC4, that was a nice distraction but the core mechanics were still rotten as ever even though the naval stuff was fantastic. So I fail to comprehend how Unity was the last straw for you when the previous games are even more flawed.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    shobhit7777777's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,375
    Originally Posted by Shahkulu101 Go to original post
    I agree with this post, Unity is deeply flawed BUT in comparison to previous titles the core mechanics are much better - which goes to show how poor they were beforehand. I don't know why you'd hop off now, when things are improving, after the mechanics effectively stalled since AC2. Unity is the first actual innovation of the core mechanics since AC1, so why were you not quitting the series after 3 games in a row with the exact same poor design time after time (Ezio trilogy)?

    I don't understand why Unity is somehow the greatest of evils for you when the Ezio trilogy abandoned the original games concepts and turned the series into a historical GTA and AC3 tried to make the series into a linear action orientated 'cinematic' experience. As for AC4, that was a nice distraction but the core mechanics were still rotten as ever even though the naval stuff was fantastic. So I fail to comprehend how Unity was the last straw for you when the previous games are even more flawed.
    I wouldn't say it was "Innovative"
    Allow me to pick this apart

    The first actual innovation was brought in by the Ezio trilogy

    Blend crowds, faction groups, notoriety put the "social" in the franchise's social stealth. Combat was ramped up with killstreaks, disarms, weapon usage. A brotherhood system was put into place. Granted that the Ezio trilogy's main mission design was IMHO horrendous and leant towards the bombastic, exotic, set-piece orgy typically found in the CoD games....but the overall gameplay was solid.

    ACU does indeed fix many flaws...or tries to. Its certainly a step in the right direction (arguably a leap in the right direction) but its too little too late.

    Crouching and cover based stealth is clunky in ACU and comes in after SIX games. Its too little too late. The stealth mechanics in Unity are extremely derivative and not at all innovative

    Furthermore, the AI is dumb. The DUMBEST I've seen in any modern video game. Search routines are a joke. The crowd and the guards simply are two disconnected systems. ACU is easily the most archaic AC game when it comes down to the game systems. I felt more capable as an Assassin in Revelations and Black Flags than in ACU.

    ACU may not be the worst out of them all, but its the last straw for me.

    Ubi needs to sort out its AC design team...or maybe its leadership....IDK....because ACU was a mediocre game.

    Gimme 2 months and complete control over Ubisoft Global and I'll un**** this straight away. I'm Batman.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Shahkulu101's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    8,613
    Originally Posted by shobhit7777777 Go to original post
    I wouldn't say it was "Innovative"
    Allow me to pick this apart

    The first actual innovation was brought in by the Ezio trilogy

    Blend crowds, faction groups, notoriety put the "social" in the franchise's social stealth. Combat was ramped up with killstreaks, disarms, weapon usage. A brotherhood system was put into place. Granted that the Ezio trilogy's main mission design was IMHO horrendous and leant towards the bombastic, exotic, set-piece orgy typically found in the CoD games....but the overall gameplay was solid.

    ACU does indeed fix many flaws...or tries to. Its certainly a step in the right direction (arguably a leap in the right direction) but its too little too late.

    Crouching and cover based stealth is clunky in ACU and comes in after SIX games. Its too little too late. The stealth mechanics in Unity are extremely derivative and not at all innovative

    Furthermore, the AI is dumb. The DUMBEST I've seen in any modern video game. Search routines are a joke. The crowd and the guards simply are two disconnected systems. ACU is easily the most archaic AC game when it comes down to the game systems. I felt more capable as an Assassin in Revelations and Black Flags than in ACU.

    ACU may not be the worst out of them all, but its the last straw for me.

    Ubi needs to sort out its AC design team...or maybe its leadership....IDK....because ACU was a mediocre game.

    Gimme 2 months and complete control over Ubisoft Global and I'll un**** this straight away. I'm Batman.
    By combat being 'amped up' do you mean made more flashy and incredibly easy? Not a great innovation. Crowds were cool, but so simplistic and gamey they didn't really matter.

    The AI was stupid yes, but hardly any dumber than past games. Are we forgetting AC4 where you can pop in and out of a bush multiple times right in front if a guard and he doesn't detect you?

    And by more capable do you mean easier? Fact of the matter is there was no use to stealth in previous games because the combat was so easy. Unity has the most open mission design in the series and secret entrances, unique kills and generally plenty of ways to do everything. Most importantly, combat wasn't a breeze and was genuinely your last resort. The mechanics are flawed but the assassination missions of Unity are easily the best Assassin experience the series has provided.

    I'm not even Unity's biggest fan, I still think the stealth is bad (however I still find some satisfaction in pulling off assassinations due to the design) but in comparison to the past games it's unquestionably a better stealth game. I too am bitterly disappointed that after so many attempts the game still isn't even a COMPETENT stealth/action game never mind a good one, but the fact that Unity is a big step in the right direction gives me hope after years of enduring the focus on action and set pieces. Heck, why quit now rather than at the absolute abomination that was AC3? I have hope that Victory will refine the mechanics and be a better version of Unity. We've seen it before, when the high-concept, ambitious title is more like a testing ground for future sequels -- Brotherhood (although AC2 was actually a successful test of concept, but BH improved on that ten-fold) and AC4 for example.
    Share this post

  8. #8
    shobhit7777777's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,375
    Originally Posted by Shahkulu101 Go to original post
    By combat being 'amped up' do you mean made more flashy and incredibly easy? Not a great innovation. Crowds were cool, but so simplistic and gamey they didn't really matter.
    Whether you like them or not is irrelevant. Point is major mechanical changes and additions were brought in with the Ezio trilogy

    And by more capable do you mean easier?
    "Capable" here implies the fact that I had a plethora of options when it came to deathdealing.

    The AI was stupid yes, but hardly any dumber than past games. Are we forgetting AC4 where you can pop in and out of a bush multiple times right in front if a guard and he doesn't detect you?
    Yup. AI has always been stupid. And Unity - the "next gen" title doesn't improve on it and in fact goes back a few steps. You do see how that could put off a long time fan, don't you.

    Unity has the most open mission design in the series and secret entrances, unique kills and generally plenty of ways to do everything. Most importantly, combat wasn't a breeze and was genuinely your last resort. The mechanics are flawed but the assassination missions of Unity are easily the best Assassin experience the series has provided.
    Too little too late. What IS presented is flawed. Many elements are extremely derivative...what was standard in other stealth-action games comes to the franchise now...and it not even properly implemented.

    The Assassination missions are indeed fantastic. However, the core gameplay is shallow. The unsystemic nature of the game cheapens everything. The mechanical flaws sap the fun out of it all. Unity is a GOTY on paper.

    Also, if you want THE assassin experience - tackle the Revelation's Templar dens. I found it be above and beyond anything else in the franchise when it comes to the assassin sim concept....only Black Flag's Kingston/Havana assassination contracts come close to it.


    I too am bitterly disappointed that after so many attempts the game still isn't even a COMPETENT stealth/action game never mind a good one, but the fact that Unity is a big step in the right direction gives me hope after years of enduring the focus on action and set pieces
    Something we can agree on.

    Believe me, I was the BIGGEST Revelations hater. It was only after AC3 that I realized how awesome ACR was. Revisiting ACR and exploring the core gameplay and bomb crafting in the sandboxes of the Tempar Dens redeemed the horrible campaign missions.

    Yes, Unity IS a step in the right direction....but its a deeply flawed game. So much so that its robbed me of any confidence I had in Ubi. Watch Dogs may have been a catalyst. I pre-ordered Unity, thinking they have nailed it. I was dead wrong. I've lost all excitement for the franchise because Ubisoft has just failed to deliver.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Shahkulu101's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    8,613
    Originally Posted by shobhit7777777 Go to original post
    Whether you like them or not is irrelevant. Point is major mechanical changes and additions were brought in with the Ezio trilogy



    "Capable" here implies the fact that I had a plethora of options when it came to deathdealing.



    Yup. AI has always been stupid. And Unity - the "next gen" title doesn't improve on it and in fact goes back a few steps. You do see how that could put off a long time fan, don't you.



    Too little too late. What IS presented is flawed. Many elements are extremely derivative...what was standard in other stealth-action games comes to the franchise now...and it not even properly implemented.

    The Assassination missions are indeed fantastic. However, the core gameplay is shallow. The unsystemic nature of the game cheapens everything. The mechanical flaws sap the fun out of it all. Unity is a GOTY on paper.

    Also, if you want THE assassin experience - tackle the Revelation's Templar dens. I found it be above and beyond anything else in the franchise when it comes to the assassin sim concept....only Black Flag's Kingston/Havana assassination contracts come close to it.




    Something we can agree on.

    Believe me, I was the BIGGEST Revelations hater. It was only after AC3 that I realized how awesome ACR was. Revisiting ACR and exploring the core gameplay and bomb crafting in the sandboxes of the Tempar Dens redeemed the horrible campaign missions.

    Yes, Unity IS a step in the right direction....but its a deeply flawed game. So much so that its robbed me of any confidence I had in Ubi. Watch Dogs may have been a catalyst. I pre-ordered Unity, thinking they have nailed it. I was dead wrong. I've lost all excitement for the franchise because Ubisoft has just failed to deliver.
    Okay, I understand why you'd be put off now. However we all know you'll end up picking up Victory anyway...

    Regarding ACR, I've always viewed the bombs as a nuisance and never used them. I'll definitely experiment with them the next time I replay it, but I do find crafting them a real hassle to be honest. The Den's were certainly fun to do in any case though.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    shobhit7777777's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,375
    Originally Posted by Shahkulu101 Go to original post
    Okay, I understand why you'd be put off now. However we all know you'll end up picking up Victory anyway...
    .
    I doubt I'll be picking up Victory. I don't think it'll be a major improvement over Unity. The issues I have with Unity require serious design changes...and I don't think Ubi can be bothered with them. I'll probably play Victory when its super cheap...on PC.

    Regarding ACR, I've always viewed the bombs as a nuisance and never used them. I'll definitely experiment with them the next time I replay it, but I do find crafting them a real hassle to be honest. The Den's were certainly fun to do in any case though.
    The bomb system has some serious issues.

    For one the different gunpowders don't really do anything....and only become useful when you're using the Datura powder (Poison gas)...to limit the lethal radius (civillians). Some of the effects were redundant. Blood/Caltrops/Smoke were near interchangeable. The system could've used some streamlining.

    However, the ability to decide the effect, the shell/fuse was indeed amazing and offered tremendous tactical freedom. From using the skunk bomb to distract and isolate targets to using a the noiseless smoke bomb to distract a particular set of guards. You keep finding new uses and ways.

    Many people say that the Blowpipe and darts etc. make bombs redundant but its not the case

    ACR had mines, delayed fuses, bouncing shells, different effects....and the kicker was that all of them could be used to not only manipulate the crowd and AI...but also be used incognito...the perfect social stealth weapon.

    Blowpipes weren't that flexible
    Share this post

Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last ►►