Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 32 of 32

Thread: Assassin's Creed Victory

  1. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    U.S.G. Ishimura
    Posts
    2,955
    I bet it goes modern at some point. If C.o.D. can go "Advanced", why not? Judging by the reactions I've seen from fans of the series (not just here mind you, but elsewhere as well) it'd be a very unexpected and gutsy move, which I think would garner Ubisoft respect for having attempted instead of playing it safe with the whole series. And I'm sure loads of people would play it just to see what it's like. Curiosity would get to people. I don't think it'd happen tho until sales started to slump and interest in the series was wearing off from the public. It'd be a sort of Hail Mary. Those things happen.

    I'm not trying to pick a fight or pick on "A.C." fans, just offering an opinion.
    --->Winter's YouTube <--- Currently Serving 'TR:A'
    signature image

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Staten Island, New York City
    Posts
    2,020
    Quote Originally Posted by IvanaKC View Post
    That might be a sentence I was looking for to describe why AC1 was SO different from others. Ezio felt like true assassin too, but with Altair there was so much more freedom with his not-following-orders- blindly character, yeah.

    Waiting for a discount.
    Indeed. Altair had to eavesdrop, interrogate, and pickpocket his way to the target before he could assassinate them. Ezio, and every subsequent assassin, just killed their way to the end.

    Oh, and glad to hear you are picking up Rogue.

    Quote Originally Posted by JustAmber View Post
    My boyfriend showed me a lot of Black Flag which I loved and of course Conan Obriens review of Unity was awesome lol so I think I might give these games a try! The Bf let me a few so I am set to go
    Glad to see someone else getting in on the AC franchise. Tell us if you wind up liking it!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by GrievousOdyssey View Post
    [FONT=Courier New]See, this is odd.
    Despite pointing out how the games in this franchise mostly encourages the player in behaving like a killing machine and not a lone blade in a crowd, your personal favorite of the franchise are the ones where you Are encouraged to fight endlessly, II and Black Flag, the latter of which is even less 'warrior' and more plundering pirate, haha.

    Being a killing machine is basically the mantra that goes through all Ubisoft titles at the moment, and with its popularity i don't see it stopping any time soon, which as i've repeated already is quite a shame, because i really thought there was potential in the 'Assassin' part.


    I'm not interested in Unity in the slightest compared to Rogue. But considering how i just recently finished Black Flag, i'll take a rest for a while before jumping in on Rogue.
    Luckily for me by the time i get interested again it'll be discount seasons, no doubt.
    I just happened to enjoy the story more in the subsequent games, and plot is what matters most to me in a game. But AC1 was a great game, no doubt. I would have liked to see what would have been if AC continued in that direction, although apparently the Unity assassinations are bringing back the AC1-style assassinations (freedom). Also, I like how since ACIII, they brought back the idea that the Assassins and Templars aren't necessarily as black and white as you would think. In fact, I agree with a more Templar-ish mindset since ACIII. The Templars in the Ezio trilogy are a bunch of pure evil cackling villains.

    Yeah, I felt a bit of franchise fatigue after playing Liberation RIGHT after Black Flag, so I know what you mean.

    Oh, and see my sections in this post on the original AC plan, and on AC1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Weemanply109 View Post
    I agree. The death of SPOILER really did change the franchise and kinda ruined it's purpose but it was a result of fans complaining that Modern day felt out of place in the first place. Ubisoft could've handled it so much better, tho.
    Indeed. I'm not sure if you or anyway else is aware of the original Assassin's Creed plan, but the plan was to have AC1 with Altair, AC2 with Ezio, and then AC3 right after (no spinoffs) which was supposed to feature an all-Desmond game. It was initially planned as a trilogy, by Patrice Désilets, until Ubisoft wanted to make the Ezio have two additional games, so Désilets was fired and went to work at THQ Montreal, on a "spiritual successor" to Assassin's Creed, his own 1666. The irony is that after THQ went bankrupt, Ubisoft bought out THQ Montreal, shelfed his project, and fired him again. Sad story. I still wonder if Assassin's Creed was his idea, or Corey May's (the lead writer for the series). Who's "baby" is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterSoldierLTE View Post
    I bet it goes modern at some point. If C.o.D. can go "Advanced", why not? Judging by the reactions I've seen from fans of the series (not just here mind you, but elsewhere as well) it'd be a very unexpected and gutsy move, which I think would garner Ubisoft respect for having attempted instead of playing it safe with the whole series. And I'm sure loads of people would play it just to see what it's like. Curiosity would get to people. I don't think it'd happen tho until sales started to slump and interest in the series was wearing off from the public. It'd be a sort of Hail Mary. Those things happen.

    I'm not trying to pick a fight or pick on "A.C." fans, just offering an opinion.
    I can't see this happening, but who knows, I've been wrong before. It would be interesting though. I'd play it.
    signature image

  3. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by TheZooBoy View Post
    Indeed. I'm not sure if you or anyway else is aware of the original Assassin's Creed plan, but the plan was to have AC1 with Altair, AC2 with Ezio, and then AC3 right after (no spinoffs) which was supposed to feature an all-Desmond game. It was initially planned as a trilogy, by Patrice Désilets, until Ubisoft wanted to make the Ezio have two additional games, so Désilets was fired and went to work at THQ Montreal, on a "spiritual successor" to Assassin's Creed, his own 1666. The irony is that after THQ went bankrupt, Ubisoft bought out THQ Montreal, shelfed his project, and fired him again. Sad story. I still wonder if Assassin's Creed was his idea, or Corey May's (the lead writer for the series). Who's "baby" is it?
    I have indeed heard of this plan before sometime ago. What really shocked me was Ubisoft's persistent mistreatment of Patrice, why fire him again? It's pathetic and it only shows how shady that company is. Taking his ideas away from his grasp. :'(

    Personally, though. I am glad the franchise went the way it did (outside of the Modern day storyline). It exhausted itself at times, but I don't like the idea of a Modern AC so early after AC2 when there really was a lot of potential for the series' historic locations and plots. Or maybe an alternative series would've been more suitable for those games? Regardless, I'm glad that we have Black Flag, AC3, etc as they are as I've enjoyed each and every one of them so far.
    signature image

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Staten Island, New York City
    Posts
    2,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Weemanply109 View Post
    I have indeed heard of this plan before sometime ago. What really shocked me was Ubisoft's persistent mistreatment of Patrice, why fire him again? It's pathetic and it only shows how shady that company is. Taking his ideas away from his grasp. :'(

    Personally, though. I am glad the franchise went the way it did (outside of the Modern day storyline). It exhausted itself at times, but I don't like the idea of a Modern AC so early after AC2 when there really was a lot of potential for the series' historic locations and plots. Or maybe an alternative series would've been more suitable for those games? Regardless, I'm glad that we have Black Flag, AC3, etc as they are as I've enjoyed each and every one of them so far.
    Agreed. Although the series would have had a nice "trilogy arc", AC has a lot of historical potential.
    signature image

  5. #30

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by IvanaKC View Post
    Talking about the development of a protagonist, don't you think how fast we saw how Altair became noble? It took Ezio 3 games to became like Altair and I think it's a shame we have only one game to play as Altair.
    We can look at this from two viewpoints:

    -Yes they could have spent more time with Altair. No, having a video game character's in-depth backstory written in a couple of novel instead of actually being implemented in a proper game is not the solution.
    Revelations in particular was right to have received criticism in its portrayal of Altair; whereas the game hyped that Altair would share at least half portion of the game along with Ezio, instead Altair was only there for some filler and linear gameplay sequences, adapting a couple of sequences depicted in the novels along the way, but lacking coherency.
    Also they bothered altering Altair's voice, now giving him a default middle-eastern accent which really wasn't needed. I find it more detracting than immersive.

    -On the other hand, in just one game Altair went through a great deal of character development compared to Ezio who took three games and even then it only just barely reaches the same evolution as Altair went through.
    Altair questioned his motive, the Creed, his target's won beliefs and motivations, he argued with his master repeatedly, and in the end find new meanings to the Creed as well as new ways to uphold it. All this in just one episode.
    Ezio meanwhile went: bloodthirsty for revenge in II, only towards the end he finally sits down for about two minutes to wonder if his actions have any impact whatsoever, then suddenly at the end of the game he decides to show 'mercy', after all that pile of dead guards left behind, rubbish.
    Brotherhood saw him yearning for more revenge after a local douchebag -seriously they could have portrayed Cesare Borgia much better than this- pulls some evil deeds on him. In the process Ezio frees Rome from tyranny, but it's not like Ezio himself really gave a damn about it.
    Then in Revelations it starts taking a more humble tone. Now Ezio just wants to preserve his ancestry, and was only resorted to pull more 'revenge' due to inevitability. Although yes the finale could have avoided with the whole 'damsel in distress' shtick.

    But still, in three games Ezio still doesn't question his surroundings as much as Altair did.
    Body count has tripled however, and that's being generous!

    With Connor they attempted to re-emulate Altair by having him go through a whole ordeal in just one game, but it came out flat at times and choppy at others.

    Ever since II the franchise has shifted its tone immensely.
    Remember how the cutscenes were in the first game? Static, your character is just standing around as the camera remains stiff as if it were a surveillance camera. But they talked, they talked a lot sure, but what they talked about contributed so much.
    Not always the brightest of stuff, but by video game standards, especially from Ubisoft at the time, it was surprising.

    Altair also commented on his missions, written as diaries found in the mission selector screen of the Animus.
    Small detail, but sorely missed in the following episodes of the franchise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Weemanply109 View Post
    I agree. The death of SPOILER really did change the franchise and kinda ruined it's purpose but it was a result of fans complaining that Modern day felt out of place in the first place. Ubisoft could've handled it so much better, tho.
    Now that they removed the Modern Day plot for Unity i hear fans complaining about it. Ironic.
    At this point Ubisoft could just reboot the series!


    Quote Originally Posted by WinterSoldierLTE View Post
    I bet it goes modern at some point. If C.o.D. can go "Advanced", why not? Judging by the reactions I've seen from fans of the series (not just here mind you, but elsewhere as well) it'd be a very unexpected and gutsy move, which I think would garner Ubisoft respect for having attempted instead of playing it safe with the whole series. And I'm sure loads of people would play it just to see what it's like. Curiosity would get to people.
    Wasn't that the whole point of Watch Dogs? to act as a prototype to Assassin's Creed in Modern Day?

    Didn't worked out so well it seems.
    Then again i never understood the hype for the game either.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheZooBoy View Post
    I just happened to enjoy the story more in the subsequent games, and plot is what matters most to me in a game. But AC1 was a great game, no doubt. I would have liked to see what would have been if AC continued in that direction, although apparently the Unity assassinations are bringing back the AC1-style assassinations (freedom). Also, I like how since ACIII, they brought back the idea that the Assassins and Templars aren't necessarily as black and white as you would think. In fact, I agree with a more Templar-ish mindset since ACIII. The Templars in the Ezio trilogy are a bunch of pure evil cackling villains.
    Very true about the Templar's portrayal in the Ezio trilogy, but fans for the most part seemed fine with it, odd.

    If plot is what matters to you most in a game i still find it hard to believe you would consider Black Flag as your second favorite entry of the franchise. It may had strong potential, especially in its first sequences, but as it continues the story never lingers very long on its emotional plot points, as a result the plot felt very much like the playable pirate himself, always drifting from one area to the next, one plot moment to another, never staying in one place long enough, never allowing the plot to develop itself further.
    The final sequence in particular was embarrassing,


    Quote Originally Posted by TheZooBoy View Post
    Indeed. I'm not sure if you or anyway else is aware of the original Assassin's Creed plan, but the plan was to have AC1 with Altair, AC2 with Ezio, and then AC3 right after (no spinoffs) which was supposed to feature an all-Desmond game. It was initially planned as a trilogy, by Patrice Désilets, until Ubisoft wanted to make the Ezio have two additional games, so Désilets was fired and went to work at THQ Montreal, on a "spiritual successor" to Assassin's Creed, his own 1666. The irony is that after THQ went bankrupt, Ubisoft bought out THQ Montreal, shelfed his project, and fired him again. Sad story. I still wonder if Assassin's Creed was his idea, or Corey May's (the lead writer for the series). Who's "baby" is it?
    Yes i remember, but even then it was kind of odd to see that the first two Assassin's Creed were both developed by the same people.
    The quality of writing in particular was quite different, still hard to believe Corey May is credited for both.

    But let's just say after 2008 Ubisoft made a whole heap of odd decisions that ironically made it more successful and popular than ever.
    Their discontinuation of Prince of Persia, alteration of Splinter Cell and Far Cry, simplification of Assassin's Creed. All of it results from some massive change in management that sadly we'll never get a full picture of, especially since the developers themselves are always so shy or reluctant at talking about it.

    Rayman did get its resurrection, that was surprising.


    Quote Originally Posted by Weemanply109 View Post
    I have indeed heard of this plan before sometime ago. What really shocked me was Ubisoft's persistent mistreatment of Patrice, why fire him again? It's pathetic and it only shows how shady that company is. Taking his ideas away from his grasp. :'(
    Yes i remember that story, they re-hired and re-fired him in barely six months.

    For all we know it was Patrice who threw a tantrum and starts throwing coffee machines all over the office, haha.


    Quote Originally Posted by Weemanply109 View Post
    Personally, though. I am glad the franchise went the way it did (outside of the Modern day storyline). It exhausted itself at times, but I don't like the idea of a Modern AC so early after AC2 when there really was a lot of potential for the series' historic locations and plots. Or maybe an alternative series would've been more suitable for those games? Regardless, I'm glad that we have Black Flag, AC3, etc as they are as I've enjoyed each and every one of them so far.
    What's sorely needed is some significant gameplay changes. It's awkward how the game still follows by the same rules whether you're in the fifteenth or eighteenth century, and soon the nineteenth century will fall into the same basket too.

    Naval combat doesn't count, i'm talking about the main third-person on-foot action itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheZooBoy View Post
    Agreed. Although the series would have had a nice "trilogy arc", AC has a lot of historical potential.
    Honestly with all this big talk about the new console generation's holy power, i don't see why they couldn't make 'one big game' just every five years, but each of these games would contain a trilogy arc in itself, featuring many time periods and cities and protagonists in just One disc.
    A trilogy in a single game following either three distinct protagonists in three different locales but all contained within an identical main plot theme, or a single protagonist who goes through his entire character arc in a single game as we follow him throughout his whole lifespan -imagine for example if Ezio's trilogy was released as a single game, it's not that hard, they all had identical gameplay, just with new features every couple of levels-.

    Of course, one Assassin's Creed every five or four years, this'll never happen, they rather milk each episodes so that we rip our wallets a new one every year.
    Hi, i'm the one who makes Wall of Text Armadas in a unhinged regular fashion.
    If you remember me, best start taking your pills again.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    3,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Weemanply109 View Post
    Can you explain this "kitchen sink approach" to me? That one passed by my head.

    I'm glad we agree about AC1, tho.
    "Kitchen sink approach" is a term I use for when developers throw a whole bunch of mechanics into the game seemingly arbitrarily. Essentially "tossing in everything but the kitchen sink." Assassin's Creed started to do this around Brotherhood and it got really bad in Revelations and III when you were just overwhelmed with stuff to do that didn't necessarily have anything to do with the core of the game. Prime example is Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Let's put assassinations, human resource directing, real estate land lord, and heck, let's throw bombs and tower defense in there for the heck of it. WHY NOT?!
    signature image
    Because boomerangs.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    U.S.G. Ishimura
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by GrievousOdyssey View Post
    Wasn't that the whole point of Watch Dogs? to act as a prototype to Assassin's Creed in Modern Day?

    Didn't worked out so well it seems.
    Then again i never understood the hype for the game either.
    Could've been, I don't know. That game never caught my attention so I never kept up with the press for it. I do remember reading that Ubi intended WD to be a continuing series from day 1 of planning, so they obviously had some kind of plan for it. It's a cool idea for a game, but when I think of hacking in a video game I think of the mini-game hacking in BioShock, not just pressing a single button once to do the most hyped about feature of a game. I don't think I'm the only one, either.
    --->Winter's YouTube <--- Currently Serving 'TR:A'
    signature image

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •