-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AC4: First review
- Thread starter rockman zx
- Start date
- Status
SniperHunter
Banned
Ace combat 4 review? That game came out in 2001....
Agent_4Seven
Tears of Nintendo
SLY_
If they did not make something like that with AC it doesn't mean that the game will be bad if they do. You just have not even seen a game with these changes to talk about them like this.
******************
To make myself even more clear about the open world issue in AC (and other) games....
Don't get me wrong guys, I am not an open world hater and I actually like open world games, but only those open world games which ties every single aspect of the game and open world to the story, narrative, game's universe, characters and gameplay which make me feel like I am not completely wasting my time playing the game, or those games which doesn't exactly do that but at the same time making me laughing and feel good all the way through the game. And for now there's only 5 games which making me feel like that - Batman: Arkham series, Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon and the last two Saints Row games.
So maybe someone will tell me what is the main and the most important reason to do all of this open world shit in all AC games? Why AC needs an open world and to do what exactly? Why should you go and do all sorts of these time waster shit in AC games? They are tied to story, narrative, game's universe, characters and gameplay to make you feel like you are not wasting your time? They are make you feel good or give you some sort of satisfaction? Cuz honestly I just don't understand why someone should waste their time on this, I... damn, I just can't and I don't understand. I mean, It is fine when they want you to waste your time 2 or even 3 times, I can understand that cuz at this time you can still play through the game hopping that next time everything will be different enought to make you play the new game in the series.... But for God's sakes almighty, how many AC games they have released for the last 7 years with the exact same shit in them with SMALL tweeks and changes which ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH to make the game feel fresh and new after 7 years? So what? No one? Heh, that's what I thought (^_^)
If they did not make something like that with AC it doesn't mean that the game will be bad if they do. You just have not even seen a game with these changes to talk about them like this.
******************
To make myself even more clear about the open world issue in AC (and other) games....
Don't get me wrong guys, I am not an open world hater and I actually like open world games, but only those open world games which ties every single aspect of the game and open world to the story, narrative, game's universe, characters and gameplay which make me feel like I am not completely wasting my time playing the game, or those games which doesn't exactly do that but at the same time making me laughing and feel good all the way through the game. And for now there's only 5 games which making me feel like that - Batman: Arkham series, Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon and the last two Saints Row games.
So maybe someone will tell me what is the main and the most important reason to do all of this open world shit in all AC games? Why AC needs an open world and to do what exactly? Why should you go and do all sorts of these time waster shit in AC games? They are tied to story, narrative, game's universe, characters and gameplay to make you feel like you are not wasting your time? They are make you feel good or give you some sort of satisfaction? Cuz honestly I just don't understand why someone should waste their time on this, I... damn, I just can't and I don't understand. I mean, It is fine when they want you to waste your time 2 or even 3 times, I can understand that cuz at this time you can still play through the game hopping that next time everything will be different enought to make you play the new game in the series.... But for God's sakes almighty, how many AC games they have released for the last 7 years with the exact same shit in them with SMALL tweeks and changes which ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH to make the game feel fresh and new after 7 years? So what? No one? Heh, that's what I thought (^_^)
IMO the second game and Brotherhood are the only two games worth anything in the series.
The first one is extremely boring and repetitive. Revelations and 3 are also very bad.
Though it is a fairly dumbed down game mechanically speaking. But there are some challenges to it, just not very difficult ones. I'd say give 2 a try and if you like it brotherhood is like a good expansion pack and ten forget about the rest of the games in the series unless 4 is actually good.
matrixman92
Member
AC is one of my favorite franchises of all time, and AC3 and AC2 were some of my favorite games this gen...yeah, I said it. Ive been on the AC4 hype train since the first trailer
Play:
AC1 - brilliant plot and setting (my personal favorite in the series)
AC2 - tighter mechanics, but meandering plot
ACB - better plot than AC2, same mechanics
ACR - best mechanics, systems, and city design of the entire series, but zero plot
Then stop. Do not play AC3. AC was an absolutely fantastic series prior to Ubi killing it with AC3. It was one of the exceedingly rare AAA games that was smart, polished, and well designed. Definitely worth your time, and no matter what anyone says, AC1 is the best in the series (with caveats). Play AC1 without any HUD elements or map, and it's an absolute revelation in how to design an open world game. Subsequent games tried to recapture that experience, but never quite got it right. ACB and ACR got close in terms of their design (city layout, systems, and combat/stealth mechanics). But AC3 is a total disaster from top to bottom. It looks like AC4 will be much more like AC3 than like the prior games.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Come on now, if you have played those others you are into the story that continues in 3. Not playing that would be like turning of a movie 20 minutes before it ends.
Same. Naval combat was slow and boring to me. I'd understand if someone wanna play pirate sims with these mechanics, but I didn't buy AC games for seafaring simulation.
Not at all. It's more like giving up on a continuing show like Lost before it went bad, or if you want a film reference, it's more like stopping the Matrix series after the first movie. The end of ACR is all the wrap-up the series needed (and even that was mostly unnecessary). AC3 is far from a satisfying end.
Means written by an impressionable fool with no internal quality metrics. Cf "Is it Halo? Yes, it's Halo!"
You forgot the boring repetitive gameplay in AC1
Yeah, I thought ACR's ending was absolutely sublime. Actually one of my favorite endings from this generation of games.
AC3 was so bad.
Also I would absolutely re-buy AC1 if it were remade with AC2's gameplay mechanics. That setting and story are topnotch, loved it.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Stopping at the end of Revelations would leave glaring gaps in the reasons certain things have happened in the previous games, namely, everything that occurs under the label of 'crazy stuff'.
All of that, is made much, much clearer at the end of 3. I understand people have issues with the game, but it is still a solid entry, and one that ties up some ends, while adding another.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Some people really need to learn how to spoiler things right.
Byakuya769
Member
Best review EVER.
Green Yoshi
Member
I liked it a lot and think it is better than Revelations.
AC4 was made by the Revelations team, so I'm sceptical. Hope to find a review in the M!Games at the end of next week.
A true AC game? What the fuck does that mean?
Hopefully it means researching, plotting and planning assassinations like in AC1. You don't need to do it 7 times like AC1, but would it have killed to include a few actual assassination plots in the last four games?
I was going to skip to AC4, but if they have a pulled a Brotherhood quality followup this time I might have to check it out.
I liked AC3 a lot. Okay, it was a little boring at times but at the same time really compulsive. I think I would even put it above AC2 just about.
Brotherhood is my favourite in the series though. Particularly because it was just one huge city which seamlessly blended into the countryside with no loading, unlike all the other games.
The AC1 and AC2 city design was terrible. The cities featured in those games were designed like mazes.
I skipped Revelations.
Brotherhood is my favourite in the series though. Particularly because it was just one huge city which seamlessly blended into the countryside with no loading, unlike all the other games.
The AC1 and AC2 city design was terrible. The cities featured in those games were designed like mazes.
I skipped Revelations.
Supermanisdead
Member
3 killed this series. revelations was a little underwhelming too.
my brother is obsessed with this series, so i'm going to eventually check it out, but i'd never pay my own money.
my brother is obsessed with this series, so i'm going to eventually check it out, but i'd never pay my own money.
Have to disagree AC1 is the worst in the series, both story wise and design wise. It's best to just skip that game. Game play is chore and the story is really boring.
AC1 has an incredible sense of atmosphere, that alone makes each of the environments worth running through and exploring. I know people rag on the repetitive structure, but I always find just free running through the environments to be so much fun that it never really bothered me.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Yes. That game was a missed opportunity. We don't get games like that set during the Crusades, and they made one as boring as possible.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
AC3 is worth a play... the naval missions are superb. I liked the combat, as drop-dead easy as it was. Great soundtrack. Historical story could have been better, but wasn't absolutely terrible. Just ignore the present-day farce of a story.
Ein Bear
Member
AC1 was a bit rough around the edges, but had some great ideas in it. Stealth was actually encouraged, for one. I liked how you had to do some sneaky recon before each main assassination, and approach them in different ways.
I don't know if I'd call it the best in the series, as it has some pretty big flaws, but it's a pity that the following games didn't build on it more than they did. AC2-onwards feels more like they went "Ah fuck it. Let's just make it an action game"
I don't know if I'd call it the best in the series, as it has some pretty big flaws, but it's a pity that the following games didn't build on it more than they did. AC2-onwards feels more like they went "Ah fuck it. Let's just make it an action game"
Playing AC1 is like reading a novel. It's not friendly to people who need constant stimulation, but there's no other game I know of that can compare in terms of atmosphere, story, world design, and mechanics. It's the fulfillment of the promise made by all other "open world" games IMO.
I'll admit that AC1 is not to everyone's taste, but for the patient, discerning player who likes to explore and experiment, there's nothing else that compares. AC2, ACB, and ACR continued in (mostly) the same vein. In contrast, AC3 treats players like impatient idiots who like big explosions and don't notice when stories become incoherent. AC4 looks like it's more of the same.
AC1 was fantastic when it first came out. I absolutely loved it. Going back after playing the rest of the series tends to give people a negative impression of AC1. I never played it again after I played the rest of the series just to make sure the memory stayed sweet in my mind.
SymbiantXenos
Member
As long as the combat is decent and not awful like in AC3 then i'll look into it
Agent_4Seven
Tears of Nintendo
Did anyone actually considering AC games like stealth games? True stealth games to me is Thief, Hitman, MGS and Splinter Cell (not Conviction) series. AC games doesn't have anything that can make them true stealth games. All they had is a very awful and primitive stealth mechanics which doesn't work 99% of time. AC team just doesn't have the right people to actually make even one good stealth mission for the last 7 years. Сan't they just ask for help from SC team or something? WTF? What's so hard about that? There's nothing to be ashamed of or something if you don't understand how to make cool stealth mechanics, you just need to ask and learn from other people how to make them, and the most important thing here is that you have to want it to make your game better and not cuz someone told you to do it.
Off-Kilter
Banned
This right here is the million dollar question
DrGonzo615
Banned
Shit even get the guys from Far Cry 3 to help them....that single game had way better stealth than anything in the AC series.
I really didn't like Constantinople, it always felt like I had to take an indirect path to get to a location. Personally, I probably like AC2's city design the most.
If that's not included then all is lost.
Agent_4Seven
Tears of Nintendo
Yeah, I like to stealthily clear strongholds in Far Cry 3/Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon with sniper rifle lying on the hill 40-50 meters above ground at night or killing everyone with the knife without making a sound and there is nothing even close to that in the whole AC series. I mean of course AC is not about the real guns and real world but damn, can you make something like that with the bow please and make stealth work not only for some few open world moments, make them work everytime without just shooting and killing everyone if you can't do the stealth thing for 10 times (or more) in a row. It's not so difficult for Christ's sake. It is not that I can't play stealth games (I played a lot of them in my life and I know how to play them very well), is just your game does not designed well like true stealth game to play it like that - this is the main problem of stealth mechanic of all AC games and that's why they are not working at all.
I think the style of stealth they go for in AC (social stealth, blending in) is a lot different than the stealth most want it to be. AC has never been a MGS/Splinter Cell style stealth game of crouching, shadows, and line of sight. In the recent games though, they've started to add in bushes and stuff that your character can crouch through instead of just adding in a dedicated stealth toggle. I wish they would just give the option for a stealth mode (crouching, or the creeping of GTAV) instead of the way they do it now- half way between their social stealth mechanics and more standard stealth mechanics.
What in the fucking fuck? Why would you do that? If that's true and you just ruined the few AC games I haven't played...
Supermanisdead
Member
no city will ever match rome. that was some magical shit. brotherhood was so fucking good.
Mr. PlayStation
Member
Brand new PS4 footage of ACIV . Yes most of the ACIV PS4 videos posted by this Youtube user who captured it straight from a debug unit using his Elgato game capture(since debug kits don't have the HDCP protection in them)
People who worked on Far cry 3 have gone on to work on a number of other games. Ubisoft moves people around a lot when they finish projects.
Longevity is a factor many sites rank. Some refer to it as 'Lasting Appeal'.
Yes their idea of "stalking zones" is just silly. It would make more sense to have the character contextually not crouch in social environments rather than contextually crouch only in bushes and when following enemies. It looks like they've just bolted on some of the Far Cry 3 style stealth mechanics; eagle vision sees through walls now and auto marks targets which remain when it's disabled. Maybe if sticking to walls works more consistently with the stealth takedowns, it might be something to work with at least.
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
I have to agree.
If you break AC 1 down, its very repetitive, but like you said, the setting is so well done and oozes atmosphere (especially acre)... the first game will always be a treat for me because of that.
I love the singing of the sailors.
I never actually enjoyed an AC game, or actually never played one all the way through. I caught up to the story by watching cutscenes though. I wonder, are they just extremely slow at the start then get better, or am I just not the type to enjoy them? I wonder if 4 is worth a try. They always get such good reviews, I just never got into any previous title.
I just can't seem to get excited about this game. Nothing about it stands out to me really other than the naval stuff.The Ai looks horrible the animations are the same and as stiff as ever. Nothing next-gen about this game either. For me AC2 was the peak of the franchise and where it should have just stopped.
- Status