Support NeoGAF

[BiggNife]

I would've said Brotherhood was better than AC2 if it wasn't for the last two hours, where the missions feel so sloppy and hastily put together that it really hurt my overall feelings towards the game. I really hope Revelations and AC3 don't suffer from the same problem.

 

[duckroll]

That's fine, but I was not responding to you, I was responding to someone who seemed to expect much more improvements in an AC sequel, which had nothing to do with changing eras or ancestors or whatever, and I replied that it wasn't any different than other series. There was nothing in there about ancestors or different eras. I said the fact that the series has the possibility to change things drastically from one game to the next leads people to expect even MORE than they normally would from a sequel, and that's BEYOND the idea of changing era or ancestor, not that people shouldn't expect a different era or ancestor in every game.

I don't really think that AC needs many changes in the gameplay department. They've found a good solid sweet sport with AC2, and I hear good things about how Brotherhood expanded on those. I don't really expect that AC3 will radically change the formula because even AC2 didn't. It simply improved it dramatically because AC1 was very lacking in terms of fleshing out the gameplay.

What I do expect out of AC3 is a new setting and character, which will bring some significant but subtle differences to how the game is presented (weapons which weren't a focus in AC1 or AC2 for example), and a good dramatic finale to the Desmond story arc in a satisfying way.

I don't think that's too much to ask for, and I don't think it's having unfair expectations of the series. At the same time, because Brotherhood and Revelations are simply not AC3, I find myself much less interested in the incremental improvements and padding out of the Desmond story mysteries.

 

[Irish]

Pretty much. AC is nowhere close as good to the other games, which has superior features in every way.

And this is someone who collected those damn flags.

Well, there's your problem.

To me, I don't really see how someone could really hate AC 1 and then end up loving ACII/B. The games are essentially the same, but AC lacked in mission variety. That seems to be the big reason why people loved II so much. Structurally, though, I felt it was far less interesting. Felt like GTA's structure, which really doesn't fit in with open world games.

Gameplay has been improving at an exponential rate though. (I don't feel like challenging is the road AC needs to go down.)

 

[charlequin]

The options, as best I remember them, were:

Victorian England
Civil War China
French Revolution
World War 1 Germany

I think I voted for French Revolution.

i thought i could trust you

But it's crazy talk to assume they'll end the series after 3. Just a new protagonist, that's all.

Nobody thinks they'll end the series, just that they'll wrap up the plot about Desmond. They can easily create a completely different modern-viewpoint character for wherever the series goes after that.

Now it remains to be seen what will happen with the new direction AC3 will take without Desilet, but from what I heard he already had a less important role in AC2 than he had in AC1, so we'll see.

This is why it always confused me that people seemed so hung up on him. AC1 is a game with a problematically unfinished and unpolished gameplay structure, but the narrative is laser-sharp and abnormally clever for a AAA action title. AC2 is a Disney movie with murdering.

To me, I don't really see how someone could really hate AC 1 and then end up loving ACII/B.

Depends a lot on your tolerance for tedium. AC1 (a game I actually would say that I liked) is extraordinarily tedious, and the part of it that shines (planning and -- ahem -- executing your assassinations) isn't really present in AC2. So I can easily imagine someone who doesn't care about that one standout good part finding AC1 completely unenjoyable but loving all the open-world nonsense that AC2 tacks on.

(Personally, I like the open-world nonsense but I wish they'd put it around a core framework more like AC1's again. That'd be the perfect blending of both styles for my taste.)

 

[Toski]

I agree with charlequin that combining the assassination set pieces of AC1 with the mission variety of AC2/AC:B is best.

They made some strides with AC:B in the assassination department, but AC1 stills holds the crown. For some reason, the assassinations in AC2/AC:B lacked focus and importance, you were just killing the targets to kill them.

 

[Irish]

Nobody thinks they'll end the series, just that they'll wrap up the plot about Desmond. They can easily create a completely different modern-viewpoint character for wherever the series goes after that.

I honestly believe they should go full fantasy for the next gen Assassin's Creed games. That way, they won't really have any historical constraints holding them back. The architecture could be nice and varied even in a single setting and they could mix in a lot of gameplay variety. Additionally, they could focus entirely on the narrative for a single character.



__

I'm actually quite interested in seeing where Alexandre Amancio takes the series. Seems on par with Patrice Desilets.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I honestly believe they should go full fantasy for the next gen Assassin's Creed games. That way, they won't really have any historical constraints holding them back. The architecture could be nice and varied even in a single setting and they could mix in a lot of gameplay variety. Additionally, they could focus entirely on the narrative for a single character.



__

I'm actually quite interested in seeing where Alexandre Amancio takes the series. Seems on par with Patrice Desilets.

That's a terrible idea. The historical backdrop is the inspiring part of AC, it's what prevents it from giving us more generic crap. Games left and right have their own "universes" yet all end up looking uninspired or similar to things we have already seen. The historical settings are grounded in reality, which is much richer than anything some game dev dude is going to come up with.

And IMO AC hasn't even been historically-accurate enough. Part of the charm of it is going back in time, seeing how things were back then. A lot of buildings in past AC games, such as in AC2, were not the way they were shown until hundreds of years later.

 

[duckroll]

I agree with charlequin that combining the assassination set pieces of AC1 with the mission variety of AC2/AC:B is best.

They made some strides with AC:B in the assassination department, but AC1 stills holds the crown. For some reason, the assassinations in AC2/AC:B lacked focus and importance, you were just killing the targets to kill them.

I think one way to marry the two concepts is to have -optional- sub-targets in a larger assassination scheme. After gathering enough information on the main target and having a good idea of his pattern, and potential lines of defense, the game could leave it up to the player on how to diverse the actual assassination with optional ways of making different plans easier.

Sub-targets could be people like the captain of the guards, the head watchman on the walls, or even various vendors like a baker, or a store attendant. Each sub-target would have their own routine which can be observed and used against them, just like in a AC2 style assassination. The difference is, killing or leaving such targets alive would have a direct impact on the main assassination. You could kill a baker for example, and gain pose as him to assassinate the target during his routine if one of the observations you previously picked up on is that he always selects his bread personally. Killing off high ranking guard characters in the city would also lower general enemy morale, and save you the trouble of fighting potential mini-bosses after the assassination when you're trying to escape.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I think one way to marry the two concepts is to have -optional- sub-targets in a larger assassination scheme. After gathering enough information on the main target and having a good idea of his pattern, and potential lines of defense, the game could leave it up to the player on how to diverse the actual assassination with optional ways of making different plans easier.

Sub-targets could be people like the captain of the guards, the head watchman on the walls, or even various vendors like a baker, or a store attendant. Each sub-target would have their own routine which can be observed and used against them, just like in a AC2 style assassination. The difference is, killing or leaving such targets alive would have a direct impact on the main assassination. You could kill a baker for example, and gain pose as him to assassinate the target during his routine if one of the observations you previously picked up on is that he always selects his bread personally. Killing off high ranking guard characters in the city would also lower general enemy morale, and save you the trouble of fighting potential mini-bosses after the assassination when you're trying to escape.

The problem with this is the assassin is a walking tank. Why do all that when you can just go up to your target and shoot him in the face and run away with twenty guards chasing you, and then hide in a haystack and wait a few seconds to become incognito again?

The whole thing needs to be re-thought. Hiding needs to be more natural, not systemic, and AI needs to be smarter and more up to par with the assassin. I need to be able to hide in a dark alley, crouched behind some barrels. I need to be able to flatten myself against a door so that looking down the alley the guards don't see me. I need to be able to hide in the dark. The guards need to be able to injure me to prevent me from running away if I'm not careful, forcing me to fight them. They need to be able to ambush me while I'm walking around peacefully if I am wanted, etc. If people see me hide in a well, they need to point at it when the guards show up.

The stupid hiding spots on the roofs (the only hiding place available, and yet the one where the guards don't look??), and the stupid cartoony hay stacks hiding spots need to go.

You got a huge city full of props, let me use that to hide.

 

[scar tissue]

new assassin, new time period plz.
female assassin would be great too.

 

[duckroll]

The problem with this is the assassin is a walking tank. Why do all that when you can just go up to your target and shoot him in the face and run away with twenty guards chasing you, and then hide in a haystack and wait a few seconds to become incognito again?

The whole thing needs to be re-thought. Hiding needs to be more natural, not systemic, and AI needs to be smarter and more up to par with the assassin. I need to be able to hide in a dark alley, crouched behind some barrels. I need to be able to flatten myself against a door so that looking down the alley the guards don't see me. I need to be able to hide in the dark. The guards need to be able to injure me to prevent me from running away if I'm not careful, forcing me to fight them. They need to be able to ambush me while I'm walking around peacefully if I am wanted, etc.

Yeah I basically agree that the entire "assassination" main events need to be redesigned to encourage the player to make conscious decisions and choices both before, during, and after the assassinations themselves. It's WAY too easy to kill the guy in AC2 and then basically kill another 40 guards (literally!) while fleeing. I mean, I get it, Ezio is superman, but goddamn. Lol.

 

[rvy]

One thing I love about AC is how the guards all know parkour as good as the main character. I know that it's for gameplay reasons, but come on. I couldn't believe it when guards were just following me around with no problem in the first game.

 

[Irish]

That's a terrible idea. The historical backdrop is the inspiring part of AC, it's what prevents it from giving us more generic crap. Games left and right have their own "universes" yet all end up looking uninspired or similar to things we have already seen. The historical settings are grounded in reality, which is much richer than anything some game dev dude is going to come up with.

And IMO AC hasn't even been historically-accurate enough. Part of the charm of it is going back in time, seeing how things were back then. A lot of buildings in past AC games, such as in AC2, were not the way they were shown until hundreds of years later.

Well, I say that because they are obviously working with a faux-history where everything is being distorted anyway, which you pointed out there. I just think it would be better if they weren't inputting the wild fantasies in places they don't belong. They could still take all the architecture and city design and just completely change all the story stuff.

 

[Ether_Snake]

One thing I love about AC is how the guards all know parkour as good as the main character. I know that it's for gameplay reasons, but come on. I couldn't believe it when guards were just following me around with no problem in the first game.

Yeah that's another dumb thing. If you had templar-trained assassins that could do this, that would be cool. You could have assassins chase you, which are basically on par with you and can stealth-kill you. They'd be rare but they would be fun to deal with because they are challenging. Let the guards try to shoot you with an arrow or a gun, and make it meaningful being hit by such a weapon, such as actually falling down and not being able to climb or free run for some time.

So it would be:

1 - Kill your target, stealthily. You are good to go, and can use the full range of your abilities to escape. In such a scenario, enemies on par with the assassin can possibly emerge as you make your way out. This is basically to keep the game challenging so that a good player who is very stealthy will still have to deal with some sort of challenge beyond the assassination.

2 - If you didn't kill him stealthily, the guards are alerted to your presence. Your goal is still to run away, their goal is to prevent you from getting away so that they can confront you. If you hide, you lower the chance that they'll find you. If they find you, they confront you, but if you are running away they'll use long-range attacks to injure you and force you down, leading to a confrontation. If you succeed at dealing with them, it gives you some time to run away again.

That to me is how it should play out.

You have a high level challenge: killing the target stealthily.
You have a follow-up challenge: running away while dealing with potential enemies that are few but on par with the assassin.
You have a fail-proof challenge in case the player fails the high level challenge, which is the confrontation with the guards. Then it loops back to running away, and the possibility of facing the enemies that are on par with the assassin based on how he is playing.

 

[Bit-Bit]

The problem with this is the assassin is a walking tank. Why do all that when you can just go up to your target and shoot him in the face and run away with twenty guards chasing you, and then hide in a haystack and wait a few seconds to become incognito again?

The whole thing needs to be re-thought. Hiding needs to be more natural, not systemic, and AI needs to be smarter and more up to par with the assassin. I need to be able to hide in a dark alley, crouched behind some barrels. I need to be able to flatten myself against a door so that looking down the alley the guards don't see me. I need to be able to hide in the dark. The guards need to be able to injure me to prevent me from running away if I'm not careful, forcing me to fight them. They need to be able to ambush me while I'm walking around peacefully if I am wanted, etc. If people see me hide in a well, they need to point at it when the guards show up.

The stupid hiding spots on the roofs (the only hiding place available, and yet the one where the guards don't look??), and the stupid cartoony hay stacks hiding spots need to go.

You got a huge city full of props, let me use that to hide.

Your description of what you want in the game, sounds an awful lot like Metal Gear! I approve.

 

[charlequin]

I think one way to marry the two concepts is to have -optional- sub-targets in a larger assassination scheme. After gathering enough information on the main target and having a good idea of his pattern, and potential lines of defense, the game could leave it up to the player on how to diverse the actual assassination with optional ways of making different plans easier.

Yes, I would agree with this, especially if you make sure the sub-targets have the level of mission diversity you see in AC2 instead of the lack thereof in AC1.

The problem with this is the assassin is a walking tank.

This is something I both liked and didn't like in the first game: it was good that the enemies were a real threat in most circumstances (so you felt like you had a real reason to run away and hide rather than just kill everyone) but the hiding mechanisms were so stupid and artificial. It'd be nice to drastically expand the options for hiding, and then create more segments where you have to stay hidden over a long period of time, moving from hiding spot to hiding spot and avoiding enemies, to reach your target.

 

[Kusagari]

So after AC3 they'll introduce a new main character?

Nobody actually thinks they're ending this series right? lulz

 

[ShockingAlberto]

i thought i could trust you

I'm a French history junkie.

My traveling companions literally left me at The Louvre because I would not leave and they wanted to go do other stuff.

 

[funkystudent]

I really liked Brotherhood gameplay wise but the story didnt do shit for the over arcing story expect for the first and last 15 minutes.

if Brotherhood never existed and they just took 2 years to make a proper AC3 they could have had told what needed to be told from brotherhood in the first 10th of the game.

I expect Revelations will be about the same. more random ezio stuff that doesnt really matter to much to the greater plot and some more carrot on a stick twists at the end to get you back for AC3.

 

[KorrZ]

Will buy day 1. I love the AC series and think they've only gotten better as time goes on (Brotherhood > 2). I'm hoping for the French Revolution setting, not the full on in the future with Desmond 100% as some people seem to want.

 

[rataven]

I've really enjoyed every game in the series, so as long as they keep doing what they're doing, I'm along for the ride.

It'll be interesting to see how they handle certain elements of Desmond's story though. Hidden blade isn't much of a threat against modern day warfare. And while Rome was beautiful, I hope they don't confine his story to one city. Set Desmond out on a globe-trotting treasure hunt for the vaults. There's so much variety in settings and locations with the modern era, I'd love to see them take advantage of that.

 

[rockman zx]

A little more info with real quotes from Amancio.

The story kick-started by 2007's Assassin's Creed will be tied up before December 2012, with developer Ubisoft Montreal strongly suggesting that Desmond Miles' tale will conclude next year.

"In Assassin's Creed we set up a timeline with this whole end of the world plot of December 2012," Assassin's Creed: Revelation creative lead Alexandre Amacio told Eurogamer. "That's fast approaching, and the story we have to tell, we obviously need to do it before we arrive at that point."

Ubisoft Montreal has created four main games since the Assassin's Creed series debuted in 2007, and 2009's Assassin's Creed 2 has enjoyed two follow-ups in quick succession with last year's Brotherhood and the forthcoming Revelations.

"We had such a complex and strong narrative that we ourselves did our best to just try to execute these games before that date," Amacio said. "It would be stupid of us to be centring a game on a semi-reality and then have that conclusion happen after that date in real life."

Beyond the conclusion of Desmond's tale, Assassin's Creed will likely return with an all-new lead character.

"Assassin's Creed is all about cycles - we have the Ezio cycle and the Altair cycle, and both of those are set to conclude in Revelations and we have the Desmond cycle, which is set to end on December 2012," said Amacio. "But there's many cycles within the brand - that's the whole point. History is our playground."

However, a shift in approach to development at Ubisoft Montreal means that the quick-fire rate at which new games have been produced is likely to come to an end.

"We're already structuring the way we do Assassin's Creed, so it will no longer ever be like that," said Amacio. "Our development approach is changing so our cycles aren't structured the same way - so it gives us a little bit more development time."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-03-first-details-on-2012s-assassins-creed

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Figured as much. I hope we get a female protagonist at some point, modern-day or otherwise, though that might be a hilarious gender-bending trip.

 

[syoaran]

While I know its an unpopular opinion on GAF, I'm looking forward to a IV being set in present day. I'll have to wait until the end of Revelations, but I can't see a satisfying resolution to Desmonds story if you have to spend 90% of the game in another new historical setting.

Having flashes, or bleeding to other historical moments to break up the storyline might be fun however. I really enjoyed the opening present day sequence in Brotherhood where

Spoiler

Desmond opens up the backdoor to the chamber, while you see elements from Ezio's time overlapping. I want to see a lot more of it, as it shows how splintered Desmond is between the timelines

 

[jatt]

Not long left now!!!

 

[base shagohod]

Holy what

 

[The Grim Heaper]

I like how the bump made it appear on @NeoGAFNewThread.

 

[Marleyman]

What a great series this has been. I believe they will wrap it up without killing off the franchise with this title.