Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:50:21 +0100

A little surprised that this one hasn't been mentioned yet among the various video game fan threads. I wouldn't say that I'm a huge fan of the franchise, it definitely takes a back seat to Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy and The Elder Scrolls, but I'm a fan nonetheless. At first I hated it. The first game was boring and repetitive. The gameplay mechanics, high-profile and low-profile actions, free running, hiding, etc., were intersting at first, but once the novelty wore off and you get stuck doing the same 5 types of missions over and over and over, it became tedious. It took me over 18 months of on and off playing to finish and the only reason I finally plowed through to the end was because my brother-in-law said that the ending was worth it. It was a decent little twist, but nothing that I found too surprising. I only played Assassin's Creed 2 because I borrowed it from the same brother-in-law. I found it to be much more fun to play, with the added gameplay elements and a much wider variety of mission types. Actually, it wasn't even really that the missions were more varied. They were pretty much all "Go kill this person". But each had a mini-story attached to it. That's what made it better, to me. I liked it enough to buy Brotherhood and beat it in under a month. I liked the added elements there, with the Borgia towers and recruiting assassins and all, and liked how the the stories taking place in various time periods are intertwined. And, honestly, who doesn't like a good conspiracy story? I've just started playing multi-player in Brotherhood. I'm not really a huge multi-player guy, mostly because I tend to get my ass kicked. But I found this style of play to have a fairly shallow learning curve and already can pull top 4 finishes regularly. I've yet to play any ranked matches, though, so maybe I'm just kidding myself playing with the weak links.

Re: Assassin's Creed

jarofdirt882 — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:16:11 +0100

I like the story for AC, particularly since AC2, and IMHO it's a work of genius. All these random events/people/places that just seemed to be cobbled together at one point come together beautifully. Epic conspiracy theory spanning centuries. I'm bursting to get my hands on Revelations (Ezio AND Altair? Epic...) and race to the end for the next "What the f***?" moment from Desmond. (AC2's was just mind-blowing and Brotherhood's made me want to put my controller through the TV... hope this one is not a let down now.) I don't really like the multiplayer for Brotherhood, I always get owned no matter how well I do (ranked or unranked), but it was fun and different none the less. But I got picked to do the MP Beta for Revelations and there was a lot of big improvements and I really really enjoyed it.

Re: Assassin's Creed

yaniguchi — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:11:52 +0100

I was waiting for this thread...! I kind of went into the series dumb, and I played Bloodlines first. So I went into the first Assassin's Creed game already loving Altair, but I was REALLY confused about the whole Animus system. (Doesn't really explain it too much in Bloodlines, haha.) I love the story because I love the time period it takes place in (seeing the Knights Templar running around is really lol-worthy, from a historical standpoint). I haven't started AC2 yet, though, but I'm REALLY excited to play it. Ezio looks like a boss. (And Leonardo da Vinci? YES PLEASE.) I've heard that the console versions are different from the PC versions...? (I have the PC version of AC.) Does anybody recommend playing it on a particular system?

Re: Assassin's Creed

Victoria Nonpraeda — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:32:06 +0100

OMG, I adore this game. The sheer size of the conspiracy and the fact that they've done their historical homework ridiculously well impressed me beyond belief. Obviously a lot of the history is sort of cobbled together, but they're cobbling together real events and people, just in fictional ways. After so many "historical" games that were nothing of the kind, AC is a breath of fresh air. The graphics are stunning (at least for me), and it all just feels, for lack of a better word, real. AC2 was awesome, Brotherhood actually had me going HOLY SH#T at my TV, and I am as impatient, if not more so, for Revelations than I am for Star Wars: Old Republic.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:44:10 +0100

I don't know how the console and PC versions are different, but in this day and age of platform specific content, I wouldn't be surprised. Any differences are likely to be merely cosmetic, though. They can't risk pissing a whole fanbase off by robbing them of something important. You're right about Ezio, he is a bood and only gets bossier in Brotherhood. It's funny. I watched The Da Vinci Code again a couple months ago. I couldn't help but think about which story was "right". Were (are) the Templars a benevolent organization trying to keep the Church from dominating the world or are they an evil corporation trying to turn us all into sheep. Maybe both, and their alleged rivalry with the Church is simply that of comepetition in the mind control business. I find it interesting that Da Vinci is central in both stories, though. I have a passing knowledge of his deeds and accomplishments, but don't think I'll ever fully comprehend his genius.

Re: Assassin's Creed

yaniguchi — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:05:10 +0100

That's good to know. I'm glad I wasn't missing out on something crucial by playing it on the PC, haha! I didn't even think of the possibilities about comparing it with The Da Vinci Code. That is amazing! I think I might have to read/watch it again with Assassin's Creed in mind, haha.

Re: Assassin's Creed

fuzz — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:14:02 +0100

I've only played the second game but I thought it was a lot of fun. It's my favourite game since Bauldur's Gate for PS2.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Beautiful Illusion — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:18:26 +0100

Love Assassin's Creed. :D I haven't been paying it much attention lately, but was just thinking today 'damn, I REALLY want to play Brotherhood again.' The point where I really got absorbed into the game was when I started to discover the Glyphs in AC2. I love conspiracies. I love the context they're in, and how ... well, it just gets me really, really curious and wanting to know more, you know? I had to know more. Honestly (nobody hit me, please) it was a similar reason to why I read The Da Vinci Code. At first, I wasn't sure whether or not I'd like it - until I played Assassin's Creed and Fallout 3, all I really played were Hack n' Slashers. Very, very pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the gameplay aspect, as well as the storyline. Usually I'll play through a game, first for the storyline (if it interests me) then kick it up a notch on the second, third, fourth playthroughs. I was able to experience both, in a sense. Yep, love Assassin's Creed. xD

Re: Assassin's Creed

secretly-broken — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:52:13 +0100

Assassin's Creed is my favourite game ever. It got me super excited on all the history surrounding the Assassins, the Crusades, The Borgias; all of that. I even did a history project that was inspired by the first Assassin's Creed game. I absolutely cannot wait until Revelations is released. I was one of the beta testers for the online multiplayer game and for those of you who haven't had a chance to play it yet, let me be the first to tell you that it's pretty fricking awesome. If you've played the Brotherhood online game, it's quite similar but the new methods of assassinating your targets and stunning your opponents that they've brought in, makes the game a whole lot more challenging.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:59:15 +0100

Yeah. I wouldn't say I was impressed by the multiplayer in Brotherhood, but I certainly liked it better than most other multiplayer offerings. Maybe it's just the the style of play is much friendlier to my old man reflexes and I don't get my ass handed to me as much as I do in a Call of Duty or Unhcarted. I've only been playing maybe 2 weeks, and I can already consistently pull top 4 finishes in ranked matches. Maybe its cuz I'm about a year late to the party and all the best players have moved on. Who knows. As much as I like it, though, it definitely could use some tweaking. Like, poison is broken. There should be an antidote ability or something. I understand that there's a greater degree of difficulty in that you have to walk right up next to your target and that the delay gives time for someone to steal your kill. But it's very easily executed and the bonus points break it, IMO. Also, I think that if you witness someone kill your target, you should have a couple seconds to go and kill that person instead. I know that the point of the game is to kill your targets as quickly and quietly as possible, but few things irk me more than finally closing in, only to lose the contract at the last second. And I think the detection system is a bit too touchy. I hate losing 100 points between "Incognito" and "Silent" even when my target is clearly 100 yards away, obscured by a crowd and had their back turned. Same goes when you're running on a rooftop and the target automatically senses you. Just because there isn't a building between you and your target, it doesn't mean that they'd automatically sense you.

Re: Assassin's Creed

jarofdirt882 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:07:05 +0100

I don't think there's any difference major content wise, and there are extra mini mission things (mostly challenges IIRC) in the PC version. (As for a particular system, as with the majority of multi-platform games I'd say 360. 360 tends to run the smoothest, is least buggy, slightly better visuals etc, cos they code it for 360 and port it out to PC&PS3 because it's easier to go from 360 to the other platforms than other combinations. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, e.g. Portal 2(PS3 better), Battlefield 3(will be better on PC).) But as for AC1 on PC, I found the controls to be a pile of crap. I've played AC1 on both 360 and PS3 with no trouble figuring out the controls.... PC was completely horrid and ambiguous to get started with. I gave up before the end of the tutorial/introduction level I was that frustrated with them (And I loved running about for hours doing nothing, exploring every nook and cranny on AC on other platforms.) Oh and the DRM fiasco for PC... never playing it on PC again.

Re: Assassin's Creed

CarmenEtError — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:08:22 +0100

AC Brotherhood is the only game I've spent any time in with multiplayer, and I'm definitely looking forward to Revelations. I enjoy the slower pace (as opposed to twitchy shooters) and the reliance on thought and strategy. The first AC lost me in the repetitive mission structure, but I loved the atmosphere and setting. AC2 and ACB certainly fixed the problems with the first one and have done an incredible job of building an entire world.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Earthsick — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:14:17 +0100

Oh yes, I love this series. :) For me it's more about the characters and storyline. Also the historical settings are quite nice. The information you get on things that acutally exist or existed is quite nice, as I was never interested in history when I was in school. Now especially roman history got me hooked. :) I really suck at games, so when things get too hard, I easily get frustrated. But AC is one of those game series you eventually get the hang of it. And I'm soo looking forward to Revelations! Although it's going to eat some of my writing time. D: Good thing I have the patience to wait and buy Skyrim later because if I had both games I would probably not write but only play. Ugh.

Re: Assassin's Creed

CyanGiraffe — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:04:00 +0100

I started playing AC2, and fell in love. Ezio is a freaking lady-killer, which I made sure to yell to my sister every time he talked to a girl in-game. The entire series is very well put together, making it easy to beat even for people like myself who suck at video games. That does not mean it's not fun at all; it's thrilling. I can't play anything related to subject 16 at night, or I freak out. OMFG I WANT REVELATIONS TO COME OUT I CANNOT WAIT.

Re: Assassin's Creed

gadzooks97 — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 05:30:37 +0100

YAY! AN AC THREAD! :D I got into the game last year around november :P I remember it well caus I put it on hold while I wrote and only came back to it in December. I've never been a gamer, or at least I kinda was but years and years ago. When I saw the AC brotherhood trailer though I knew that I just had to play the game! Strangely enough, I seem to be one of the few people who actually REALLY enjoyed the first game! When I played through it I loved it and then once I played AC 2 I liked that one better. Until I went back and actually played the first game. Sure, it's a lot more simple than the others and the repetition can get annoying at times but there's something about the game that I just love. Something that doesn't seem to be in the 2nd one or in brotherhood. Anyway, enough of my rant :P Just gotta add how excited I am for Revelations! :D I think I'm gonna die when I get to play as Altair again :3 he was always my fav! (Remember that time in ac 2 when you could play as altair? I spent hours just running around in circles caus I was so happy!) For the record, I was actually kind of happy that the PC version has been delayed until December. I wasn't gonna buy it until then anyway caus of nano. I didn't want it to make me lose D: !

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:41:07 +0100

I think that it's easier for people who aren't really gamers to look past the repetitiveness of the first game. The setting was great, the mechanics of novel and the story was a good one. The original game had a lot going for it. But for hardcore gamers, the gameplay was significantly lacking.

Re: Assassin's Creed

0rdinaryvanity — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:33:12 +0100

Assassin's Creed and the Uncharted series mentioned in the same thread? Awesome!

Re: Assassin's Creed

Ampelos — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:47:32 +0000

Safety and peace, my friends! :D I agree that AC is very, very repetitive and Altairs voice grates my nerves but I really loved the story and supporting characters (especially the fella who has Leo's voice :3) AC2 is SUCH an improvement in pretty much every aspect I cannot wait until revelations, the trailers have me near falling off my seat every time, its a serious threat to my novel I tell ya!

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:25:17 +0000

I admit, the first game was repetitive, but the story was great. I've played AC, AC2, and AC Brotherhood. I'm hoping to get Revelations soon.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:32:11 +0000

But I've discovered 3 things about those games. 1. Whenever you start climbing the side of a building, there will be a ladder not too far away. 2. Assassinations in crowded areas will always work, but seldomly against your target. 3. No matter how many times you've played the games, you will jump off in the wrong direction and fall to your death at least once a play through.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Earthsick — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:56:54 +0000

True that. And in ACR: Oh, I could jump that roof to save time ... ah, wait, there's a zip-line! *facepalm*

Re: Assassin's Creed

BusterBrown — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:17:56 +0000

I love these games so much. The historical accuracy in the environments is just stunning. I got and played the first two in one marathon week last December, right after I'd just finished a course in Renaissance art history. I was gleefully climbing everything, enjoying identifying the major buildings. It's a total kick to have free run of a major Renaissance city. Also, I just cannot get over the fluidity of the climbing and jumping. The ability to run up a wall, throw an archer off the building, leap across six roofs and cover a block in a matter of seconds, then swan dive into a canal and boatjack some poor dude without once stumbling or breaking a sweat is just... priceless.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:56:40 +0000

I just recently played Revelations, and I honestly, I never had that problem. The problem I had was that *&@@#&@*$ Den Defense. I bought a stealth action game, not a tower defense game. >:( I managed to defend my dens twice (not counting the tutorial), and that was it. On another subject, I'm glad that notoriety doesn't increase with every person you "bump" into like it did in 2 and Brotherhood. You sneezed wrong in those games, and your notoriety increases. And finally, my greatest moment in Revelations (this is almost Game Fail worthy): I was standing on top of a blocked-off well, and I drop a bomb on it to unblock it. When I got off the well, I saw two guards heading towards the well, investigating the sizzling and sparking object left on top. I just found a spot to park Ezio, and waited for the inevitable. Greatest double kill ever, and it wasn't even intentional.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Earthsick — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:35:35 +0000

When I was done with Revelations I was like "woah, this was the worst AC ever!". Actually, imho, it is. I could go for on for lenghts why it felt to me like this, but ... Btw, tower defense: I only had to do that twice ... and never really got to know how you can get the greek fire and other stuff like that and the tutorial was like ... oh, now I'm here, look, look! Ah, too late! Gone! And therefore quite unhelpful. /: Notority and stuff: Whatever you do in Revelations, like renovating a shop, your notority increases, resulting in attacks on your dens.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:53:53 +0000

I think with Den Defense, you got upgrades with every successful defense. Still hate it. And somehow, every game with notoriety finds a strange way to raise it. In 2 and Brotherhood, assassinating from a blend spot was fine, but if was just you and the target, and you assassinated him from a ledge, it raised you notoriety. Same goes with double assassinations. I kind of understand why renovating shops would raise it in Revelations (seeing how it's called Templar Awareness there), but at the same time, just because someone has a business going, that automatically means that there's an Assassin in the city? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:06:53 +0000

I'll defiitely agree that, from a gameplay standpoint, Revelations was prolly the second worst in the franchise (the original being the first). The hookblade, ziplines and tower defense didn't really add anything to the game. They felt just like token additions Ubisoft threw in there to make people feel like they weren't simply playing Brotherhood all over again, just set in a different city. I also had a particular dislike for the tower defense, but it was easy to avoid them. As soon as my Templar Awareness got high enough, I simply just avoided doing anything bad until I found enough heralds to bribe and/or officials to murder to get it down enough. I only ended up having to do one defense before I locked down all my dens with Master Assassins. I also found that, on the PS3 version, there's a trophy for performing 3 successful den defenses. If you lock them all, you still get the trophy, even if you haven't done 3 defenses. As for the story, I think it was on a par with the rest of them. I like how it tied Desmond, Altair and Ezio together. And I really liked ***SPOILER*** how Ezio's whole ordeal was nothing more than the method used by Desmond to find the true location of the Apple. Some people may have been put off by Ezio's whole life being essentially a waste of time, but, to me, it really gave it context. Sure, three games were dedicated to his exploits, but he is just a very small part of a much larger overall story. Very few pieces of story telling are able to pull off that total sense of scope, much less any video game.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Vacillator — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:26:10 +0000

I played the first two, and was generally impressed by the historical settings. If it was just an action game with a historically accurate medieval setting, it would have been great. However, I cannot express enough how little I care about stupid frickin' Desmond and the stupid Dan Brown conspiracy crap, and how much I resented every intrusion of that drivel into the historical setting. After AC2, I decided I wasn't going to play any more of them, because I just couldn't give a crap about the ridiculous plot and stupid Desmond interludes, and it looked like there would only be more of that nonsense as the series progressed.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:36:01 +0000

That's one of the things with the game: Desmond's story is part of it, but it's not really the main focus, even though it's what brings everything together. My question is that now that they are done with Ezio and Altair, what is going to be next? A suggestion I heard that I thought would be great is (if they keep up the historical thing) if they went into the American Revolution. Of course, there are probably even better suggestions than that. Then, if they REALLY wanted to do something different, they'd team up with Terry Pratchett for my sick and twisted idea, Assassin's Creed: Ankh-Morpork.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:41:38 +0000

I get what you're saying about the whole Templar conspiracy aspect. It's an angle that's been beaten to death in various media over the last few years. But what I do like about it is that it gives a reason for the "gamey" aspects of the story. Allow me to explain. When you play a game, not matter how well its written, no matter how gorgeous the graphics, no matter how immersive the experience, you still know you're playing a game. Basic functions, saving, reloading, respawning, HUDs, things like that, break that immersion. One minute you're running through the jungle, the next you're navigating game menus. But with the whole thing with the Templars and the Animus wraps those "gamey" things right into the story. Why does Ezio come back to life after dying? Because your health isn't really health, it's the measure of how accurately you're following the memory. You de-synchronize because, when the memory you're playing actualyl happened, Ezio didn't die there. Same with things like saving, loading, HUD, etc. The whole concept of the Animus allows those things to have a legitimate place in the world and the story, instead of just being, "Well, we're making a video game...so he have to have these things". I think it's prolly the most ingenious piece of game design I've seen in a long, long time.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Gerd D. — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:10:38 +0000

I must say I love part one and two, after that the series is still impressing on a technical level - I mean look at the amount of detail they managed to pack in the game and still get a terrific framerate! - but I didn't like how the game mechanics changed. I found that they stroke a perfect middle between storyplay and free roaming in the second part, and then they unfortunately they decided for the later games to add more complexity in areas I didn't like about the game and more or less drop the stuff that I really enjoyed.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Vacillator — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:41:31 +0000

[quote=cadaughtrey]I think it's prolly the most ingenious piece of game design I've seen in a long, long time.[/quote] Are you serious? It replaces a feature of games that has been around so long and is so common that it is pretty much accepted and ignored by everybody, with a silly, intrusive plot device and a daft framing story that annoyed me so much that I am no longer interested in playing another Assassin's Creed game. It basically put me off the series in a way that no mere gameplay feature like a HUD or the concept of restarting a section after dying ever could have. Assassin's Creed is still very obviously a game, and filled with all manner of gamey things that prevent full immersion anyway, so it achieves very little in that regard. Defend this nonsense if you will, but frankly, I could fill pages with incoherent ranting about how much I hate the whole animus framing device, and stupid pointless Desmond. I actually did love the parts of the first two games that were actually historical, and it annoys me greatly that they couldn't have just made a straight up historical setting without all that extra crap. Maybe they thought the average gamer is too dumb to be interested in something historical if they didn't jazz it up a bit.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:56:26 +0000

I can see where you're coming from. HUDs and the like have been around for so long that they're just an accepted part of the gaming experience. I just think that the aim of games in the future is try to get people to totally forget they're playing a game at all. This type of design is a baby step towards that. Is it the best or most elegant solution? Prolly not. But it's a step away from the status quo, which is what progress is all about.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Vacillator — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:15:37 +0000

[quote=cadaughtrey]This type of design is a baby step towards that.[/quote] I don't think so. The necessity of being able to replay a section that you previously failed is always going to be a feature of game design, and attempting to couch that necessity in-universe via a ridiculously contrived and obnoxious plot device is always going to be completely transparent, not to mention severely limiting from a storytelling perspective. As far as I'm concerned, when I'm playing Assassin's Creed, I'm dying and restarting like in any other game, and the fact that they included some claptrap to explain it 'in-game' is irrelevant. It's like when there's an in-character tutorial where NPCs tell you how to walk around, and press X to do whatever. It's not really necessary to do that in-character.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:00:39 +0000

[quote=Vacillator] I don't think so. The necessity of being able to replay a section that you previously failed is always going to be a feature of game design, and attempting to couch that necessity in-universe via a ridiculously contrived and obnoxious plot device is always going to be completely transparent, not to mention severely limiting from a storytelling perspective.[/quote] Not necessarily. Look at a game like Demons' Souls where, when you die, you don't just respawn and try again. You go to purgatory and have to earn back all your previous progress. It's a mechanic that goes at least back to Diablo II, actually. Or even Fester's Quest.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Vacillator — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:02:02 +0000

[quote=cadaughtrey] Not necessarily. Look at a game like Demons' Souls where, when you die, you don't just respawn and try again. You go to purgatory and have to earn back all your previous progress. [/quote] Meh. Not that I've played it, but Demons' Souls looks to me like a throwback title for people who think they get hardcore points for playing a game that kills you constantly until you prevail through sheer repetition. As far as I'm concerned, that's the past of gaming, not it's future. Back in the 80s/90s when I was a kid, I appreciated a difficult game and repeating something endlessly until I got it right, but nowadays, I just can't do that without getting totally bored. I suppose practising a game until I was awesome at it seemed like a major achievement when I was twelve, but nowadays seems like a pointless waste of time and I'd rather just get to the next part in the visual spectacle without repeating it 50 times, thank you.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:14:15 +0000

So, I read an article earlier today, and Ubisoft announced the release date of AC3. October 30th. Not that they said anything else about the game.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:25:20 +0000

I'll agree that the "this game is so hard that you will want to ptu your controlled through your TV" thing is an outdated mechanic. It's a throwback to the days before save files, when games had to be short enough to be played through in one sitting, but hard enough not to be beaten in the first try. I'll give Demons' Souls nostalgia points for that, but it is rather annoying. But the fact still remains, that on the many, many, many occasion that you do die, the whole Nexus thing is an interesting take on the typical die/respawn mechanic.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:32:09 +0000

Someone above mentioned the idea of using the American Civil War as a historical backdrop for a new game. I think that a better idea might be the American Revolution. If it's true that many (most?) of the founding fathers were Freemasons, then it would be interesting to play an AC game as a Redcoat spy or a British loyalist. Maybe a Hessian mercenary. What I don't want to see happen is, ***SPOILERS*** now that the modern Assassin's apparently now know where the Apple is, that they keep the game in the modern day. A huge part of the appeal of AC is the historical settings. Getting away from that is the quickest way to kill the franchise.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:29:32 +0000

American Revolution would be great if you asked me. I mean, there are so many possibilities as far as the Freemasons go. And the truth behind George Washington's only successful battle is an Assassin. Anyhow, I want to see what they do AC3. And if they need away to tie in the historical stuff with Desmond's story, perhaps there are clues that they can only find in the past, but aren't sure when and where exactly.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:05:01 +0000

[quote=Angryman] And the truth behind George Washington's only successful battle is an Assassin.[/quote] That's the thing, though. The Assassin's would be fighting against the founding fathers. The whole storyline would be that the American Revolution was one of the worst things to happen to the world, as far as the Assassin's are concerned. The Templars won control over a whole, if young, nation.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:30:45 +0000

Hmm... that could work. Again, there's so many possibilities with that time period.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:11:29 +0000

Yesterday, they released the cover art for AC3. I saw the original US flag with only 13 stars. I'd say that it's taking place during the American Revolution.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 19:17:17 +0000

I read an article on 1Up.com a couple weeks ago where they said that the rumor was the American Revolution. It said that the rumor was that the protagonist was going to be a half-Cherokee ancestor of Desmond. The cover art seems to confirm at least the Revolution part. A couple things to think about, though. The 1Up article brought up the point that much of the appeal of AC is being able to scale these giant buildings. Such structures didn't exist in America at that time, so it's going to be interesting to see how they replace that climbing/traversal aspect of the game. I mean, yeah, they had cities and tall buildings, but nothing near to the scale of what they had in Europe at the same time. Getting rid of the climbing/free-running is a real quick way to kill the franchise. Also, the cover implies that the Assassins are fighting the British. If I remember my history correctly, most of the American founders were Free Masons and, hence, Templars. It seems to me Ubisoft has it backwards. The Assassins should be fighting against the rebelling Americans. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the storyline will go that the Free Masons are a break away faction of the Templar order, so the Assassins provide them aid. We'll see.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:07:36 +0000

Ooh, I like that idea: the Freemasons are a breakaway group of Templars. I really hope that's the case. And I understand what you're getting at with the buildings. They will have some tall buildings (clock towers at least), but again, nothing like what Europe had at the time. But hopefully, they'll make it work somehow. New thought: So they complete the game, Desmond's story, etc. Could they go back to other time periods and make more games?

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:08:11 +0000

Whenever they complete the series, that is.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:13:22 +0000

In theory, the series could go on forever, anywhere and any time you can shoehorn a conspiracy into world history. I also read a follow up article on 1Up after the cover art was released. They brought up the possibility of shifting the stealth elements from climbing and free running to blending in with the natural environment. Its not a bad idea.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 02:34:43 +0000

Yeah, I suppose they could. But there's just something about the free running Assassin that's just too much fun. But hey, if the camouflage system works better for AC3 then the game Sniper: Ghost Warrior, I'll take it.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:27:11 +0000

Put my copy of Assassin's Creed III on pre-order yesterday. I haven't gone out of my way to get them at release until now, but they've sucked me in. It figures, though, the release date is 10/30, just in time to ruin another NaNoWriMo. Looks like I'll be doing CampNaNo instead again.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:44:04 +0000

Yeah, I have a friend in California that did the same thing, only that was about a week ago. Something kind of occurred to me: Since I don't have Xbox Live, I can't play the multiplayer modes in Brotherhood and Revelations. I'm curious, is it any good?

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 03:48:09 +0000

I like the AC multiplayer because it's different. Scores are awarded for the quality of the kill rather than sheer quantity. So it's much more about stalking your target and creeping up for the kill unnoticed, rather than just bum rushing them. Especially because there's usually at least one person stalking you as well, so rushing in for the kill exposes you to your pursuers. So, as a result, the game relies a little more on strategy and less on twitch reflexes, which is good, cuz I'm old for a gamer and I just can't keep up with the fast FPS and the like. When I started playing Brotherhood online, it only took me about a week or two to be able to consistently podium in ranked matches. In contrast, I played Modern Warfare 2 for months and never really got anywhere in the "not getting my ass handed to me" category.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:59:23 +0000

ARRRGH!!!!! I hate not being set up for Xbox Live! So many achievements and extras out of my reach because of it (and not all of them AC)! And even if I was, my internet wouldn't handle it well (the downside to satellite internet that they never tell you about is that you have a data limit: only so much data can be downloaded and uploaded in a rolling 30 day period).

Re: Assassin's Creed

keolah — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:52:33 +0100

I'm currently playing the first game. I've come to the conclusion that it's less about assassination and more about climbing tall buildings and killing anyone that gets in your way to do so.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:05:28 +0100

In a way, yes. Again, the only problem with the first game is how repetitive it gets. The second game is probably the best one for climbing, and I say this because of the Assassin's Tomb inside Il Duomo. First time I took on that level, I was maybe halfway up when I had vertigo. I salute the people of Ubisoft for that one; no game has ever given me vertigo like that before.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:18:02 +0100

[quote=keolah] I'm currently playing the first game. I've come to the conclusion that it's less about assassination and more about climbing tall buildings and killing anyone that gets in your way to do so. [/quote] Yeah, the first game was crap. Boring, repetitive and not worth the minor twist at the end. Honestly, if I were you, I'd skip it altogether. Nothing happens in it that can't extrapolated from the flashbacks in the later games, which are much, much better.

Re: Assassin's Creed

keolah — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:13:44 +0100

Hey, I'm amused. Of course, sometimes I think I'm easily entertained. Sometimes I find myself missing the endless rep grinding on WoW... ;p

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:17:57 +0100

Yeah, you COULD skip the first game, but I say you need to play it at least once. What I would love to do once in that game is (besides finding all of the flags and killing all of the Templar Knights, therefore getting those last few achievements for that game) is pull off every major assassination without being spotted by the target (uh, the ones that will let you, that is).

Re: Assassin's Creed

Ophiucha — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:14:25 +0100

I've always liked a lot of aspects of Assassin's Creed, but for some reason never fully came in with the series. I love the gameplay (and I think if AC3 uses tree climbing to spice it up it'll be even better!), I like the historical settings, and I think they are great games, but I've somehow never quite gotten into them. I think it's the overarching plot that bugs me. Still, I am excited for Assassin's Creed III. A half-Mohawk (based on what we've seen and the setting, I'm guessing Mohawk), half-European assassin with a tomahawk and a flintlock. Sign me up! And as I said earlier, I think a tree climbing mechanic would be a great way to adapt the gameplay to the setting while still keeping the core idea in place. I mean, loathe as I am to call anything in Pocahontas historically accurate, the moment it was announced that he'd be half-Native American, I thought of that scene where she jumps off a cliff into the lake early on in the film. Plus, I kind of love the Founding Fathers era of American History, so I am excited.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 00:21:47 +0100

I think they did a good job of remedying the fact that you didn't necessarily have to perform the major assassinations stealthily in ACII when they did the synchro percentages. In the first one, just rushing up to the guy and fighting him certainly made the harder, but otherwise there was no penalty. By adding specific conditions to be met for each mission in order to gain 100% synchronization, ACII and beyond gave a little incentive to do it "the right way". It works for me cuz I'm an uber perfectionist in that regard. I'm not really a flag or loot collector. But within a single mission, I'll restart and restart and restart until I get it perfect.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 02:37:34 +0100

From what little I've heard, yes, you DO get to climb trees, and even go from tree to tree a lot easier than building to building in previous games. One of the aspects that I'm glad they're bringing back from the first game is that your targets will be on both sides of the conflict, Red Coat and Colonist.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:52:21 +0100

Okay, so I didn't really check out the article, but it sounds like they're working on an AC game that uses the Kinect. Congratulations, you've given me the second game I'm interested in that REQUIRES the Kinect. Still not the best reason for dropping 150 bucks for one.

Re: Assassin's Creed

cadaughtrey — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:16:49 +0100

I doubt they'd do that. The trend, especially for Microsoft, is to try to make games that integrate motion control as much as possible, but there's no way they'd have a major release like AC that REQUIRES it. They'd alienate too many players, especially since motion control is passable at best, downright unplayable at worst. Games that are motion control only are still in the realm of niche party games.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 01:07:58 +0100

I think it would be interesting if they created a game that made the Kinect optional, but if they did require it, then they would also alienate the PS3 gamers (unless they worked in the motion control thing (not that I can remember what that's called) but how different is that from the Kinect?). I just think it would be a mistake for them to do it. And I will make a modification to what I said: there is one more game for the Kinect that I wouldn't mind having it for, but the game (Forza Motorsport 4) doesn't require it.

Re: Assassin's Creed

Angryman — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 06:55:56 +0100

*Ahem* Boy, this is awkward. I found something on MSN about electronic April Fools pranks, and apparently Assassin's Creed: Kinect was on that list. Yeah, my face is red.