The "modern day" plot of Assassin's Creed is embarrassing

lol

 

Nah, pretty much every Ass Creed game has a dose of SJW on it, if SJW annoyed me that much I wouldn't play any Ubisoft game ever. I don't like AC 3 because all AC games are kirchen sink games where the designers throw alot of shit on them without caring much about the end result and AC 3 is the worst of them on this aspect. You have boats but they are tacked on as fuck, you have a homestead but it is tacked on as fuck, you have two cities but they are american colony era, ugly as sin without much places to climb, you can hunt but you don't need it as animal parts are almost useless.

On top of the shite cake, most missions are let's chase this guy, let's walk forward for the next cinematic to play, let's play minigames aiming a cannon minigame at the english, let's run alot until something happens and you fucking assassinate half the main baddies on Call of Duty level scripted sequences instead of navigating through a map to reach him. Other Ass Creed games have those "cinematic" sequences but on AC 3 it got to another level of annoyance

 

Without mentioning that the concept of genetic memory is used on the most retarded and ignorant fashion I ever seen. Someone should tell Ubisoft how genetics work, no dimwits because you have the genes of some dimwit that lived thousands of year ago, it doesn't mean you can remember him shitting, pissing and fucking your medieval grandma.

 

Try January 31, 2010.

Nope, last manuscript was completed by her sister.

 

I tried to play at least three of these AC games... And imo AC is the ultimate shit game hiding under a good game's surface. The graphics are sweet, the world looks vast, the character moves beautifully, combat looks so fun... And then two hours later you realize the story is even more retarded than usual, the level design is dull, the action is repetitive, the combat is broken, and the game sucks.

The "modern day" wrapper is indeed embarassing. Completely breaks the pacing and the atmosphere of the game.

In the "indiepocalypse" thread I mentioned that you need some programming skills to make a deep and satisfying game. The thing is, you also need some soft "game design" or whatever skills to make something good. Because AC is technically superb, but quite dull in practice. It tries to mix Elder Scrolls, GTA, and Hitman - and fails.

FarCry 3&4 were quite good for what they were, though. Mordor was also all right (for what it is).

 

AC1 was repetitive and boring shit. Not sure why it ever got so popular. AC2 was more of the same, but for some reason played slightly better. I think I completed about 60% of that.
Haven't touched any other AC game since then.

 

Popularity... well, it looked good, and the setting was different (for an action adventure). I remember the reviews at the time, even from detractors, was more about the "promise" it held and might be the start of a decent franchise. They thought they got that in 2. I didn't totally hate 2 myself, but I passed on it since.

 

To be fair, they use some Gyro Gearlose style machine that doesn't even attempt to sound realistic apart from some Evangelionesque technobabble like Synchronization, Memory Cloud and Pivots. Reminds me of Metal Gear and the Codec.

 

AC 1 was repetitive but the parkour gameplay was unique at the time, a new way to control a character, in a more "realistic" way compared to prince of persia sands of times trilogy - some people used to claim assassin's creed was a "spiritual sucessor" of prince of persia. Also, it was one of the first big releases for "next gen consoles" PS3 and x360. The graphics were good, and I believe the marketing was heavy, and the game was presented as having multiple ways of completing missions in a deus ex kinda way, though it was a lie.

AC2 improved a lot because it is probably the least ubsofty open world game made by ubisoft: It follow a structure similar to the good GTAs, where you had varied type of missions instead of same missions ever. Every mission point would present you with a cutscene in the same vein as GTA, and missions would appear on the map by progressing through the game, while in normal ubisoft games they appear by unlocking hub towers. Brotherhood was also good, but revelations was a cash grab while they were developing AC3. Also, the subject 16 puzzles through ac2 and brotherhood were cool.

AC3 disappointed me in three ways: First, Connor was a terrible protagonist, and to make things worse, you play his father which is a far better main character. Second, The grinding, which was the worst: hunting animals, waiting for NPCs do something different for you to witness in your homestead, it takes forever to gain money to upgrade your ship. Third, the "modern ending" which was silly as hell. Until revelations, the so called "those that came before" were ghosts of the past and the main threat was the templars. when the end indicates that the great threat was juno being ressurrected, that was the silliest thing ever. And they had a good plot in their hands since AC1, which the templars planned to use the "apples" to control humanity by putting them in orbit of the earth, and that would be a great way to save earth from sun explosions, but with the caveat that the templars would win. that would be a better excuse for sequels also, but they prefered to bring back aliens and make us believe that would be worse than the sun ravaging the surface of the earth. also, haythan kenway even mentions in game that trying to discover these ancient secrets were silly and the templars should follow a more down to earth plan and find other ways to keep power and maintain control over humanity.

But, aside from this, AC3 is a good AC game, and introduced the sailing ship gameplay that was fun as hell, Haytham Kenway was great, and though the setting was boring, it was as varied in missions and things to do as ezio's games. Though sometimes it reminds me of AC 1, with a big wilderness area, but at least it was not empty as the one in AC1.

AC4 is more like a spinoff, which took the ship gameplay of three and made a game out of that, with a city or two just for some parkour. Rogue I didn't play.

AC5, or Unity, is the worst of the games. Too ambitious and offers nothing. I didn't even had the glitches/bugs people experienced, but it was cumbersome. every mission was the same: Kill the templars, only now you had tpo go to the other side of paris to kill them. the story had so many look alikes that it was hard to tell what was going on. this game introduces a shit vision that was revealed to the player when he killed the main villains, as if he could see what his victims did. It was not explained whatsoever how the main character could achieve this. Oh, french revolution? doesn't play any part in the plot. The city of paris is very big, and probably the most detailed AC city, but its horrible when you see years pass, and the same crowd protesting in front of some palace, or guillotine executions in some plaza that happens everyday for years... Oh, what about the crime mysteries that had lots of clues that could mean anyone could be the criminal and in the end you would eventually accuse the wrong person? The DLC at least was better maybe because of underground areas that reminded me of catacombs and chrch interiors from AC 2 and brotherhood.

 

I really pity you for suffering through all of them willingly.

 

Pity more: I actually did a 100% playthrough of unity... OCD stupidity maxed out.

 

I got AC4 for free on my Xbox, but I can't bring myself to play yet. It's there for a rainy day, I guess. I'll see how they improved it.


You said it was perceived as a spiritual successor to Sands of Time, but that is so much better in every way. If anything, the only thing UBI has going for it are these more innocent action adventure titles. PoP and Beyond Good and Evil.

 

I know its weird but i cant hate anything that John de Lancie says, he could talk about the production of cellophane or buttons, ramble about
Hitler in New Swabia, doesnt matter, it will sound like magic to me.

 

Don't think citizen move along citizen

Either a shill or a troll.

 

All the games have SJWness yes. For example all the games have "This game was developed by a team of multikults" at the beginning. But in 3 they went overboard with the evul white devil narrative. In 1, the crusaders were actual, historical bad guys but they weren't portrayed anything near like the white people in AC3. In 2, everyone was white so there were no innocent noble savages to oppress.

And really, all the side missions in ALL the games are just kill this dude, eavesdrop on this guy, fuck up this merchant stall. The first game is by far the worst offender. And I played the Director's Cunt/GotY/whatever so there was even less variety at launch.

 

It's more of a mix Prince of Persia (the good ones) GTA3 and Thief.

Although the climbing mechanics in Sands of Time, The Twin Towers and Warrior Within totally kicks ACs ass.

 

It's a series of shit games, built on a very good engine. The ONLY reason to play them is historical parkour tourism.

 

Sounds like a good reason to me

 

Well, it wears off quick in AC1. AC2 provides a bit more with it's nods to history, but.... It wasn't enough for me to keep playing the series later.

 

Damn, you got me. In truth, I was paid by Chiquita Brands International to infiltrate RPGCodex and undermine the integrity of several conceptual conspiracy theories. The fact is, Assassin's Creed 3 hits dangerously close to home, and it's vital that we discredit it before the truth comes out.

I have kids to feed, please don't hold it against me.

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

That's actually a complete lie. Exposure to "the chemical" has rendered me completely sterile.

 

Ezio games were the bestest ones in terms of characters, black flag was my favorite in terms of gameplay.

 

The problem is:

Ubisoft thinks it have a really deep, philosophical plot by juxtaposing the 'philosophies' of the Templars and Assassins.
In practice, it's not even a debate between authoritarian and anarchist practices -- it's just basic comic book teenager crap. Since they made each side much more 'grey' starting with AC3, they don't even have philosophies anymore. They could make a point about the iron law of oligarchy but they didn't and kept going with their Hollywood-style comic book idiocy.

Finally, they can't abolish the modern day plot. due to lorefags. The gameplay has a lot of issues, and those are a separate matter.

So I propose this: the assassins/templar conflict is the problem with the real world plot, which could be an ingenius device but is just embarassingly unsatisfying and doesn't give the philsophical weight it promises. The solution? End the franchise, make a spinoff with similar gameplay (the parkour and excellent animations are still satisfying, admittedly, though it's gotten steadily more basic). The story has to end at some point, because it's not offering anything anymore.

 

Don't forget how literally every historical event in this turd of a series is caused by templars or hassassins, with the majority of world leaders being teh evul templar illerminaty - IIRC Kennedy was a Templar who kick started the moon program to retrieve some melonhead artifact from the moon

 

AC Rogue flips it around, yes...

Ending spoilers

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

until the fucking ending where Shane has suddenly turned into generic evulz templar leader after killing that french guy in paris and going all "we'll create our own revolution ololo". God forbid the templars have any remotely 'good' characters, eh?

 

Just like a lot of other things in the series, this is so dudebros can feel smart about themselves. OH I RECOGNIZE THIS HISTORICAL EVENT! SINKING OF A GIANT PASSENGER SHIP IS WHAT STARTED WORLD WAR 1! YES TITANIC THATS IT FUCK YEAH FISTBUMP.

There's no way AC could be low-key past its first installment because to make it cater to the mass market it has to deal with personalities, events and locations recognizable by the mass consumer. This is why instead of a no-name inventor you'll have Leonardo DaVinci masturbating your ego, this is why instead of a random psycho killer you'll be hunting down Jack the Ripper. Can't go for someone less recognizable, else the folk that barely got through their SATs might not understand they're in medieval/whatever Europe.