Assassin's Creed Unity

[chestburster]

If the two sides represent anything, it's order versus chaos.

It's Wallstreet versus the Occupy hippies.

 

[anus_pounder]

If the two sides represent anything, it's order versus chaos.

It's Wallstreet versus the Occupy hippies.

You sure I was the one who wrote that?

 

[chestburster]

If the two sides represent anything, it's order versus chaos.

It's Wallstreet versus the Occupy hippies.

You sure I was the one who wrote that?

Whoops could swear I was quoting the other guy lol. Weird shit been happening to me lately.

 

[Drakron]

Bonaparte is going to be the dude you help against the evul Templars (like Washington in AssCreed 3) and at the end of the game he'll fuck you in the ass.

Well choices are either the Royalists or the Jacobins as "Templars", depends if its pre-Revolution or during the Reign of Terror.

Bonaparte is too well known of a historical figure for them to fuck it up that hard, plus his ride to power was after the end of the Jacobins and having the Royalists as Templars or Assassins during the Republic would be hilarious silly stupid dumb Jesus on a bike retarded.

 

[TedNugent]

The original Assassin's Creed game was horseshit. I forced myself to play through that game to the very end, and God as my witness, I swore then and there that I would never play another AssCreed game again.

Never again.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

^Actually 2 improves considerably on it.

 

[Delterius]

Bonaparte is going to be the dude you help against the evul Templars (like Washington in AssCreed 3) and at the end of the game he'll fuck you in the ass.

Well choices are either the Royalists or the Jacobins as "Templars", depends if its pre-Revolution or during the Reign of Terror.

Bonaparte is too well known of a historical figure for them to fuck it up that hard, plus his ride to power was after the end of the Jacobins and having the Royalists as Templars or Assassins during the Republic would be hilarious silly stupid dumb Jesus on a bike retarded.

Pretty sure bonaparte is a templar. He's one of the key figures in that manipulated History using the macguffin.

 

[anus_pounder]

 

[Forest Dweller]

What's that from?

 

[Martius]

^Actually 2 improves considerably on it.

I have no idea why people say so. Of course sequel is better (first one was so boring i was nearly sleeping, second one is bit less boring) but just a bit. Lot of stuff was added like Ezio uncle town and mansion, buying armor and weapons but most of it dont impact game at all. Its still same very easy game with stupid things like soldier in armor fast as trained assassin and thief from Venice who cant swim.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

It's also fun.

 

[Martius]

I guess we have just different definition of fun. Lack of any challenge just make its too boring for me. Too bad nothing else in this series at least tries to balance it.

 

[Martius]

Challenge in AC games is self-imposed.

You mean something like playing with eyes covered and one hand tied to back?

 

[Outlander]

No he doesn't mean that, you troll. Go away.

 

[Markman]

There is no need to powergame in AC games. Prince of persia-like and stealthy sections are awesome but there is no difficulty in combat to speak of and cause of that the combat becomes a chore in itself. After a few hours I started avoiding it and tried to run away from the guards where possible. Just kill who is on the list and gtfo. Being genocidal on their asses is not really why I want to play Assassins Creed.

Most people like that the game is easy and it plays itself with kewl animations while you're pressing counter+direction buttons. They also like the fact that the game is forgiving and give them sense of acomplishment no matter how bad they play. Not the mention the feeling that they got value for their money.
Game lacks challenge and its nr1 reason why I find it boring. I dont feel acomplishment cause I went through a scripted sequence where the game told me when and where to press what button to complete the quest.

To put it in short, Assassins Creed does do alot of things well but is let down by some shitty design decisions. Till the devs and gamers wake up, it will be nothing more than a historic parkour simulator. Now with fing pirates too. Uuu yea

 

[DeepOcean]

You go to AC Creed games for sightseeing renascence buildings, and climb on them, it is easy as fuck but the most enjoyable part is to explore the architecture and navigate the maps. It is fun to get a target in the middle of the Coliseum and parkour all over it, avoiding guards without being noticed. It was a pity that they forgot about that for AC 3, there was a massive drop in quality of map design where it became a running simulator as most missions involved running from A to B and climbing the trees was no fun. I think that France has many opportunities for sightseeing and if they bring back the templar dungeons back would be cool as Paris has many old tombs.

Yes, it has zero challenge and it is a Frankenstein of mechanics that don't get to be relevant but if they get the map design right as it was in AC 2 is a good candidate to buy at 75% off.

 

[DalekFlay]

I guess we have just different definition of fun. Lack of any challenge just make its too boring for me. Too bad nothing else in this series at least tries to balance it.

There can be things that make a game interesting beyond challenge. I wouldn't call many LucasArts adventure classics challenging, but people love them for their stories and presentation. With Assassin's Creed I think people enjoy them as walking-around-historic-cities simulators, and they are very good at that job.

 

[Markman]

There is no doubt that AC series are top notch when it comes to being authentic in the presented historic period. Its like playing in a history book, I said it before.
But its still a game, and it suffers from not having enough of the "game" or what makes a game in the game itself. It lacks that "killer instinct", "gamers instinct", call it however you want. Its cool climbing on Coloseum and you go like "yea, cool", but there's no sense of excitement, no adrenaline rush, nothing that makes you think "how the fuck do I pass this obstacle" cause everything is laid out and lacks any suprises or challenges. A single hard level from Rayman Legends or Trials series gives me more anger, thinking, joy and sense of acomplishment when you finally complete it faultless than the whole game of AC.

The game still needs to be a game at its core, not trying to hide the flaws behind pretty presentation. Like Bioshock Infinite, while it had a better story presented than most shooters, at its core is a mediocre shooter at its best.

Some of you guys are way too forgiving.

 

[Martius]

There can be things that make a game interesting beyond challenge. I wouldn't call many LucasArts adventure classics challenging, but people love them for their stories and presentation. With Assassin's Creed I think people enjoy them as walking-around-historic-cities simulators, and they are very good at that job.

Old adventure games had their deal of puzzles since most game usually resolve around dealing with some kind of problem to solve. AC focus is pretty much combat, exploration and stealth while all of that is broken. Maybe some extra difficulty mode would help but probalby it would end with increasing enemies health and making combat even more tedious. I know that Ubisoft could make something better since they also made Sands of Time and other Prince of Persia games.

 

[Admiral jimbob]

Challenge in AC games is self-imposed.

You mean something like playing with eyes covered and one hand tied to back?

I used a trainer to make my character in 2 die in two hits and I think I died once in the game.

 

[Morgoth]

So how long until we play a punk with hoodies jumping on roofs in the Third Reich?

 

[DalekFlay]

There is no doubt that AC series are top notch when it comes to being authentic in the presented historic period. Its like playing in a history book, I said it before.
But its still a game, and it suffers from not having enough of the "game" or what makes a game in the game itself. It lacks that "killer instinct", "gamers instinct", call it however you want. Its cool climbing on Coloseum and you go like "yea, cool", but there's no sense of excitement, no adrenaline rush, nothing that makes you think "how the fuck do I pass this obstacle" cause everything is laid out and lacks any suprises or challenges. A single hard level from Rayman Legends or Trials series gives me more anger, thinking, joy and sense of acomplishment when you finally complete it faultless than the whole game of AC.

The game still needs to be a game at its core, not trying to hide the flaws behind pretty presentation. Like Bioshock Infinite, while it had a better story presented than most shooters, at its core is a mediocre shooter at its best.

Some of you guys are way too forgiving.

I don't mean to sound forgiving, I'm just saying why people play these games. They want to run around in the well-presented historical cities. Those who keep playing these games are willing to overlook the rest of it being highly flawed.

 

[chestburster]

Yes, it has zero challenge

Have you tried the additional challenges in AC3 and 4? Some of them are legitimately hard. 100% stealth of a 30-minute mission followed by a kill from a rope swing which requires PERFECT timing. And you get no save during this whole section -- you fail and you have to start all over again.

 

[chestburster]

Yes, it has zero challenge

Have you tried the additional challenges in AC3 and 4? Some of them are legitimately hard. 100% stealth of a 30-minute mission followed by a kill from a rope swing which requires PERFECT timing. And you get no save during this whole section -- you fail and you have to start all over again.

It used to be that the games rewarded players for putting the effort in to 100% sync, you got extra content and all that. Now, there's nothing. I tried the rope swing kill once, a good try that meant waiting for the target to walk around the boat another time, but the timing was off and I said screw it.

Well I would say the awesome rope swing kill is its own reward, which brings me to another point:

AC3/4 (didn't bother to play the two expansions of AC2 so can't comment on those) present their "challenges" in a different way compared to older games -- you don't get punished by failing those challenges, instead, you're rewarded by completing those.

For example, when fighting an army of guards, you absolutely CAN wait for enemies to attack and spam counters and easily kill them all. But if you manage to chain your attacks together, you get kill streaks and are rewarded with a badass-looking kill animation.

Another example, the optional assassination missions of AC4 usually carry a 100% stealth challenge. Completing that challenge earns you an additional 500 dollar (or whatever money they use in AC4) and your own satisfaction that you have acted like a badAss(assin). However, failing those challenges has absolutely no negative effect since who gives a fuck about 500 dollar when you can pirate on the sea easily and earn thousands.

Also, any of you naysayers tried taking on those legendary ships in AC4? Tried fighting the harder forts before you fully upgrade your ship? Those are freaking hard. You don't have to do those but if you want, those are legitimate challenges.
-----------------------------------

The same goes for those Batman games. Sure you can "complete" your game blindfolded and fighting like a pussy. But doing that causes the game to put a "C" rating on screen every time you complete a fight. You can chain your combos and give yourself a challenge, and are rewarded in that you don't feel like those retarded kids in your math class who receive C all the time. But you don't HAVE to.

 

[chestburster]

Yes, it has zero challenge

One of the battles against the legendary ships. Take note of the player's ship's HP (almost depleted) after that battle. And he's using a max-leveled ship.