Assassin's Creed

Also, I think that adding some RPG elements future Assassin's Creed games would be pretty interesting.

Because people feel that:

a) It's the same it sux!

b) They changed something it sux!

c) Why didn't they keep the ship bit, it sux!

d) They killed Desmond, it sux!

e) They didn't kill Desmond soon enough, it sux!

I kid. Basically, it's an incrementally similar game, with minor changes here and there. The plots are getting increasingly weird with no real meta resolution. Also, some of the things that are changed between games aren't always for the better (Unity's various stealth elements were a bit janky, for example) and they keep shoe-horning extra bits in. Plus the inevitable FIND THE COLLECTIBLES thing.

What is boils down to is people feel they're playing the same game over and over, with no real plot momentum. Now, I say that as someone who loves the series on the whole - I can get the fatigue. The Ezio series nearly killed me and, despite the fact that I now miss Ezio, he was slowly beginning to outstay his welcome. THAT SAID. I love how they did Syndicate and it feels more like a culmination.

I think if they'd killed off the meta plot earlier and maybe shifted to different areas, that could've staved some criticism. And Ubisofts handling of things like Female main characters and things weren't brill.

AC 3 got a lot of flack, for no real good reason I will say. And I'm British - I should've hated it. Mainly because a lot of the time in the games the overarching PLOT in the timeline doesn't progress and sometimes your characters have real idiot balls. But then they aren't genre savvy internet users.

In summary, a lot of "it's the same" and a sluggish meta plot, despite us getting a game every year plus some bad PR bits means people find it an easy target. Also, see Far Cry for another example. It's a strange thing - it's getting too much of a good thing actually gives you fatigue about it.

(3)

I haven't touched the series since 3, not out of dislike, moreso laziness. I'm actually really behind, finally finished Brotherhood 3 years ago and never started Revelations, got to play 3 for a few minutes if that and it's been spoiler city ever since. So thank you for that, I've been rather confused by the series's apparent fall from grace as well.

I haven't made time to sit down with each of these games to see what's wrong them mechanically. Getting rid of Desmond seems a popular complaint, but it's always seemed to be more than just that. Thematically, seeing the Assassins evolve, maintaining the basic hooded cloak but sporting newer weapons, tactics, or personalities in each game, it's brilliant.

And the trailers never cease to amaze:

edited 15th Apr '16 10:25:03 PM by Soble

A big part of why the series gets criticized is because of the "release one per year" philosophy. A lot of people think that it's creatively stifling and leads to low quality, shameless cash-ins.

In addition to that, AC Unity had a terrible launch and was an embarrassing collection of bugs in the vague shape of a video-game in addition to being relatively disrespectful of historical reality (compared to past titles, in any case) and having a lame plot. All that after it was hyped to hell and back.

Is Unity essential, storywise?

In terms of Modern Day, no. Syndicate is more essential.

In terms of general quality, I would argue it's entirey skippable since it is a complete betrayal of what Assassin's Creed should be.

-Shocks the thread with a defibrillator-

First AC movie trailer.

Looks a little bland to be honest...

I actually approve. I didn't expect myself to approve, but I do.

Same. Seems pretty faithful.

Only thing that bugged me was that last line of the trailer but eh.

Oooh.. That is so sexy looking.

Edit: I'm not entirely sure I approve of the protagonist being a death row criminal; that's a little too cliched for me and might also cause trouble relating.

edited 12th May '16 5:56:49 AM by Fighteer

On the contrary, it does have backstory potential - why would an Assassin become a criminal?

It's the other way around: the modern character, even if he may have had Assassin ancestors, doesn't necessarily have any of those skills in the present day. Part of the idea is that the Animus user learns the skills of their ancestors through the Bleeding Effect.

Trailer edited to have music from the games instead of rap.

This being Abstergo, I'd bet even odds that he was framed because they decided they needed him in the Animus. Of course, that leads to other questions, like "Why bother framing him instead of just kidnapping him like Desmond?" But then Desmond was a nobody, so... I'm putting too much thought into my own stupid little WMG.

I do agree I would prefer him to have no combat skills before they put him in the Animus. Maybe his crime was something not necessarily physically violent? Like poisoning a bunch of people or something.

(2)

Those violins do a lot more for the trailer.

Actually forgot I'd posted here. :p

I'm trying to get back into the series. I was really into the first game, played and collected every damn feather in the second, and beat Brotherhood some 4-6 years after it came out. But around that point, the franchise had gathered so much stigma, and I was informed that the modern day plot dropped off after awhile - Sequlitis - I didn't make time for any of the games.

Then I heard about Black Flag and spoiled most of the story for myself. I'm thinking about picking up Revelations and just continuing, but from the tidbits I've heard, it's getting harder to believe it's still an ongoing story. With filler-Animus people, I'm not sure I want to pick it up again.

While the modern-day plot and characters might be suffering, I've only heard good things about Connor, Edward, Jacob, and Evie. It's Unity, Arno who've gotten a bad rap. I mean, why? Someone told me that Unity was buggy, yes, but what about it betrayed everything that Assassin's Creed was?

edited 12th May '16 9:37:55 PM by Soble

Oh boy. Here go my thoughts...

Unity has A LOT of issues. Its really historically inaccurate (The Royals didn't cause France's poverty through over spending! The Evil!Templars faked a famine!). It has some moments such as Elise shooting a guy's jaw to pieces which the guy did suffer a broken jaw before his execution so its a nice historical nod and really gives Elise some badass cred, but there are too many other issues all over the place. I'd argue that the game's biggest historical failing is trying to give a single face to every evil of the revolution instead of recognizing the complexity of the situation that was going on and how impossible a single face of sin would be.

Also a large majority of historical figures are outright ignored. Marie Antoinette gets a single throw away scene. A lot of the more interesting figures exist only in side missions or Multiplayer. And the ones that are in single player are usually rather simplified to very basic understandings of their role and not very well explored.

Plot wise, the game is a love story between Arno and Elise. But, since she's absent for long stretches of the game, its kind of awkward since Arno is otherwise kind of just wandering around and doing missions until she shows up. And, while I think what they have going is kind of cool, it needs expansion and development of both Arno and Elise as a whole. And, because the game is mostly a romance, it ends up focusing far more on that than the VERY complicated French Revolution going on in the backdrop which is kind of hard to simplify. So, when its not a love story (which it isn't for several sequences) its kind of a paint by numbers AC.

Thematically, its rather inconsistent since some missions will have Arno fighting to defend the royalists and some other missions will have him fighting revolutionaries and generally it gets pretty confusing as to what his opinion even is. He's over all so detached from the Revolution that its unbelievable. He, a royalist by nature of where he was raised, seems pretty quick to jump on the Revolutionary band wagon too.

The Modern plot literally does nothing. It can be summarized as 'We need to find x before the Templars do!' 'Welp. It got destroyed in the past anyway so I guess we don't have to do anything' with no plot advancement what so ever. Say what you will because Syndicate had the same modern plot really, but it at least introduced new characters, had some tension, and put characters at a visible risk.

Elise also comes under a lot of criticism. And not as one would think. She's pretty well written in a lot of respects (or maybe just well acted? Its been a long time), but it comes down to the fact that the game is far more her story than it is Arno's. Elise has character development (if kind of small and a bit quick). Arno is rather static. Elise chooses her ending. Elise is the one who gets the big instigating moment (her father's death). Of the two, Elise is the far more interesting character.

Yet, of course, Arno is the protagonist and he doesn't always have the greatest of motivations (in fact, of all the assassins, I'd say he has the weakest motivation to joining them). And, of course, Elise dies so Arno can go through a brooding phase and get some character development which is cliche af.

But, those are my major thoughts.

Yeah, the trailer actually looked pretty solid. Plenty of Assassin-ing, we get what's apparently the person actually talking and moving while in the Animus, not to mention genetic imprints with archery and stuff.

My one criticism is the freaking Kanye West music. Just because it mentions God in the lyrics doesn't mean it's appropriate for the Spanish Inquisition, Fox.

Hell, you could have laid over some Gregorian chanting. Made a nice bit of Soundtrack Dissonance.

Well thanks for sharing. I'll look back on this if and when I get to that installment. Might just save myself the money since they don't have a Master AC Collection yet.

The animus used in the trailer looks kind of primitive. Maybe it'll actually get linked to the overall story as a prequel?

Alternatively, it's a new development of the animus meant to actually physically hone the user's body as well as his mind/reflexes through the bleeding effect. Still looks clunky as all hell.

Yeah, that may be the reason. If you're reliving your ancestor's memories you'll be doing what they did during the specific memory.

To be fair, it kind of answers some of the ambiguity of the original Animus...Animi? What is the plural???

Basically, I was always confused on how Desmond himself was experiencing it. Is it a movie to him? Just being projected onto the little screen (on the original Animus anyway) or projected into his mind (in later versions)? Or is it like a video game and there's some unknown controller of some kind (which Liberation and later installments ran with the concept of)?

And, then, of course the issue of 'muscle memory' when his muscles haven't in any way performed the actions. For example, if Desmond were to go into the memories of a strong man with significantly more muscle than Desmond could ever gain, then Desmond in the real world wouldn't suddenly get the ability to lift such weights because he doesn't have the muscles to do so.

This explains that issue somewhat in that he's performing the actions as much as possible.

My issue with the Animus in the movie in terms of how experiencing it....in the games you were told that the Animus renders the memories via the metaphor of video games. That is what you are seeing is your ancestors memory but filtered to the best abilities of the software and hardware available, and that the video game GUI metaphor was what they hit on to make it accessible and interactive. This justified the whole games-in-games thing.

But when you are shifting from games to movies, the animus interface by necessity becomes even more passive. Because the animus has to render it in cinematic terms. A desynch in games is the world and level design fading and crumbling...in the movies it should look like say, the set and background cracks, the CGI disappears and we see the Green Screen and so on.

Anyway, I think in either case the movie is a huge misstep in concept and I don't think they are doing it right.

I assumed the animus was projecting the memories like straight into the user's brain, creating a five-sense simulation of whatever the ancestor was doing. "Muscle memory" comes about due to the massive amounts of brain and nerve stimulation.

I'm not well versed on the real life science of muscles and muscle memory, but I think the way it works is that the body grows more efficient arrays of neurons, nerve cells, and muscles over time from repetitive actions. You can handwave the animus causing everything except the latter through intense mind fuckery.

edited 14th May '16 11:36:04 PM by illegalcheese