StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Joviwan wrote:

Thanas wrote:Yeah. But it feels like the game is trying to go towards the whole "Americans stand united" portrayal, which is pretty funny considering that the various states didn't think that way. .

I don't think there's enough going on in this trailer to make that conclusion. The only thing we really get to see is a hammy looking george washington giving an actual speech by george washington while the two armies duke it out--and also here's a guy killing some scouts in the woods.

Saying it's anachronistic and not representative of the period is kinda like saying George Washington should have toned it down a bit, given the context.

He probably should have, however do note that he was one of the first united USA guys so him using this propaganda is pretty good.

Losonti Tokash wrote:While the non-American developers have continually stated that it's not a Britain vs America storyline and they're going back to the villain motivations of the first game rather than the cartoon villains of Ezio's series. One recently criticized the deification of American's founders and want to portray them as human beings.

I really liked 2's and Brotherhood's portrayal of the Templar works that you got with those little puzzles left around by subject whatshisname. They were SO much better than what you've seen the Borgias do...

Also, Brotherhood had some very unflattering thing to say about America and its role in the whole Templar scheme, so I don't think they will just go RAH FREEDOM WASHINGTON HERO OF THE ASSASSINS. There's certainly room for some intrigue in the context of the american revolution.

And face stabbing.

You know, quite frankly, Brotherhood and 2 were really silly when it came to presenting the story in missions, but somehow this worked, because you felt like you lived through Ezio's life, which gave a very epic feel to both games, despite their shortcomings.

SAMAS wrote:Yes now you're stuck freerunning though *gasp* Forests! How terrible!

Yeah, no.

The point of Assassins Creed is the assassinations. Moving through a crowded location, hunting down a well protected target, publicly executing him and then running away from the legions of guards hunting you down.

The first game got this, but made the mistake of making the sidequests feel 1) irrelevant; 2) repetitive; and 3) unnecessary. The second game was better but put too much emphasis on the combat, which was always shit, and by making Ezio too "badass" they ended up nerfing the guards, so the game lost all sense of tension. Further, the sidequests were, while less boring, completely unnecessary. Each successive game has gotten even worse, putting a lot more pointless shit in between the meat of the game, the assassinations.

Now we've got a third game, where most of the action is set in a location that isn't that densely populated. Where every press release has gone on about the "combat", which isn't the point of the game. The problem with putting lots of the action in forests instead of cities is that it means we're getting more of the same, and instead of getting a historical version of Hitman or Thief, we're getting a crappy historical version of Devil May Cry, where the enemies suck at combat and we spend minutes waiting for a chance to click the counter attack button and slaughter the entire platoon.

So in other words you only liked 1 out of the 4 games, and the least popular of the 4, but think they should go back to that because...? The point of the games from AC2 on isn't simply the assassinations, it's about the story, various platforming challenges and combat, as well as assassinations. There's also supposed to be a lot less countering in this one and more taking combat to the enemy, but way to read what's been posted.

Block wrote:So in other words you only liked 1 out of the 4 games, and the least popular of the 4, but think they should go back to that because...?

That's not what I said at all. My favourite was the second.

The point of the games from AC2 on isn't simply the assassinations, it's about the story, various platforming challenges and combat,

The story is good, the combat sucks, and I doubt their ability to fix it.

as well as assassinations. There's also supposed to be a lot less countering in this one and more taking combat to the enemy, but way to read what's been posted.

Turning it into a less good version of DMC. The assassinating is the point, but they've been neglecting it more and more in each game in order to make it more "action-packed" making it worse in my opinion.

Where's Solomon Kane to shoot him?

Chirios wrote: Turning it into a less good version of DMC. The assassinating is the point, but they've been neglecting it more and more in each game in order to make it more "action-packed" making it worse in my opinion.

Devil May Cry sucked compared to AC2 and on. You may disagree, and that's fine, but I like the direction they've gone, and have really enjoyed the games. The tower defense mini-game wasn't very good, but then I only played it the single required time and never had to again, so it's not like it was a distraction.

I am legitimately baffled at anyone who thinks the combat system in AC1 was superior to any of the games, let alone Revelations. I'm not going to claim it's particularly great, but it's clearly moved away from just "sit around countering every two minutes," particularly with the enemies who either can't be countered or don't die when you do it. The first step toward this was in AC2 when they expanded the enemy roster from more than "guy with sword" and "dude with bow."

RE: AC becoming DMC

what is this i don't even

Problem is, killing fifty dozen guards in AC2, Bros and Rev was trivial. It went to the point that in AC2 I generally just used my BARE HANDS and disarmed/beat everyone up because hey, why kill guards who are just doing their jobs?

It shouldn't be like this, really. Getting surrounded and cornered should be something to avoid, because why the FUCK would the huge guy wearing head-to-toe armor just sit there instead of stabbing you in the back while you bitchslap all his friends? The ease with which you can kill everyone means all the advanced escape gadgets like nail bombs, smoke bombs etc. are completely useless for anything.

Plus, of course, there's ridiculous things like poison darts in assbros working perfectly well on guys wearing piles of armor, from any range and at any angle

Both these points means that in order to introduce challenge, they had to artificially tie your hands with limitations like OMG DON'T GET DETECTED OR MISSION OVER, because slaughtering everyone was just so easy.

Losonti Tokash wrote:I am legitimately baffled at anyone who thinks the combat system in AC1 was superior to any of the games, let alone Revelations.

Maybe my wording was wrong, I didn't mean to say that AC1 was > the rest; I meant to say that I didn't like the direction they took in their attempts to improve the series. The combat in AC1 sucked, but the combat in the rest of the series is waaay too overpowered, which is what I mean by making it like DMC, or any of the rest of the hack and slash genre. Rather than having a somewhat stealthy game where the main point of combat is to survive long enough to run away, you have an increasingly overpowered set of protagonists who with each successive game obtain more ways to brutally slaughter the legions of moronic guards the villains send after you.

Hell, by the end of Brotherhood you can literally press a button and have someone else do the killing for you.

I'm not going to claim it's particularly great, but it's clearly moved away from just "sit around countering every two minutes," particularly with the enemies who either can't be countered or don't die when you do it.

I may be remembering this wrong but I think most guards can be countered, and those that can't be countered with regular weapons can be countered if you sheathe your weapon and use the disarm counter.

Chirios wrote: Maybe my wording was wrong, I didn't mean to say that AC1 was > the rest; I meant to say that I didn't like the direction they took in their attempts to improve the series. The combat in AC1 sucked, but the combat in the rest of the series is waaay too overpowered, which is what I mean by making it like DMC, or any of the rest of the hack and slash genre. Rather than having a somewhat stealthy game where the main point of combat is to survive long enough to run away, you have an increasingly overpowered set of protagonists who with each successive game obtain more ways to brutally slaughter the legions of moronic guards the villains send after you.

You were hugely overpowered in the first game, or did you not get the achievement for taking on 25 guys at once and winning?

The entire end sequence of AC1 is about taking on huge hordes of guys and winning without breaking a sweat.

Freedom isn't free. Kill redcoats. Punch a bear.

What does look cool is some of the new free-running movements and large set piece battles - if they're actually in game.

PeZook wrote: It shouldn't be like this, really. Getting surrounded and cornered should be something to avoid, because why the FUCK would the huge guy wearing head-to-toe armor just sit there instead of stabbing you in the back while you bitchslap all his friends? The ease with which you can kill everyone means all the advanced escape gadgets like nail bombs, smoke bombs etc. are completely useless for anything.

At least enemies would do little things like panic and run away if you killed a bunch of their friends. I've always felt that enemies in a lot of games lacked any sense of self preservation at all and that removed me from what was going on.

Not just tackling the guy is ALSO lacking in self preservation. And frankly a feature that makes fights easier is a strange thin to mention when people complain fights are too easy.

weemadando wrote:

Freedom isn't free. Kill redcoats. Punch a bear.

What does look cool is some of the new free-running movements and large set piece battles - if they're actually in game.

If they do, I hope it's just background or you doing something else other then participating in the line.

so hey guys I heard this was totally not the patriot in 3D. The new trailor does sooooo much to assuage my fears within that regard. I mean, after declaring one side to be totally evil, I am sure they will be making every effort to present this in a fair and balanced way that is not wank.

I got nothin, man.

Thanas wrote:after declaring one side to be totally evil

That didn't happen.

I realise that the character saying 'I'll kill guys on both sides if necessary' rings a little hollow when the only guys he kills in the trailer are red coats, but it's known that the actual villain is an American commander. I'm totally willing to say that you're just being outraged for no reason.

Uh...you know, that would be more believable if the trailer's VO didn't go "The ones who shape the destiny of our land are those with TRUE LIBERTY" and then immediately cut to American troops shooting redcoats

EDIT: Hmm, you know what, the above didn't happen either. I rewatched the trailer.

It's likely the VO is actually referring to the Assassins here.

The only bit that is like that is when he says something about "those with true freedom" and it cuts to the early US flag.

You know I'd be okay if the game was basically this:


It won't, but oh well.

It could trivially be a relatively thoughtful examination of grass roots America. It could so challenge Americans and American myth making that they put a disclaimer at the start that says this game was made by a multicultural team including both British and Americans and intends to offend no one while discussing ideals of freedom and justice.

But it won't.

We could get lucky and it's just that Ubisoft's advertising department sucks, and they demanded the development team make a blatantly America-favoring trailer.

Stark wrote:It could trivially be a relatively thoughtful examination of grass roots America. It could so challenge Americans and American myth making that they put a disclaimer at the start that says this game was made by a multicultural team including both British and Americans and intends to offend no one while discussing ideals of freedom and justice.

But it won't.

Were you upset that the first Assassin's Creed wasn't a thoughtful examination of the cultural and political roots of the Crusades?