E3 Preview: Assassin's Creed 3 Hands On

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

ResonanceSD:
Well I actually work for News Corp,

If I respond to your post, do you promise not to get annoyed and have my phone hacked? :-P

ResonanceSD:
My OP was mostly a joke, but I think it's down to focus testing amongst all things, that we haven't seen many US based villains of late, with the most notable exception to this rule not being the bad guys in Modern Warfare, but the Enclave in the Fallout series.

Sure, but in the Fallout series you don't really have many out-and-out bad guys or good guys, beyond the player. Everyone is at least a little bit shady. Also, given where and when it takes place, it would be pretty damn difficult to have non-American villains. Unless you go back in time through VR and kill the eeeeeeevil Chinese.

It does seem like a strange thing that Americans are so infrequently portrayed as the villain in video games. Are they, as a nation, really that sensitive that they'd refuse to play a game which made them look less than perfect? Perhaps it stems from subconscious reaction to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; those were sold on the idea that the US and its allies were the White Hats, riding in to save the day, and people are having trouble facing up to the fact that they aren't actually the heroes in this story, because life doesn't really work that way.

Think I'm gonna play ACIII but not as a launch day thing. Gonna wait and scan wikipedia to see if Connor actually kills any colonials (haven't seen any sign of it yet, I'll take Ubi at their word when I see a single trailer where he it happens). I want to believe in Ubisoft but it looks pretty 'Murica right now :-/ least where I'm sitting.

Related note, really hoping they mention how Britain fought a war against the French on behalf of America a few years before and how America then teamed up with France.

SonicWaffle:

ResonanceSD:
Well I actually work for News Corp,

If I respond to your post, do you promise not to get annoyed and have my phone hacked? :-P

ResonanceSD:
My OP was mostly a joke, but I think it's down to focus testing amongst all things, that we haven't seen many US based villains of late, with the most notable exception to this rule not being the bad guys in Modern Warfare, but the Enclave in the Fallout series.

Sure, but in the Fallout series you don't really have many out-and-out bad guys or good guys, beyond the player. Everyone is at least a little bit shady. Also, given where and when it takes place, it would be pretty damn difficult to have non-American villains. Unless you go back in time through VR and kill the eeeeeeevil Chinese.

It does seem like a strange thing that Americans are so infrequently portrayed as the villain in video games. Are they, as a nation, really that sensitive that they'd refuse to play a game which made them look less than perfect? Perhaps it stems from subconscious reaction to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; those were sold on the idea that the US and its allies were the White Hats, riding in to save the day, and people are having trouble facing up to the fact that they aren't actually the heroes in this story, because life doesn't really work that way.

Here's one reason, Paddy of AAT, it's because most game devs are American, and they're probably loath to cast themselves as the bad guys.

ResonanceSD:
Here's one reason, Paddy of AAT

You make me sound like a Game of Thrones character! Just FYI, it'd probably be 'Paddy of the AAT', as they're a professional body (of which I am a member in practice) rather than a company. If I'm going to be given purple-prosey honorifics, I'd like them to be accurate :-)

ResonanceSD:
it's because most game devs are American, and they're probably loath to cast themselves as the bad guys.

Why would that be? I mean, it's a fairly artifical line to draw. I'd hazard to say that most game devs are also male, and yet they have no problems casting men as their villains. Come to that, they have no issues making human beings the bad guys, despite being one themselves. Why would nationality be the hot-button rather than, say, sexuality or eye colour?

Besides, I doubt this is about the developers. There are studios all over the world producing games, it's not limited to the USA, and many major games have been developed either outside of the US or multi-nationally. I'd place my bet on the notion that, true or not (I'm not going to go digging around for hard numbers, since they don't matter much in this example) the perception is that US consumers the biggest market for (Western) games. Ergo this seeming inability to show America as the villain of the piece is most likely due to an unwillingness to upset those valuable consumers by showing them as less than saintly.

So the crux of the issue remains the American consumer rather than the developers. Are they really as sensitive as this would imply about how the world perceives them, and they perceive themselves? Or are developers reacting to a problem that doesn't really exist? It's no secret that the United States and her citizens often tend more towards blind patriotism than most other developed nations, and certainly an "America, love it or fuck off" mentality exists within a reasonably large segment of the population, but the question is whether that mentality extends into fiction and if it does, whether it should be pandered to.

The.Bard:

Chrono212:
I'M BRITISH AND FEEL CONFLICTED BY THIS GAME.

OT: Was the sea-based stuff really working? The videos do look good but it's a totally revolutionary direction for them to take the game.

Then again, this is a revolutionary game. Huh? Huh? :D

I'm of Italian descent and I'm not at all conflicted by this game. Years of having to hear "Itsa me, aMaaaaaaaaaaario!" gives me little pity for your situation. ;D

I'm hoping they make things realistic and don't paint the Colonials as pure little goody goodies who were just throwing off the yoke of tyranny. As easy as it is to say the British were tax-loving taxhounds, the Colonies were petulant little turds in their own right.

History is written by the victors, I guess, right?

If the trailer is any indication, the main character is at least pretty conflicted about it. But come on, it's not like he's going to side with the brittish. The colonials were assholes but they were still pretty much in the moral right, however bloody slightly. (it feels weird to say "on the moral right" of people who practised slavery doesn't it?)

Farther than stars:
The eagle's a nice touch; if a little overwritten. Also why do Desmond's forefathers seem to be taking out entire armies in the trailers these days? Not that I'm complaining - it looks cool as hell - but aren't assassins supposed to be precision killers as opposed to full-on tanks?

By the looks of it he was just trying to get to the leader. He cant exactly snipe him off can he?

Besides, when he got there they were retreating. One charge later morale is restored, the enemy lines are broken and hes inside the enemy lines where he can do a lot of damage. I'd say that's pretty succesfull assasinating.

SonicWaffle:
It does seem like a strange thing that Americans are so infrequently portrayed as the villain in video games. Are they, as a nation, really that sensitive that they'd refuse to play a game which made them look less than perfect? Perhaps it stems from subconscious reaction to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; those were sold on the idea that the US and its allies were the White Hats, riding in to save the day, and people are having trouble facing up to the fact that they aren't actually the heroes in this story, because life doesn't really work that way.

I find it funny (well, not funny but noteworthy) that in Western games, it is so often the Russians who are crowbarred in as the bad guys (even when it defies reason, but you know this already), but in games like Stalker and Metro, from Eastern developers, it's also eastern European/Russian antagonists. I wonder why this is - is it part of their culture that they need to face their own demons, in the same way that western games and culture show perfection? Am I over analysing this? Why have I never eaten a bagel?

Anyway, I'm interested in what you think of my interpretation. Over to you, SonicWaffle (I have eaten waffles, though)

The Cheezy One:
I find it funny (well, not funny but noteworthy) that in Western games, it is so often the Russians who are crowbarred in as the bad guys (even when it defies reason, but you know this already), but in games like Stalker and Metro, from Eastern developers, it's also eastern European/Russian antagonists.

I've heard various theories on this. The one the Eastern Europeans themselves seem to favour is that they're not cissy enough to complain about their representation in video games, unlike everyone else. If this is true, maybe casting themselves as villains confirms their status as "not as pansy as the West", whether subconsciously or not.

It could also be born from a fear that American consumers won't buy a game with American bad guys. It's a lucrative market, and probably not one that developers want to offend. Extreme American stereotypes are far more prolific than actual information on the way American people behave, and the view of the world seems largely to be that the US is xenophobic and extremely protective when provoked. Thus, making America a villain would be treated by the citizenry (egged on by, for instance, Fox News) as an attack. Complaints would be made, sales would drop, reputations tarnished and so on. Making Russians the villain instead not only avoids this minefield but it plays right into the hands of post Cold War American attitudes - "We won, America rules, suck it everyone else!". There are a great many Americans alive today who were raised to think of Russia as the enemy, and many who are raising their children the same way - for instance, see how the word 'communist' has practically become a slur - so a game that plays into the leftover paranoia will likely do better than one that points out that Russians Are People Too.

The Cheezy One:
I wonder why this is - is it part of their culture that they need to face their own demons, in the same way that western games and culture show perfection?

Perhaps. Being a Brit, I wouldn't really know. Our way is more to be self-deprecating to downplay the serious culture shock of being a former superpower, and we like to parade our faded glory, pretend that we're still great but then have a quiet, weary chuckle about it all. Quite sad really.

Though I admit, I don't see how making Russians terrorists or invaders in video games is "facing their demons". It seems more to conform to steretypes of Russians being a threat than an attempt to understand why they might be thought of as a threat.

The Cheezy One:
Am I over analysing this?

Thinking is always good. It's probably better to over-analyse than to under-analyse.

The Cheezy One:
Why have I never eaten a bagel?

I don't know. You should. They're very nice!

The Cheezy One:
Anyway, I'm interested in what you think of my interpretation.

Good lord, why? Even I think my opinion is nearly worthless, and I'm me!

The Cheezy One:
Over to you, SonicWaffle (I have eaten waffles, though)

I have not! At least, not American waffles. I've eaten Belgian waffles, but I'm under the impression that the two are different things...

From the gameplay I've seen, it seems like this game is going to be awesome. I have two problems with the game though.

1) The snow in the game doesn't look right. It looks like a single mass more then it looks like a collection of particles. Have you also noticed that the snow doesn't fall off the tree branches when you jump on them?

2) The first and arguably the second assassins creeds were more about the stealth. If you get into combat you have some pretty boring gameplay but the stealth was really fun. In brotherhood and revelations, the devs tried to make the combat as easy as possible. That in itself is fine, the combat in the first two wasn't the best. But it sacrificed the stealth, yeah they had things that said only 50% completion if your spotted but that was really the only stealth improvement to the game apart from the weapons.

I hope that the stealth in this game is fine and the snow falls off the trees. From what I've seen, this looks like a great game.

doomspore98:
In brotherhood and revelations, the devs tried to make the combat as easy as possible.

Wait, what? Easier than the single-button combat from AC1? All you had to do was hold down a trigger and press to counter. In the later games enemies would block, grab you, counter your counter, shoot you with a gun, throw sand in your eyes or hit you with a heavy un-counterable weapon.

The combat was by no means difficult, but it was a lot more challenging than it was originally, with various tactics being employed to keep the player from doing nothing but mash the 'counter' button.

SonicWaffle:

doomspore98:
In brotherhood and revelations, the devs tried to make the combat as easy as possible.

Wait, what? Easier than the single-button combat from AC1? All you had to do was hold down a trigger and press to counter. In the later games enemies would block, grab you, counter your counter, shoot you with a gun, throw sand in your eyes or hit you with a heavy un-counterable weapon.

The combat was by no means difficult, but it was a lot more challenging than it was originally, with various tactics being employed to keep the player from doing nothing but mash the 'counter' button.

In AC1 I remember guards who could break your block and do massive damage to you really easily. In brotherhood they gave you a kill everything in a mile radius button that could and would kill everything. To me, combat got a lot easier and less frustrating, I don't know about you.

Captcha: silence is golden. hehe

SonicWaffle:

The Cheezy One:
I find it funny (well, not funny but noteworthy) that in Western games, it is so often the Russians who are crowbarred in as the bad guys (even when it defies reason, but you know this already), but in games like Stalker and Metro, from Eastern developers, it's also eastern European/Russian antagonists.

I've heard various theories on this. The one the Eastern Europeans themselves seem to favour is that they're not cissy enough to complain about their representation in video games, unlike everyone else. If this is true, maybe casting themselves as villains confirms their status as "not as pansy as the West", whether subconsciously or not.

It could also be born from a fear that American consumers won't buy a game with American bad guys. It's a lucrative market, and probably not one that developers want to offend. Extreme American stereotypes are far more prolific than actual information on the way American people behave, and the view of the world seems largely to be that the US is xenophobic and extremely protective when provoked. Thus, making America a villain would be treated by the citizenry (egged on by, for instance, Fox News) as an attack. Complaints would be made, sales would drop, reputations tarnished and so on. Making Russians the villain instead not only avoids this minefield but it plays right into the hands of post Cold War American attitudes - "We won, America rules, suck it everyone else!". There are a great many Americans alive today who were raised to think of Russia as the enemy, and many who are raising their children the same way - for instance, see how the word 'communist' has practically become a slur - so a game that plays into the leftover paranoia will likely do better than one that points out that Russians Are People Too.

I agree, but there are a couple outliers that don't quite fit. A major one: Modern Warfare. The first game's story was praised for being realistic, when the bad guys were a political party considered radical by other Russians, and for the most part Russians where the good guys - to the extent that the bad guys would take the fight to them before any westerner, albeit to spark a larger conflict. However, MW2 and 3 have been shot down for an insane story that makes no sense and depends on an enemy making an illogical and rash move.
Although, as I write this, I can see that this is actually a difference in developers perception of public opinion and the opinion itself. While your points all hit the former, the latter is never quite at the same place. Unfortunately, what should have told developers that a good game is a believable one, and a believable one consists of real, or at least possible, people and situations, it appears to have told them that we want more games set in a near future involving war with Russia. *Sigh*.

The Cheezy One:
I wonder why this is - is it part of their culture that they need to face their own demons, in the same way that western games and culture show perfection?

Perhaps. Being a Brit, I wouldn't really know. Our way is more to be self-deprecating to downplay the serious culture shock of being a former superpower, and we like to parade our faded glory, pretend that we're still great but then have a quiet, weary chuckle about it all. Quite sad really.

Though I admit, I don't see how making Russians terrorists or invaders in video games is "facing their demons". It seems more to conform to stereotypes of Russians being a threat than an attempt to understand why they might be thought of as a threat.

Brit high five! Although for us Brits, that involves inclining one's head slightly and raising an invisible cup of tea.
Well, in games from Russia and Easter Europe, the Russians aren't really terrorists or invaders, even the bad ones, but they do seem to not be hesitant about admitting that 'our country has twats, like any/every other'. It was a major plot point of MW2 that there was one (1) bad American in it, and a bunch of loyal minions. Seems a bit tame really, once you strip down the patriotism.
Although another thing came to mind - but I had to drop my mum off at the station before finishing that sentence, and I can't remember what it is. Blast it all.

The Cheezy One:
Am I over analysing this?

Thinking is always good. It's probably better to over-analyse than to under-analyse.

The Cheezy One:
Why have I never eaten a bagel?

I don't know. You should. They're very nice!

The Cheezy One:
Anyway, I'm interested in what you think of my interpretation.

Good lord, why? Even I think my opinion is nearly worthless, and I'm me!

And you are someone who spells correctly on the internet, so you are already in the top 5%. Therefore, you opinion is worth at least noting. Or maybe I'm like everyone else on the internet, crying out for my opinion to be noticed. Or maybe I'm a masochist. You decide!

The Cheezy One:
Over to you, SonicWaffle (I have eaten waffles, though)

I have not! At least, not American waffles. I've eaten Belgian waffles, but I'm under the impression that the two are different things...

I had Belian waffles while in Belgium. Not bad, very sweet. I don't think I've had American waffles though.

I actually think AC3 (or the next one) should have a karma system... Wait, don't leave in disgust!

First rule of the Assassins creed (something you'd think is kind of essential to the game) is don't kill the innocent, only those who deserve it. The poor guard watching the rooftops is hardly as deserving as the templar grand master.

The game could have moves/weapons that only incapacitate enemy soliders (e.g posion knocks you out, not kill you) meaning you can take out guards without killing them. Kill lots of 'inncoent' guards and you get negative karma and start to become feared by everyone. The side effect of this could be civilians don't help you as much, guards detect you faster, etc.

But there are some guards who deserve a knifing. Maybe they beat up civilians or destroy peoples homes. If you get close to these guards you see a little marker and if you kill them the people see you protect them, earning positive karma, earning admiration and help from civilians. Things like civilians giving you tips for a mission or more hiding spots.

This could go a way to getting away from just cutting through hundreds of grunt soldiers to kill your target in the least stealthy way possible

Use_Imagination_here:

Farther than stars:
The eagle's a nice touch; if a little overwritten. Also why do Desmond's forefathers seem to be taking out entire armies in the trailers these days? Not that I'm complaining - it looks cool as hell - but aren't assassins supposed to be precision killers as opposed to full-on tanks?

By the looks of it he was just trying to get to the leader. He cant exactly snipe him off can he?

Besides, when he got there they were retreating. One charge later morale is restored, the enemy lines are broken and hes inside the enemy lines where he can do a lot of damage. I'd say that's pretty succesfull assasinating.

I have to disagree with the terminology there. That's very effective war, but good assassination would be sneaking among the enemy lines in a soldier's outfit, precariously edging towards the commander and then inconspicuously placing a poisoned dart in his neck. That's probably more what the gameplay's going to be like anyway.

"total lack of story in the last two games"
really? I felt Revelations actually had quite a lot. Desmond has always been the less interesting part of the games but still lol

regardless, this game looks really amazing so far o.O didn't expect to be hyped or nothing, but now I'm excited it's coming out in October instead of later in November :]

Immsys:

Seriously, Native American gorilla warfare was incredibly effective

I laughed very hard at the mental image this raised.

doomspore98:
In AC1 I remember guards who could break your block and do massive damage to you really easily.

Templars, sure. However, there were only around 60 of them in the game, and they were A) usually well hidden and B) never went far from their spawn point. Most of the time you fought them one-on-one due to their tendency to be hidden in out of the way places (they were essentially the AC equivalent of GTA's hidden packages), and while they were certainly a step above the rank-and-file they had fairly standard tactics. You could beat them easily enough by mashing the attack button until you hit that sweet spot that all AC enemies have where they drop their block after a certain amount of parried strikes.

Compare them to Brotherhood's higher-ranked officers, who would kick and correspondingly dodge your kicks, could throw off grab attempts, were faster than the average, dodge backwards, and anti-counter. Or even more so, compare them to the Janisseries in Revelations; everything the Brotherhood toughies had plus tons of health, grenades, guns and skills to counter most of your moves. Even a successful counter-kill on those guys only depleted their health bar by half.

That's only considering elite mooks, too. The ordinary guards get smarter, better-armed and much more difficult to fight as the series progresses. In the original game, I used to entertain myself by going to the army camps around the desert and starting a ruckus with them all at once, safe in the knowledge that I could counter-kill them all without taking a hit. I couldn't have done that in the sequels - for one thing, you had to turn and face the person you were countering rather than it happening automatically - because I'd be swarmed and some bright spark would think to shoot me from a distance, throw a grenade at my feet, hurl dust in my eyes, grab me from behind or just use a longer spear-type weapon that was much harder to parry and counter. The combat never gets hard (AC is still a series where unless you make an effort to lose a fight, you're not going to die in combat), since counter is still very overpowered - even more overpowered, really, now you can chain your kills - and the protagonist's armour/weapons almost always pwn whatever the NPCs have, but it does get more challenging.

doomspore98:
In brotherhood they gave you a kill everything in a mile radius button that could and would kill everything.

What, the Apple? It sucked. It drained your HP and was slower than Paris Hilton doing algebra. It was way more effective not to use it, which was why when you first get it the game forces you to wield it for the rest of the segment; if it let you choose whatever weapons you liked, nobody would have used the thing. Pain in the arse, it was, hidden blades have it beaten hands-down.

Wait, so the Brits are the bad guys?
goddamit I knew this would happen, I wish Ubisoft weren't Canadian so I could bitch about this

Sushewakka:

Immsys:

Seriously, Native American gorilla warfare was incredibly effective

I laughed very hard at the mental image this raised.

Thinking about it now, i really wish if only it were true. Still feel somewhat undermined, damn you spell check for making me so reliant

SonicWaffle:

doomspore98:
In AC1 I remember guards who could break your block and do massive damage to you really easily.

Templars, sure. However, there were only around 60 of them in the game, and they were A) usually well hidden and B) never went far from their spawn point. Most of the time you fought them one-on-one due to their tendency to be hidden in out of the way places (they were essentially the AC equivalent of GTA's hidden packages), and while they were certainly a step above the rank-and-file they had fairly standard tactics. You could beat them easily enough by mashing the attack button until you hit that sweet spot that all AC enemies have where they drop their block after a certain amount of parried strikes.

Compare them to Brotherhood's higher-ranked officers, who would kick and correspondingly dodge your kicks, could throw off grab attempts, were faster than the average, dodge backwards, and anti-counter. Or even more so, compare them to the Janisseries in Revelations; everything the Brotherhood toughies had plus tons of health, grenades, guns and skills to counter most of your moves. Even a successful counter-kill on those guys only depleted their health bar by half.

That's only considering elite mooks, too. The ordinary guards get smarter, better-armed and much more difficult to fight as the series progresses. In the original game, I used to entertain myself by going to the army camps around the desert and starting a ruckus with them all at once, safe in the knowledge that I could counter-kill them all without taking a hit. I couldn't have done that in the sequels - for one thing, you had to turn and face the person you were countering rather than it happening automatically - because I'd be swarmed and some bright spark would think to shoot me from a distance, throw a grenade at my feet, hurl dust in my eyes, grab me from behind or just use a longer spear-type weapon that was much harder to parry and counter. The combat never gets hard (AC is still a series where unless you make an effort to lose a fight, you're not going to die in combat), since counter is still very overpowered - even more overpowered, really, now you can chain your kills - and the protagonist's armour/weapons almost always pwn whatever the NPCs have, but it does get more challenging.

doomspore98:
In brotherhood they gave you a kill everything in a mile radius button that could and would kill everything.

What, the Apple? It sucked. It drained your HP and was slower than Paris Hilton doing algebra. It was way more effective not to use it, which was why when you first get it the game forces you to wield it for the rest of the segment; if it let you choose whatever weapons you liked, nobody would have used the thing. Pain in the arse, it was, hidden blades have it beaten hands-down.

I'll give it to you about the soldiers tactics. But, could you kill fifteen people in about five seconds in AC1. I'm not talking about the apple, that thing sucked, I'm talking about strike first strike fast. You kill one guy and then press x (xbox version) in the general direction of an enemy and he'd be dead, didn't matter if he was a brute, commander, or hidden blade fodder. The game gives you a bonus in some levels if you kill X amount of enemies in X amount of time.

Karma168:
I actually think AC3 (or the next one) should have a karma system... Wait, don't leave in disgust!

First rule of the Assassins creed (something you'd think is kind of essential to the game) is don't kill the innocent, only those who deserve it. The poor guard watching the rooftops is hardly as deserving as the templar grand master.

The game could have moves/weapons that only incapacitate enemy soliders (e.g posion knocks you out, not kill you) meaning you can take out guards without killing them. Kill lots of 'inncoent' guards and you get negative karma and start to become feared by everyone. The side effect of this could be civilians don't help you as much, guards detect you faster, etc.

But there are some guards who deserve a knifing. Maybe they beat up civilians or destroy peoples homes. If you get close to these guards you see a little marker and if you kill them the people see you protect them, earning positive karma, earning admiration and help from civilians. Things like civilians giving you tips for a mission or more hiding spots.

This could go a way to getting away from just cutting through hundreds of grunt soldiers to kill your target in the least stealthy way possible

I never thought of it that way, but now that I am, that sounds pretty awesome.

doomspore98:
I'll give it to you about the soldiers tactics. But, could you kill fifteen people in about five seconds in AC1. I'm not talking about the apple, that thing sucked, I'm talking about strike first strike fast. You kill one guy and then press x (xbox version) in the general direction of an enemy and he'd be dead, didn't matter if he was a brute, commander, or hidden blade fodder. The game gives you a bonus in some levels if you kill X amount of enemies in X amount of time.

That's actually what I was referring to when I mentioned chaining kills. Sure, it's powerful - especially when used with the counter animation - but not that powerful. You can link a series of kills but, again, eventually some sod is going to shoot you or throw a rock or simply be out of range. In the later games you don't have the wide-open spaces of the original AC, and so getting enough people together for a long chain of these kills requires getting them to follow you out to a more open area so you've got enough to work with. Half the time you'll get attacked on your way, thanks to those little shits who can run faster than you however fast you go. Bastards.

Chain kills are mighty useful, but all-too-easy to break. You can miss, and they can be parried, usually by Janisseries. Or worse, the fuckers with the long weapons like spears and pikes; they're just too far away to bring into the combo, and when the combo fails with an aborted lunge they love to twat you in the face with their pointy stick.

Bottom line, yes the chain kills made things a little easier, but that counter-balances everything Ubisoft did to make the combat harder. "Harder" being a relative term...

The Cheezy One:
I agree, but there are a couple outliers that don't quite fit. A major one: Modern Warfare. The first game's story was praised for being realistic, when the bad guys were a political party considered radical by other Russians, and for the most part Russians where the good guys - to the extent that the bad guys would take the fight to them before any westerner, albeit to spark a larger conflict. However, MW2 and 3 have been shot down for an insane story that makes no sense and depends on an enemy making an illogical and rash move.

I'm going to admit at this point that I haven't played the MW series. I've tried playing CoD single player, I truly have, but I always get to the same point and give up; it's the bit when you have to do a bloody quicktime event to keep from getting stabbed. In WaW it was a Japense soldier with a bayonet, in Black Ops it was a Viet Cong with a knife, but both times caused me to give up on the game. As such I don't know the Modern Warfare story, though I am aware (thanks, well-publicised controversy!) that it involves Russians doing Naughty Things.

The Cheezy One:
Although, as I write this, I can see that this is actually a difference in developers perception of public opinion and the opinion itself. While your points all hit the former, the latter is never quite at the same place. Unfortunately, what should have told developers that a good game is a believable one, and a believable one consists of real, or at least possible, people and situations, it appears to have told them that we want more games set in a near future involving war with Russia. *Sigh*.

Got to disagree with you here, mate. A good game has absolutely zero relation to being believable. How likely is it that you'll go to a psychic summer camp a la Psychonauts, or that a talking Egyptian cat will challenge you to a game of Peggle? The premise may be fantastic but the gameplay is solid and enjoyable, and that's what counts.

The Cheezy One:
Brit high five! Although for us Brits, that involves inclining one's head slightly and raising an invisible cup of tea.

What ho! Let us admire one another's monocles!

The Cheezy One:
Well, in games from Russia and Easter Europe, the Russians aren't really terrorists or invaders, even the bad ones, but they do seem to not be hesitant about admitting that 'our country has twats, like any/every other'. It was a major plot point of MW2 that there was one (1) bad American in it, and a bunch of loyal minions. Seems a bit tame really, once you strip down the patriotism.

Well, plenty of games have the bad guys be Americans, but generally they are representing themselves or other organisations. Nine times out of ten, criminal organisations. It's not often you see them representing the USA itself. What I mean is that you can have a bad American or a bad Russian, but you could only have the whole of Russia (or at least the government & military) as bad guys. You could never do the same thing with the USA. Bad guy is Russian, meh. Bad guy is American, meh. Bad guy is Russia as a country, meh. Bad guy is America as a country HOLY SHIT THEY HATE AMERICA THIS GAME WAS MADE BY TERRORISTS!

The Cheezy One:
Although another thing came to mind - but I had to drop my mum off at the station before finishing that sentence, and I can't remember what it is. Blast it all.

Mummy's boy ;-)

The Cheezy One:
And you are someone who spells correctly on the internet, so you are already in the top 5%. Therefore, you opinion is worth at least noting. Or maybe I'm like everyone else on the internet, crying out for my opinion to be noticed. Or maybe I'm a masochist. You decide!

Spelling correctly is a right pain in the arse (for a perfect example, it underlines arse but not ass!) a lot of times, it seems like half the programs I use with a built-in spellchecker will automatically change words to the American spelling. I end up sending an email to someone or posting here and noticing later that I've spelt everything wrong.

The Cheezy One:
I had Belian waffles while in Belgium. Not bad, very sweet. I don't think I've had American waffles though.

I'm not really sure what the difference is, but stereotypes tell me that the Americans ones probably have way more sugar and cause you to be fat. Racial profiling is fun!

Farther than stars:

Use_Imagination_here:

Farther than stars:
The eagle's a nice touch; if a little overwritten. Also why do Desmond's forefathers seem to be taking out entire armies in the trailers these days? Not that I'm complaining - it looks cool as hell - but aren't assassins supposed to be precision killers as opposed to full-on tanks?

By the looks of it he was just trying to get to the leader. He cant exactly snipe him off can he?

Besides, when he got there they were retreating. One charge later morale is restored, the enemy lines are broken and hes inside the enemy lines where he can do a lot of damage. I'd say that's pretty succesfull assasinating.

I have to disagree with the terminology there. That's very effective war, but good assassination would be sneaking among the enemy lines in a soldier's outfit, precariously edging towards the commander and then inconspicuously placing a poisoned dart in his neck. That's probably more what the gameplay's going to be like anyway.

The definition of an Assassin is someone who kill politically important figure for money or personal reasons, it has nothing to do with stealth. Stealth is just an option that many assassin's have chosen. It has been noted however, that Connor is more aggressive then most because he feels it is the only way to show his dedication to kill his enemies considering he is half British and half Native American.

charge52:

Farther than stars:

Use_Imagination_here:
By the looks of it he was just trying to get to the leader. He cant exactly snipe him off can he?

Besides, when he got there they were retreating. One charge later morale is restored, the enemy lines are broken and hes inside the enemy lines where he can do a lot of damage. I'd say that's pretty succesfull assasinating.

I have to disagree with the terminology there. That's very effective war, but good assassination would be sneaking among the enemy lines in a soldier's outfit, precariously edging towards the commander and then inconspicuously placing a poisoned dart in his neck. That's probably more what the gameplay's going to be like anyway.

The definition of an Assassin is someone who kill politically important figure for money or personal reasons, it has nothing to do with stealth. Stealth is just an option that many assassin's have chosen. It has been noted however, that Connor is more aggressive then most because he feels it is the only way to show his dedication to kill his enemies considering he is half British and half Native American.

Using idealist symbolism to highlight his cause; that's something a soldier does, or a member of a street gang (sometimes also called a "soldier"). But I maintain that such an M.O. does not fit within the parameters of the pragmatic views that pertain to the archetype assassin. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a great character, but I just don't think he's a very good "assassin".

Farther than stars:

charge52:

Farther than stars:

I have to disagree with the terminology there. That's very effective war, but good assassination would be sneaking among the enemy lines in a soldier's outfit, precariously edging towards the commander and then inconspicuously placing a poisoned dart in his neck. That's probably more what the gameplay's going to be like anyway.

The definition of an Assassin is someone who kill politically important figure for money or personal reasons, it has nothing to do with stealth. Stealth is just an option that many assassin's have chosen. It has been noted however, that Connor is more aggressive then most because he feels it is the only way to show his dedication to kill his enemies considering he is half British and half Native American.

Using idealist symbolism to highlight his cause; that's something a soldier does, or a member of a street gang (sometimes also called a "soldier"). But I maintain that such an M.O. does not fit within the parameters of the pragmatic views that pertain to the archetype assassin. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a great character, but I just don't think he's a very good "assassin".

Well he killed his enemies and his target without getting hurt. That is very good assassination. He who can and will take down an army to kill his target and succeeds, is an incredible "assassin".

charge52:

Farther than stars:

charge52:

The definition of an Assassin is someone who kill politically important figure for money or personal reasons, it has nothing to do with stealth. Stealth is just an option that many assassin's have chosen. It has been noted however, that Connor is more aggressive then most because he feels it is the only way to show his dedication to kill his enemies considering he is half British and half Native American.

Using idealist symbolism to highlight his cause; that's something a soldier does, or a member of a street gang (sometimes also called a "soldier"). But I maintain that such an M.O. does not fit within the parameters of the pragmatic views that pertain to the archetype assassin. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a great character, but I just don't think he's a very good "assassin".

Well he killed his enemies and his target without getting hurt. That is very good assassination. He who can and will take down an army to kill his target and succeeds, is an incredible "assassin".

Just killing doesn't make you an assassin. As far as I'm concerned all he's doing in this trailer is being a soldier. A very effective soldier I'll admit, but a soldier nonetheless.

Farther than stars:

charge52:

Farther than stars:

Using idealist symbolism to highlight his cause; that's something a soldier does, or a member of a street gang (sometimes also called a "soldier"). But I maintain that such an M.O. does not fit within the parameters of the pragmatic views that pertain to the archetype assassin. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a great character, but I just don't think he's a very good "assassin".

Well he killed his enemies and his target without getting hurt. That is very good assassination. He who can and will take down an army to kill his target and succeeds, is an incredible "assassin".

Just killing doesn't make you an assassin. As far as I'm concerned all he's doing in this trailer is being a soldier. A very effective soldier I'll admit, but a soldier nonetheless.

An assassin is someone who kills politically important figures for money or personal reasons. Connor killed a British general to whom he was specifically aiming for because he was a Templar and his target. A soldier is someone who fights specifically for one army and aims to kill all the enemies, not a specific one. Connor does not fight for anyone, only for the assassin mission. Considering Connor successfully killed his target, he is a successful assassin. That is what separates a soldier from an assassin, a soldier kills all the enemies to win a battle or a war. An assassin fights and kills enemies to get to the one target, and kill him.

Farther than stars:

Use_Imagination_here:

Farther than stars:
The eagle's a nice touch; if a little overwritten. Also why do Desmond's forefathers seem to be taking out entire armies in the trailers these days? Not that I'm complaining - it looks cool as hell - but aren't assassins supposed to be precision killers as opposed to full-on tanks?

By the looks of it he was just trying to get to the leader. He cant exactly snipe him off can he?

Besides, when he got there they were retreating. One charge later morale is restored, the enemy lines are broken and hes inside the enemy lines where he can do a lot of damage. I'd say that's pretty succesfull assasinating.

I have to disagree with the terminology there. That's very effective war, but good assassination would be sneaking among the enemy lines in a soldier's outfit, precariously edging towards the commander and then inconspicuously placing a poisoned dart in his neck. That's probably more what the gameplay's going to be like anyway.

I think you're missing the point of the assasination. He could have done that and it would have been a huge blow to the enemy, but what do you think is going to affect morale more, completely ignoring the line of defense, bursting in, slaughtering a good 20 soldiers before jumping off the ground and shooting him from 15 meters away with an arrow, or sneaking in and sticking a dart to his neck? It was flashy and unnecessarily risky but that was sort of the point.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 40657)