Assassin's Creed didn't really live up to the hype for me

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Don't get me wrong, it's a good open-world franchise. I enjoy exploring each city to complete side-quests and collect new items. If anything, I might as well say that Assassin's Creed is what might happen if you were to mix The Legend of Zelda's exploration with Metal Gear Solid's stealth.

My problems with that franchise include, but aren't limited to, the following:

1. The main-quest is too linear, and its story is mediocre.

2. The side-quests lack variety.

3. The enemy AI and combat-system are mediocre at-best, and crap at-worst.

4. Speaking of bad enemy AI, there isn't much of a need for stealth, since you can just as easily slaughter enemies with your sword like it's Dynasty Warriors or something.

5. Speaking of #'s 3 and 4, the boss-battles against each assassination target are either disappointing chase-sequences, or normal-enemy fights.

6. Some of the features are totally unnecessary, such as the economics and villa-management in Assassin's Creed II.

So really, I have to wonder, why is Assassin's Creed such a huge game-franchise? I thought Mass Effect was the better franchise, despite ME3's controversial ending. The reason is simply because its story was better due to having more characters and lore. And, while its boss-battles (most especially the Human-Reaper from ME2) can be mediocre as well...

1. The combat, quests, and collectibles in the Mass Effect trilogy are so much better than Assassin's Creed, and...

2. I'd rather have a Human-Reaper who maybe terrible but is at least stylistic, than a Templar leader who either flees like a coward or fights like a normal enemy.

With reference to #5, you're complaining because the bosses are hardly any more difficult than normal enemies? That's because they are just people, not someone who can take 3 hidden blades to the chest. What else do you expect them to be?

Also, whilst the side-quests tend to suck a bit, the Da Vinci's War Machines quests were really good, so I guess I'd expect AC:Brotherhood to not be as applicable to that point.

I don't think it's lived up to its hype, and I feel AC3 will disappoint lots of new fans of the franchise. And I also prefer Mass Effect by far as well, but I still like AC.

The open world and great climbing mechanics make the gameplay awesome, even if the parts of the story with the Godly people from another time who left the apple AHHH! God I hate those bits.

It's no doubt a good game, but people make it sound like an unforgettable experience that'll leave you awe-struck. I think it's pretty good, and I will get AC3, but if the franchise ends, I'll hardly care.

I'd say that the biggest problem with the Assassin's creed series is that it's geared toward allowing people to role-play a very specific type of character, but never gives any concrete advantage to such a play style. As such, as soon as a player decides to just murder everyone, it starts to hilariously clash with the presentation and context of the game. However, I think this is probably the answer to why the series is so popular: it's a very effective empowerment fantasy.

People enjoy the idea of walking around stealthily because they choose to, not because they need to. I must say that I had a blast in brotherhood when I ran across the rooftops, stopping for a split second to stealthily take poison dart and crossbow shots or calling my assassins, and then continuing on . It almost felt like I was less of an caped crusader and more of a force of nature. I'd say it's in many ways contrary to the idea of mechanical depth or compelling ludic narrative, but I can very easily understand the appeal.

Assassin creed could definitely be better. The game could have played the whole "I'm only on my own side" idea that's touched on in first game and "I'm in over my head" feeling of the second one a hell of a lot better by not having your character always aided by a seemingly endless legion of allies. The gameplay could feel more stealthy if your character wasn't always armed to the teeth. The combat would be more interesting if you couldn't take a billion hits before kicking the bucket. The story would be far more interesting if it focused more on interesting historical fiction and less on scif-fi mumbo jumbo that get more ridiculous as more and more of history is shoehorned into it. The story would have a hell of a lot more depth if all the villains had more of an ideology than what amounts to "For the Evulz!" Assassinations would feel better if you had way more freedom in how you carried them out.

I would have loved all of these and many more things that I could spend the next hour mentioning, but reason that I don't hate the series because of this is because it gives Assassin's Creed more mass appeal, thus making it a shared experience. Only a handful of people appreciate my awesome exploits in the original Fallout or Deus Ex. Dozens of people understand and relate when I tell them about some sort of wacky thing that happened in Assassin's Creed. This doesn't mean that I think that mass appeal is necessarily a good thing, but I don't think it's as linearly bad as some people want to make it out to be.

I think some misguided dufuses were amazed by the shiny graphics of the first game, which heralded the new generation of consoles, and they liked the idea of being a ruthless assassin. And they were proud of being told that 'assassin' as a word has historical cache.

oh my god the amount of times some 12 year old came up to me, mentally put a hand on my shoulder and said "you should be aware that the assassins were a group of young men who were told they had to kill people to gain entry to a drug-induced shangri-la pleasure garden" (though never so eloquently), I usually stuck their big toe up their left nostril if they tried that particular shirt on.

I could never get past how you could disappear into crowds by... putting your hands together... ALAKAZAM!

If people wanted to feel badass while they killed people, they should have played hitman years earlier.

disclaimer: yes i'm aware that enemies in hitman don't notice giant puddles of blood or bullet holes in helmets you might wear

bojackx:
With reference to #5, you're complaining because the bosses are hardly any more difficult than normal enemies? That's because they are just people, not someone who can take 3 hidden blades to the chest. What else do you expect them to be?

Also, whilst the side-quests tend to suck a bit, the Da Vinci's War Machines quests were really good, so I guess I'd expect AC:Brotherhood to not be as applicable to that point.

I don't think it's lived up to its hype, and I feel AC3 will disappoint lots of new fans of the franchise. And I also prefer Mass Effect by far as well, but I still like AC.

The open world and great climbing mechanics make the gameplay awesome, even if the parts of the story with the Godly people from another time who left the apple AHHH! God I hate those bits.

It's no doubt a good game, but people make it sound like an unforgettable experience that'll leave you awe-struck. I think it's pretty good, and I will get AC3, but if the franchise ends, I'll hardly care.

Thanks for agreeing with me, though you made a good counter-argument regarding the Da Vinci War Machine quests.

I never knew Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect were in direct competition with eachother.

I consider AC one of the most innovating games this generation. Unfortunately Ubisoft decided to franchise the motherloving shit out of it before the first game was even released. So due to all the overexposure, what was once a fantastic game concept has become run of the mill in less than 6 years.

What hype? A TON of people hate these games. Only 2 of its 4 entries have received a generally positive reaction (2 and B - Yes some critics liked 1, which lead to its selling well, but most gamers were not as impressed).

AC1 sold 9 million copies, and was going to be a trilogy to begin with.

Why is such a popular series? It has great, open ended gameplay. Takes full advantage of the history setting each game is put on. A quality storyline, good characters, the list goes on.

I don't get your complaint about boss battles...they aren't bosses and there isn't supposed to be a battle. You're supposed to stealthily assassinate them. I don't know how the fuck you missed that.

While Revelations really dragged on Ezio's story, 3 looks to be a very refreshing title. All that I have seen of the game so far looks amazing.

Also, comparing an Action Adventure game revolving around Assassins with a Third person RPG game about the impending doom of the Galaxy is a shit comparison.

Only half of any overall hype is developed by the publisher; the rest is by overzealous fans, or detractors, all publicity is good publicity.

I've personally loved all the AC games I've played so far, because I haven't listened either to the praise or the vitriolic 'hate' of the series; and I judged it on its own merits, and my own standards, which so happened to make it an enjoyable experience.

i should like assassins creed. it ticks all the boxes of games i normally like yet when i picked it up on the pc. dear lord did it rub me the wrong way. on my first attempt i played it to the point you are stabbed, the second attempt i made it to the city where the first assassination takes place and never went back.

i still cant work out what it was that made it a game that never grabbed me

nikki191:
i should like assassins creed. it ticks all the boxes of games i normally like yet when i picked it up on the pc. dear lord did it rub me the wrong way. on my first attempt i played it to the point you are stabbed, the second attempt i made it to the city where the first assassination takes place and never went back.

i still cant work out what it was that made it a game that never grabbed me

The controls on PC are terribly bad, I first played AC1 on a PC and while I got to the end, the combat sucked hard on a keyboard and mouse.

I suggest either a gamepad or a console. Try to push yourself to finish the first game, they do get better gameplay wise as the series progresses but the first does have a lot of problems. I replayed it a few days ago and I just did the bare minimum required to finish it, instead of all the extra shit I used to go for.

EternalNothingness:
Don't get me wrong, it's a good open-world franchise. I enjoy exploring each city to complete side-quests and collect new items. If anything, I might as well say that Assassin's Creed is what might happen if you were to mix The Legend of Zelda's exploration with Metal Gear Solid's stealth.

My problems with that franchise include, but aren't limited to, the following:

1. The main-quest is too linear, and its story is mediocre.

Well, what you'd have preferred multiple endings? a choice system in conversation? It's an open world adventure game, not an RPG. As for the story, I personally liked the idea of desmond being a framing device in 1, however it's dragged on for a bit too long and they need to give him either a small scene here or there with a larger one at the beginning and end or just kill him off and put his dad in the animus.

EternalNothingness:
2. The side-quests lack variety.

If you're talking about 1, then I agree, 4 different types of side quest which were compulsary. With the other iterations they did a much better job, introducing dedicated assassination missions in 2, the da vinci machines in broho, and revelations... well ok they were scraping the barrel a little with the tower defence bits. Why do you refer to them as side quests anyway? This is not an RPG, nor is it trying to be one.

EternalNothingness:

3. The enemy AI and combat-system are mediocre at-best, and crap at-worst.

It is too easy and really boring if you just stand there waiting to counter attack, and how they do tend to attack one at a time. But would you prefer to have to restart as soon as you get detected because combat is realistically difficult? Try killing people in fights exclusively with combo kills (hitting attack just as your sword clashes with theirs)

EternalNothingness:

4. Speaking of bad enemy AI, there isn't much of a need for stealth, since you can just as easily slaughter enemies with your sword like it's Dynasty Warriors or something.

Again, Yeah it's easy enough to do that, but where's the challenge? They aren't going to make you reload for breaking stealth, apart from with full sync bonuses of course.

EternalNothingness:

5. Speaking of #'s 3 and 4, the boss-battles against each assassination target are either disappointing chase-sequences, or normal-enemy fights.

I liked in 1 where you used the information that you had gathered to plan how you'd get in, when and how you'd strike, and how you'd escape. And boss battles? A target is going to die with one stab of a hidden blade, it's getting to them and making your getaway that's the fun part.

EternalNothingness:

6. Some of the features are totally unnecessary, such as the economics and villa-management in Assassin's Creed II.

I wouldn't think a complaint would be that there's too many features. The economics and villa management was a little bit dull and money soon became worthless, but it was nice enough that they put something in to make you feel like you were rebuilding your legacy. Also it meant you could buy some of the cool gear quicker if you felt like it, so I don't really have a problem with it.

EternalNothingness:
So really, I have to wonder, why is Assassin's Creed such a huge game-franchise? I thought Mass Effect was the better franchise, despite ME3's controversial ending. The reason is simply because its story was better due to having more characters and lore. And, while its boss-battles (most especially the Human-Reaper from ME2) can be mediocre as well...

1. The combat, quests, and collectibles in the Mass Effect trilogy are so much better than Assassin's Creed, and...

2. I'd rather have a Human-Reaper who maybe terrible but is at least stylistic, than a Templar leader who either flees like a coward or fights like a normal enemy.

Well there's your answer then. You prefer RPGs to open world action games. Plain and simple. (though how much of a true rpg mass effect is is up for debate)

They're different games and they do different things. I wouldn't say that Mass effect is a shit game compared to GTA because you can't drive cars in ME.

Cause it's fun.
I find it fun anyway.
To answer a lot of your criticisms though:
The sidequests lacking variety-

I disagree. In revelations at least, the side quests with your apprentice assassins are very varied and multi part. I loved them, they were all great, and always had something new in them.

3-4: Bad combat-

I liked the combat. It's just fun and satisfying. It's not hard, but that's not what they were going for. You're meant to be the biggest badass who ever lived who never even got hurt. It's meant to be like that.

as for useless additions, that hardly makes the game worse, just not better.

It's just the freerunning around that's fun. The movement system is so smooth and easy to use that I can play for hours and do nothing other than run from one side of Constantinople to the other, and have a lot of fun doing it.

EternalNothingness:

Thanks for agreeing with me, though you made a good counter-argument regarding the Da Vinci War Machine quests.

The issue with those types of bosses being implemented into the Assassin's Creed universe is that the game engine isn't designed for that sort of thing. Combat is clunky, boring, and repetitive, and as it stands right now any "boss" with fast, flashy attacks and defenses would absolutely wreck the player-character. If they changed around the combat engine a lot, then maybe, but (with the possible exception of AC3) right now it's just not possible.

Also, Devil May Cry, Kingdom Hearts, and Megaman bosses are still usually damage sponges who take entirely too long to kill because the idea of a "boss" fight is "super buffed enemy with maybe two or three moves that differentiate them".

In fact, I can't really think of a game except for Assassin's Creed that does do bosses in a way that aren't damage sponges.

I agree that the combat is really boring as it is just counter kill counter kill. And after 2 came out I could not go back to 1. 1 was way to boring, the traveling to cities wasn't fun and going around having to do the side quests to progress actually made me stop playing. For me the game series got really good around brohood, it added a lot of fun stuff, had interesting side missions, the assassin summon button was fun just to watch the a random assassin run up and murder some guy, also arrow storm.

Here is another problem, except this time it has less to do with Assassin's Creed, and more to do with the way I perceive Assassin's Creed. It's that whenever I hear the word "assassin", I can't help but co-relate it to "pinpoint precision," like I would most often do in Mass Effect with its Infiltrator class, and Dragon Age with its Rogue. Ironic, considering that neither of those two franchises are stealth games, but rather RPGs with more emphasis on stat-grinding and choose-your-own-adventure elements. Unfortunately, when it comes to Assassin's Creed, it's so damn difficult for me to pair "assassin" with "pinpoint precision", like I would in two BioWare RPGs that are not stealth-games like the AC franchise. Why I'm that way, I have no idea.

Linear main quest is not an objectively negative trait. Therefore #1 is invalid.

I'll grant you #2, if you're talking about the first game. Otherwise, I'd have to respectfully disagree. There are a TON of different side quests, from races, to collect-a-thons, to stealth missions, to "The truth", to the templar artifact missions.

As for #3, it really depends on your point of comparison. If you're talking about other open-world games, I'd say it's better than most. I mean the AI in GTA, skyrim, etc is atrocious. But if you're talking about Mass Effect, where each of the encounters are scripted and instanced rather than dynamic, then you're correct. That's the advantage of instanced sequences. Congratulations on making that observation.

#4...You cannot go windmill like dynasty warriors. That's ridiculous. You can certainly take on a lot of people, but it's more of an annoying parry/counter system rather than simply "lay them waste". It's annoying enough to where stealth is rewarding so you won't have to sword fight.

#5...There are no boss battles. There are targets. The goal is to assassinate them, preferably with minimal resistance. They are regular people, not "bosses". Not like the "humans" in Uncharted who for some reason can absorb infinity headshots with a sniper rifle.

#6...You're complaining about having too much to do. I am Jack's total lack of sympathy.

So, what is the point of this thread? You like Mass Effect better than Assassin's Creed?

That's neat.

EternalNothingness:
Here is another problem, except this time it has less to do with Assassin's Creed, and more to do with the way I perceive Assassin's Creed. It's that whenever I hear the word "assassin", I can't help but co-relate it to "pinpoint precision," like I would most often do in Mass Effect with its Infiltrator class, and Dragon Age with its Rogue. Ironic, considering that neither of those two franchises are stealth games, but rather RPGs with more emphasis on stat-grinding and choose-your-own-adventure elements. Unfortunately, when it comes to Assassin's Creed, it's so damn difficult for me to pair "assassin" with "pinpoint precision", like I would in two BioWare RPGs that are not stealth-games like the AC franchise. Why I'm that way, I have no idea.

It's all in how you play it. I play video games all the time, I'm good at them, but I'm also a big DnD player. So while I would have no problem massacring my way through town (and I have for fun sometimes) I still like to purposely limit my options to fit in with a more assassin-type character. Doing my level best to not get detected, and when I am I try to avoid rather than engage, even though I could easily cut my way through them.

I feel the earlier AC and to a lesser extent it's sequels required a bit of effort on the part of the player to be an "assassin". That's why I liked it any way. The first assassination is a good example of the best part of that game, sneak in, stab, get out before the guards gathered themselves enough to pursue, and lay low until it all blows over.

Other good things are:

the counter kill animations are fantastic and brutal, just try using the dagger in AC1 in battles. One of my favourite parts of the game right there.

The free-running system was revolutionary, I have yet to see a game that can match it. (if you know one please name it, I'd love to play it)

A linear story is not an immediate negative. In fact I quite like how the story and framing device interacted. And how you had to be sneaky in the out-of-animus sections to get the whole story. (IE spying on your captors from the bathroom after your first session, Stealing lacy's pen after the 3rd(?) session.) It was brilliant, as was the way the story explored the two sides of the crusades.

Games NEVER live up to the hype.

Fable, anyone?

Duke Nukem Forever, anyone?

If you buy into the hype of a game, you will always lose.

The original Assassins' Creed sucks compared to AC2 onwards.

captcha: urban myth - A game that lives up to it's hype.

I've never really understood why the Assassin's Creed games are considered stealthy, there is usually very little stealth in them, i hope AC3 will change that.

Congratulations on having an opinion? I'm not entirely sure why you made this thread. Obviously we all have opinions and its kind of pointless to argue on what someone thinks of a game. I may think one thing works and you may think it doesn't and we're both 'right'. So I don't really see much to talk about besides maybe disagree on points you made, although its less a discussion and more just posting opposite opinions on subjective issue. I guess that's what a discussion is, but it still seems kind of shallow.

Anyways, I like the Assassin's Creed games. I find the main problem with them is that they try to do everything and wind up kind of fail at some things or creating schizophrenic gameplay. I think if they had more focus and branched there diverse gameplay into separate games then the games would be better.

Assasins Creed 1 was pretty much an interesting experience. Flawed, but interesting. Everything was about the assassination. You gather information about your target and the layout of the area. It didn't really succeeded. However, AC1 made one thing that I never felt in any other game. Right after you killed your target, you had to run for it. Escaping felt like one of my best gaming experiences. You could escape, but you had to stay hidden while you made your way back to your hideout. The sounds of bells with the song below was a perfect mix with the gameplay.

And the rest was pretty much "ok" at best.

No other AC game created this feeling. However, AC2 had amazing cities and fun diversions. Running and jumping felt great in AC2 because it always felt fluid.

AC:brotherhood, in my opinion, felt like a step backward. You were stuck in Rome. Rome was the most boring place ever. Every building felt like they were in the way. You know a city is bad when you feel it tedious in a game about jumping off buildings. Thank god the multiplayer was interesting.

AC: Revelations was another awkward step in another bizarre directions. The story was...well..there was one. The templar invasion minigame was weird. Although, I kinda like the idea of templar fighting back when you capture their stuff. I will defend to death though that AC;R had the best dungeons in the whole series. Istanbul was a bit of a step up of Rome, but not that much. Ziplines were fun though.

When combat is so mind numbingly easy like that, not only does it get boring REAL fast, but it also defeats the purpose of trying to be stealthy.

I watched my friend play it for a little bit and knew right away it wasn't for me. More action games need to take some cues (regarding gameplay) from Dark/Demons Souls and Severance: Blade of Darkness, not Dynasty Warriors, FFS.

I could see these AC games being enjoyable if they had an actual good combat system and missions that weren't repetitive.

I love the Assassin's Creed games in spite of their flaws. It's fun to stab dudes, especially if you can choose when, where, and how each dude should be stabbed. Also the freerunning is amazing.

And I stick with my opinion that Ezio's Family is one of the best tracks in video game history.

I've yet to see any actual stealth on an assassin's creed game, that one always bothered me. And the chase scenes, BY GOD, at least once i'd like to be able to actually catch someone on the chase itself.

Supposedly the combat was supposed to be much more difficult. I read somewhere before the first game came out that a single hit to the head would be fatal for you. I think they probably changed that when they made the zerg-rush ending sequence and realized that it would be too challenging. As a result, there wasn't much reason to use all those running and hiding techniques. The only time evasion ever occurs to me is when I'm filling out the faction TO DO lists in the later games. Way to go Ubisoft, you've made a stealth game that encourages people to get detected for the sole purpose of evading pursuers.

The investigations would have felt more like investigations in the first game if the map hadn't told us exactly where to go to find everything. It made Eagle Vision completely pointless, to the point where I forgot about it. This only caused further aggravation at the end of the game because I just wandered around forever without thinking to use it.

I think my biggest problems with it were that it wasn't Thief, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, or Hitman. That and I found the first one incredibly dull, someting that seems to happen with every second open world game. The second one lost me about tem minutes in when I realized that my completely compatible controller, which was listed in the controller options had the buttons incorrectly mapped.

I'm planning on giving it, and maybe even Batman: AA a second chance when I get my not a HTPC livingroom PC setup (ran out of money for the TV tuner and case when I spent it on Headphones instead). I don't hold out much hope of it being great (because Ubisoft) but maybe I'll find it passable. In any event I preferred The Saboteur.

L34dP1LL:
I've yet to see any actual stealth on an assassin's creed game, that one always bothered me. And the chase scenes, BY GOD, at least once i'd like to be able to actually catch someone on the chase itself.

All of them feature stealth. All of them. You would have used it multiple times throughout the games. It's called crowd stealth. Why is that so fucking hard for people to understand? Stealth is always about lurking in the shadows, they pointed this out with AC1 during their presentations "it's all about blending in with the crowd".

EternalNothingness:
Here is another problem, except this time it has less to do with Assassin's Creed, and more to do with the way I perceive Assassin's Creed. It's that whenever I hear the word "assassin", I can't help but co-relate it to "pinpoint precision," like I would most often do in Mass Effect with its Infiltrator class, and Dragon Age with its Rogue. Ironic, considering that neither of those two franchises are stealth games, but rather RPGs with more emphasis on stat-grinding and choose-your-own-adventure elements. Unfortunately, when it comes to Assassin's Creed, it's so damn difficult for me to pair "assassin" with "pinpoint precision", like I would in two BioWare RPGs that are not stealth-games like the AC franchise. Why I'm that way, I have no idea.

Again, why are you comparing an action adventure game with a sandbox environment to a heavily scripted RPG? We get it, you have a thing for Bioware. It seems to be the only reason you made this thread.

Are you talking about the first one? If so, than you've listed off almost every complaint that people have complained about. It's a game that hasn't aged well, because other games have picked up it's formula and improved it.

I enjoyed the first game... even with its obvious flaws. I thought the game played more like a movie with certain interactive features.. like stabbing.

My major problem came in Assassin's Creed II ... the damn camera angle changes when you enter a mid air turn or something else of that nature... this would not be such a bad thing if ALL the controls didn't realign themselves to the new camera angle immediately. For instance you jump and turning to the right.. the camera angle changes and now I am holding down the wrong keys completely and I fly off in completely the wrong direction. Spent more time battling the damn camera than I did enemies.

Jesus Christ, I never thought I'd be agreeing with EN. Apart from the whole random comparison to Mass Effect and usual absurd commentary, of course.

One of the things the first one got right was giving you incentive to run instead of murdering everyone in the city when you were exposed. Combat was slow and clunky and even though you could fight off 100 guards, it would take two hours and your best option was running away.

Also, I don't see how "the story is linear" is a problem. What's wrong with the developers having exactly one story that they want to tell? I'm sorry Assassin's Creed is not an RPG, but you can't fault a game for not being the type of game you wanted it to be.

Assassin's Creed has no boss fights. It has assassination targets. If you fuck it up, expose yourself, and have to kill them in a sword fight, that's on you, not the game. Later games decided to take the option away from you and tell you exactly how they needed to be killed, so fuck them for that reason.

Otherwise I consider your criticisms valid points upon which the series could improve. City renovation can go die in a fire.

McMullen:
Supposedly the combat was supposed to be much more difficult. I read somewhere before the first game came out that a single hit to the head would be fatal for you. I think they probably changed that when they made the zerg-rush ending sequence and realized that it would be too challenging. As a result, there wasn't much reason to use all those running and hiding techniques. The only time evasion ever occurs to me is when I'm filling out the faction TO DO lists in the later games. Way to go Ubisoft, you've made a stealth game that encourages people to get detected for the sole purpose of evading pursuers.

The investigations would have felt more like investigations in the first game if the map hadn't told us exactly where to go to find everything. It made Eagle Vision completely pointless, to the point where I forgot about it. This only caused further aggravation at the end of the game because I just wandered around forever without thinking to use it.

I read somewhere that the entire HUD was supposed to be gone and you were supposed find your own way around the city, checking your full map occasionally as you synced view points. Apparently that didn't go over well in focus testing, so they added the HUD elements, but there is the option to turn them off. I played through it like that once, and I highly recommend it. It completely changes the game. Investigation information becomes valuable, you start learning landmarks, and you really have to take time to just get to know each district.

imahobbit4062:

EternalNothingness:
Here is another problem, except this time it has less to do with Assassin's Creed, and more to do with the way I perceive Assassin's Creed. It's that whenever I hear the word "assassin", I can't help but co-relate it to "pinpoint precision," like I would most often do in Mass Effect with its Infiltrator class, and Dragon Age with its Rogue. Ironic, considering that neither of those two franchises are stealth games, but rather RPGs with more emphasis on stat-grinding and choose-your-own-adventure elements. Unfortunately, when it comes to Assassin's Creed, it's so damn difficult for me to pair "assassin" with "pinpoint precision", like I would in two BioWare RPGs that are not stealth-games like the AC franchise. Why I'm that way, I have no idea.

Again, why are you comparing an action adventure game with a sandbox environment to a heavily scripted RPG? We get it, you have a thing for Bioware. It seems to be the only reason you made this thread.

The reason is because I often feel that Mass Effect's Infiltrator class, and Dragon Age's Rogue class, do a better job at making me feel like an assassin than the Assassin's Creed franchise.

Though if anything, in an RPG, being a Rogue doesn't so much mean "pinpoint precision," so much as it actually means combining the Warrior's physical prowess with the Mage's intelligence. Whereas the Warrior overpowers his enemies and the Mage outsmarts them, the Rogue would instead mix brains with brawn to do both. The Rogue can also equip medium-weight equipment, which is in-between the Warrior's heavyweight equipment, and the Mage's lightweight equipment.

Long story short, the Rogue is a true hybrid class, balanced between the Warrior's brawn and the Mage's brains, but the best with neither compared to the other two classes!

Who knows, maybe if I were to take that new, aforementioned line of thinking I've developed on my own, and apply it to not only Assassin's Creed, but also to Dragon Age and Mass Effect, I might be able to enjoy that open-world stealth franchise for what it is.

imahobbit4062:

L34dP1LL:
I've yet to see any actual stealth on an assassin's creed game, that one always bothered me. And the chase scenes, BY GOD, at least once i'd like to be able to actually catch someone on the chase itself.

All of them feature stealth. All of them. You would have used it multiple times throughout the games. It's called crowd stealth. Why is that so fucking hard for people to understand? Stealth is always about lurking in the shadows, they pointed this out with AC1 during their presentations "it's all about blending in with the crowd".

EternalNothingness:
Here is another problem, except this time it has less to do with Assassin's Creed, and more to do with the way I perceive Assassin's Creed. It's that whenever I hear the word "assassin", I can't help but co-relate it to "pinpoint precision," like I would most often do in Mass Effect with its Infiltrator class, and Dragon Age with its Rogue. Ironic, considering that neither of those two franchises are stealth games, but rather RPGs with more emphasis on stat-grinding and choose-your-own-adventure elements. Unfortunately, when it comes to Assassin's Creed, it's so damn difficult for me to pair "assassin" with "pinpoint precision", like I would in two BioWare RPGs that are not stealth-games like the AC franchise. Why I'm that way, I have no idea.

Again, why are you comparing an action adventure game with a sandbox environment to a heavily scripted RPG? We get it, you have a thing for Bioware. It seems to be the only reason you made this thread.

image

"I honestly cannot spot the assassin" C'mon man, crowd blending looks plain silly when you are armed to the teeth, and are dressed in the most flamboyant fashion possible. IMO it could work better if you could use eagle vision to find spots within a crowd where you wouldn't stand out so much, kinda like in AC1, at least you had the hood like the monks and assumed a praying position, instead of a gimmicky desaturation when you are hidden.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked