Discussion in 'Games' started by Valyn, May 14, 2010.
wait till you get to the very last Naval Mission with it's optional objectives
Just saying... you can tell the game was designed for the vastly inferior control pad/consoles, due to how breathtakingly **** the minimap interaction is, and some games are. Rather than clicking on a point on the map, I have to click and drag the map to move under my cursor. Always dumbing stuff down...
The other day my friend was talking about how awesome it would be if Ubisoft took this naval combat system and implemented it in a full naval warfare game, perhaps starting during this Colonial period and advancing to WW2 naval combat scenarios.
Ezio Auditoire >>>> Connor Kenway
If anyone is interested, the first four games are on offer today on the 360. All $9.99 except for Revelations which is $14.99 though.
I wish my aging 360 had a larger HDD. I'd buy them all to play back to back.
About this rumor in regards to a pirate themed AC4...seems kinda weird considering the last one had already skipped that time period. I guess the folks at Ubi simply fell in love with their naval combat and wanted to give folks more of that.
It must be a testament to how unpopular Connor was among fans. Gamers cared enough about Ezio after AC2 for Ubisoft to feature him and continue his story in two more games. Still, I'm very excited to be using that naval combat system again.
I would've thought this game would have to be in development for some time though.
Maybe Ubisoft realized that Connor wasn't going to be well-received during their gameplay tests of AC3?
He's not very well liked, is he?
So I decided to give Revelations another try. Needless to AC, my AC is rusty as crap. Ezio seems to have way, WAY too many gadgets on his utility belt right now and I only end up using just two or so of them at any given time. Anyhoo, I was playing this mission in DNA sequence 4 where Ezio and his buddies dress up as minstrels to prevent Sulaiman’s assassination. That mission simply provides the funniest bit in AC history, what with Ezio not being able to sing to save his life. But still, as he croaks he trashes acquaintances and former enemies with gusto. I must’ve laughed myself silly for quite a while. I’ll replay that mission again to see all he has to offer.
I didn't use any of the bombs in revelations and my smoke bombs in AC3 never worked
The lethal bombs are great for sneak kills, though. But the distraction/ noisemakers don't seem to be that effective.
I'm a bit of an OCD completionist on my first time through games, and Revelations made me open the bomb boxes every time I walked near one, as you picked up 9 bomb materials each time. Earned a ton of money selling that crap though.
To me, Connor is a much more acceptable character than Ezio. Ezio is too charismatic and flanboyant for an assassin. And the fact that the assassin's creed itself is disregarded ever since ACII only makes me dislike him even more.
That's why the first game is my favourite. It's the most faithful to the concept.
I really liked Ratonhnhake:ton as he wasn't just an Ezio clone, and I really hope they don't go that direction with Edward Kenway. Altar, Ezio and Ratonhnhake:ton are all very different characters that are motivated by very different things. It would be boring to have another Ezio character, even though he is my favourite Assassin protagonist so far (is it really a fair contest given he has three times the screen time to develop?).
I love the first game's story but the gameplay really doesn't hold up any more, making it the weakest game IMO, just because it's not as fun to play.
At least we're getting a little more Connor in this DLC, which is actually pretty awesome.
I don't know what "really" doesn't hold up gameplay-wise with the first game. If there is one thing that is consistent throughout the series is the gameplay.
I don't like Connor per se. I don't like how they handle him and the setting itself.
There isn't aside, to distinguish between colonials and red coats. Sure Connor is for the colonials, but having him actual attacking and kill colonial guards (being the reason they were for the Templars or what not), makes me scratch my head. Then there isn't any links for the meaningful events of history, which made fell like any normal mission. I don't deny it in some battles I wanted for Connor charge the British lines and slaughter the enemy, keeping the enemy entertain while the Colonials reorganized or something (or actually leading his brotherhood of assassin, between the colonial lines).
As for Connor's father, i feel disappointed with his character, I like playing him at the beginning, but later in the game, the character just was diminished to the equivalent for what i consider to nowadays a serial killer. I predicted his every move from that point onward and became one dimensional character.
It's very basic. Your only real strategy is to stand there, wait for an enemy to attack you, and counterattack. Then do that again until everyone is dead. There are 4 weapons, only one enemy type, and though the story throughout the cities is great, you're really just doing the exact same cycle 9 times over.
God help you if you want to save every citizen in the game. The actual assassinations were fantastic though, and I get through the same 9 cycles by knowing there's an awesome assassination and escape to come.
Also, Altair has no accent, which makes me sad.
I'll have to disagree with you on that.
It's not your "only real strategy", but one of them. And yes, it's not "button mashing-type" combat.
There are archers, guards, heavy guards (templars), etc... 4 weapons, yes, which in my opinion are more than enough. I certainly didn't miss a twin blade (which is for nothing more than show off) or creating 1001 bombs.
In this regard, the first game is more straight to the point. You are an assassin and your job is to get intel, explore the area and kill your targets (all of them different and in varied positions). Not getting money to open stores of your personal villa or play tower defense, for example. And the three tenets are essential for the gameplay, not ignored like in the sequels.
If there is a complaint I have is that you die when falling on water. But it's a minor fault...
If you enjoy the more bare-bones, focused experience that AC gives, that's not really something I can argue against, as that's a completely subjective opinion.
Objectively speaking, the latter games allow so much more variety, however. Crossbows, poison darts/blade, rope darts, the ability to use many different types of bombs and set traps, calling your brotherhood in to help.
The missions themselves were also given a healthy dose of variety, no longer following such a strict ruleset as the first game (visit bureau, collect 6 clues which involve eavesdropping, beating people up, collecting flags, then an assassination). Side missions in the original game involved collecting 400 flags, killing 60 Templars and saving 120 civilians, whereas the latter games keep the side missions new and interesting.
I enjoyed renovating Rome. I didn't enjoy the tower defence but fortunately it was completely optional. Rip down posters and you never have to do it apart from the one mission that introduces the mechanic.
Gameplay is fluid in the latter games, you can go on the offense and no longer have to stand there waiting for the enemies to attack one by one like lemmings (I like the stealth aspect better - trying to get through the game killing the least people possible, but when combat is mandatory it's less boring).
Ultimately though, it comes down to the variety. AC1 needed it.
Am I the only one that isn't too crazy about a pirate themed AC game? The ship mechanics in III while cool, were complicated with a lot of information being thrown at the screen. Meh, as long as it's fun and has a good story.
I'm not arguing that. I merely like the faithfulness of the first game to its title.
I'd say that combat is over simplified ever since ACII. You no longer require any technique, you can easily kill your enemies which makes it boring. Same with calling NPCs to kill people for you (where's the fun in that?).
I disagree that it was needed. People may like more variety and that's perfectly fine. I happen to dislike most of what was offered in the sequels, specially the protagonist and story.
I'm pretty sure AC1's flaws are universally known throughout the gaming community. It did it's job of introducing us to Ubisoft's new series, but it achieved little beyond that. Critics and gamers alike slammed the game for repetitive lackluster game play and missions. AC2 is generally seen as what AC1 should have been, as it improved upon AC1's ideas in every way (source: like almost every review of AC2).
I also think that claiming that the first game in a series is the most "faithful" to that series seems a bit strange. AC1 was an introduction to a series. I don't see how it's anymore "faithful" to the ideas it portrays than, say, AC2.
Of all the console AC games, the only one that doesn't seem faithful to the series is AC3. As suggested in Yahtzee's rant/review, AC3 seems to forget that it's an Assassin's Creed game and instead becomes a modern reboot of Oregon Trail.
AC1 had a great story but the game play was terrible