This game - in my opinion - is boring

#11Hash062Posted 2/4/2013 7:54:08 AM
This game is in no way worth even half the price they are asking for it and I didn't even talk about the bugs

But... but... look at DEM graphics!!1 Aren't they cool??

... Welcome to the HD era.
#12gobuffalo30Posted 2/4/2013 8:00:53 AM
I think part of the problem is there's really no assassin order any more. It's just Connor, who really doesn't care about being an assassin. He's about protecting his people and then he jumps to killing templars because they're templars, back and forth, but it's not an assassins vs templars game.

The missions are boring as well, with a lot of the missions doing a cutscene, then go to some spot, and either retrieve something or another cutscene. Should have just made it all one cutscene.
#13cdmartinusPosted 2/4/2013 8:29:55 AM
Dragon Nexus posted...
Another issue is the demise of the brotherhood. I just feel like some schmuck in the costume, I don't feel like I've been brought into the fold, a single member of a larger organisation. Ezio had a similar issue for a little while, but it soon became apparent there were more of you.


This is exactly one of the main problems I had with the game. With Altair and Ezio you felt like you were joining some ancient established order and carrying on a tradition. The Assassins Guild were something to be feared and respected. But this feels more like you joining a club that disbanded a long time ago, save for some old man who doesn't want to talk about it. All Connor really knows about the guild he has been told by Achilles, who could very well be talking a load of rubbish as far as Connor knows. Connor never seems to be bothered about the order he is joining or anything about their history, he is only concerned in killing Charles Lee. Ezio was respectful of his heritage (most likely because of his fathers involvement) and was even driven to discover what happened to Altair. Ezio is mentioned briefly by Achilles and then never again, which seems a shame considering his impact on the guild and the story.

The Templar's of this era also seem to be people who hold some level of status in the world however this pales in comparison to the main villain of the Ezio trilogy being the Pope and his crazy family. These ones seem to skulk about in shadows more and try to manipulate other non-Templars who hold higher positions into doing what they want, rather than simply doing it themselves.

I'm hoping that when (and lets face it, it will eventually happen, if anything due to the monetary gain from the games so far) they make Assassins Creed 4, they go back to a much earlier period in history allowing them more flexibility in choosing future eras to set the games in. Having characters like Washington and Franklin in the game meant that they couldn't make the most powerful figures in the game the villains, which I felt worked very well for the Ezio trilogy.
---
Xbox GT: cdmartinus
#14SheepinatorPosted 2/4/2013 8:38:20 AM
cdmartinus posted...
This is exactly one of the main problems I had with the game. With Altair and Ezio you felt like you were joining some ancient established order and carrying on a tradition. The Assassins Guild were something to be feared and respected. But this feels more like you joining a club that disbanded a long time ago, save for some old man who doesn't want to talk about it. All Connor really knows about the guild he has been told by Achilles, who could very well be talking a load of rubbish as far as Connor knows. Connor never seems to be bothered about the order he is joining or anything about their history, he is only concerned in killing Charles Lee. Ezio was respectful of his heritage (most likely because of his fathers involvement) and was even driven to discover what happened to Altair. Ezio is mentioned briefly by Achilles and then never again, which seems a shame considering his impact on the guild and the story.

The Templar's of this era also seem to be people who hold some level of status in the world however this pales in comparison to the main villain of the Ezio trilogy being the Pope and his crazy family. These ones seem to skulk about in shadows more and try to manipulate other non-Templars who hold higher positions into doing what they want, rather than simply doing it themselves.

Great points. Then combine this with the imperfect game design choices (too long and boring intro which also didn't adequately explain some new features, boring combat, hiding spots no longer marked on map, fewer groups of civilians to blend with, linear and often very simple missions, multiple bugs). The new ship combat was fantastic though, the lone bright spot here.

The thing with the mission design is Ubi taking the easy road. It's far easier to create, test and tune a simple linear mission than to fill a sandbox area with a goal and more player choices. They probably also feel it's more handholding for the, I won't use the term casual, I'll say mass market audience. Not unlike the way some other big franchises tend to be easier on Normal difficulty than other games, because they know they plan to hit a wider market.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#15Dragon NexusPosted 2/4/2013 6:05:18 PM
From: Sheepinator | #014
The thing with the mission design is Ubi taking the easy road. It's far easier to create, test and tune a simple linear mission than to fill a sandbox area with a goal and more player choices.


I had a thought the other day that maybe they took the easy route with the setting too.
It surely has to be easier to find American accented and British accented actors rather than actors who can do Italian and Arabic accents whilst speaking english.

What bugged me all of a sudden was in sequence 7 when you're boarding the ships.
The optional tasks made sense in Brotherhood and such. I liked the idea that you were getting full synchronisation because you're completing the task exactly how Ezio did. You assassinated the guy from the air, not just getting into a fight with him and running him through or whatever. Ezio wouldn't have screwed up necessarily, he'd be well trained and able to hit his mark perfectly. With AC3 a lot of the side missions seem kinda token and designed as a gameplay mechanic to add challenge. Going back to my example, one optional was to not be detected on the boats. Makes sense. The other was to air assassinate a grenadeer. Why? Why would Connor need to do that? Why would he leap on some random granadeer from a small stack of boxes to kill him when it would make much more sense to yank him overboard when he stands in the right spot (which he does frequently).

It was made to add challenge, not to keep with the idea of "doing it how Connor would have done it." and it makes for some frustrating gameplay when you need to go out of your way to do something that doesn't help with the mission at all. You could kill the two patrolling guards, slip onto the boat, plant the explosives and be away easilly, but instead I have to practically clear the boat of anyone then set myself up to kill this guy from above, wasting time while the town is attacked by the ships.
---
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never be sure if they're true" - Abraham Lincoln
#16SunDevil77Posted 2/4/2013 9:55:41 PM
I might take your opinion a little more seriously if you fit another "dude" in there somewhere.
---
Royal with Cheese. What do they call a Big Mac? Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it Le Big Mac.
#17Last VampirePosted 2/5/2013 12:56:04 AM
My problem with it is that it brings back the whole separate zones thing. My favorite games were Brotherhood and Revelations, because there was the one city, and everything was there and that was it.

I really really hate the Frontier/Homestead. Everything should be in Boston, imo. When you just have the one area, you can focus on it and make it great. Boston sucks in this game, and i think it's because there's too much attention on too many places.

It creates a lack of focus, which I think is the biggest problem with AC3.

Also, running through trees sucks. Experiment tried and failed.
---
[Exit, pursued by a bear.]
GT:
LafayetteV
#18SLucky23Posted 2/5/2013 10:31:56 AM
From my own experience, my biggest problem was expecting Connor to live up to the character who preceeded him, and that wasn't a fair expectation. Ezio, in my opinion, was one of the greatest characters in any video game, ever. We were literally able to follow his life from his birth to his death, and just about everything in between. And if you're anything like me, you came to love the character. I was sad to see him go.

It took a second play-through of this game for me to realize my error. Connor is a great character in his own right. He's just nothing like Ezio. Ezio wore his heart on his sleeve. He openly displayed his emotions, from his heartbreaks to joys, and even his love. It was easy to relate to him, to understand his reactions to certain incidents and certain circumstances. Connor is just not like that. He has a hard shell, a shield for his emotions that can be as equally respected as Ezio's openness.

By the end of my second play-through, I had developed a very strong liking for Connor's character. I really hope they don't scratch him just yet. I'd like for them to develop him further, and see his story through.
#19jay7018Posted 2/7/2013 9:57:24 AM
I feel bad for saying this but i agree i was just bored. I feel like they just put crap in the game to make it longer for the sake of being longer. Wasnt that i hated the game i just got bored
---
The Official Pimp Hand of the Tampa Bay Rays...
#20Rob_IndahoodPosted 2/7/2013 11:31:50 AM
Dragon Nexus posted...
From: Sheepinator | #014
The thing with the mission design is Ubi taking the easy road. It's far easier to create, test and tune a simple linear mission than to fill a sandbox area with a goal and more player choices.


I had a thought the other day that maybe they took the easy route with the setting too.
It surely has to be easier to find American accented and British accented actors rather than actors who can do Italian and Arabic accents whilst speaking english.

What bugged me all of a sudden was in sequence 7 when you're boarding the ships.
The optional tasks made sense in Brotherhood and such. I liked the idea that you were getting full synchronisation because you're completing the task exactly how Ezio did. You assassinated the guy from the air, not just getting into a fight with him and running him through or whatever. Ezio wouldn't have screwed up necessarily, he'd be well trained and able to hit his mark perfectly. With AC3 a lot of the side missions seem kinda token and designed as a gameplay mechanic to add challenge. Going back to my example, one optional was to not be detected on the boats. Makes sense. The other was to air assassinate a grenadeer. Why? Why would Connor need to do that? Why would he leap on some random granadeer from a small stack of boxes to kill him when it would make much more sense to yank him overboard when he stands in the right spot (which he does frequently).

It was made to add challenge, not to keep with the idea of "doing it how Connor would have done it." and it makes for some frustrating gameplay when you need to go out of your way to do something that doesn't help with the mission at all. You could kill the two patrolling guards, slip onto the boat, plant the explosives and be away easilly, but instead I have to practically clear the boat of anyone then set myself up to kill this guy from above, wasting time while the town is attacked by the ships.


For the very first paragraph....yeah no. I've seen a lot of behind the scenes videos on the production of the setting, languages, etc. I can tell you that they did not cut corners when producing the setting. On top of their attention to authenticity of cities during the era the game is set, they made sure that all forms of dialect were correct as well. You'll hear people on the street speak in an archaic form of, not English English, but colonial English. And you want to talk about dialects that are hard to get people for? Try one of the most scarce races I can think of: Native Americans.

Otherwise I agree with the points of the optional objectives. They were realistic in Brotherhood. And then Revelations came around, and started mucking it up with its "stealth" objectives. I remember one objective in Brotherhood that was perfect. Where you have to escort this wounded thief through the streets and avoid guards. The optional objective was to not get into open conflict. And it was fun and relatively easy to do. You felt like an Assassin who blends in with crowds, and is showing a younger guy how to accomplish this right.

As for Connor's character? Really, if Ubisoft did not cut the soliloquy that he was suppose to have at the end of the game. I think people would have seen him in a different light. He was one of the only Assassins to bother trying to unite with the Templars to create a better world. That they could be so much stronger together. And despite all that's happened, he still has the strength to go forward with his ideals. And the conviction to know that, even if he should not see the fruits of his labor, he will try none the less. He has the makings of a great character, people just need to see that, and Ubisoft needs to get him more chances.
---
GT: Warhound07