Coming Soon To Consoles! - The Upcoming Games Thread

19192949697112

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,035
    00Agent wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The wait is excruciating. :))

    I can't even play it until the 01.Nov, cause i am going on a small vacation this Saturday.
    But i believe i will lock myself at home for a couple days as soon as i am back and play the hell out of it

    I have to wait a few days after release to play it myself as well. Even more pain! Haha.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    I expect similar scores for the new Mario as what Zelda got. Looks like wacky, imaginative fun, and you can get away with anything when it comes to Mario. ;)
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,035
    It's going to be nostalgia overload I tell you. :O
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited October 2017 Posts: 5,163
    I expect similar scores for the new Mario as what Zelda got. Looks like wacky, imaginative fun, and you can get away with anything when it comes to Mario. ;)

    Easily. anything lower than 9.0 on Metacritic would be quite a suprise, almost a disapointment even. i think it will get a lot of perfect 10's.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    00Agent wrote: »
    I expect similar scores for the new Mario as what Zelda got. Looks like wacky, imaginative fun, and you can get away with anything when it comes to Mario. ;)

    Easily. anything lower than 9.0 on Metacritic would be quite a suprise, almost a disapointment even. i think it will get a lot of perfect 10's.

    I look forward to seeing how many reviewers get death threats for giving the game anything at or below an 8.5. Poor old Jim Sterling pushed things too far with his review of Breath of the Wild so if he gives the new Mario anything less than a 9.9 he's smoked sausage.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 12,317
    Anyone else excited for this?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKph7jrC7UTI-E-Qh0FyvbePKcJPQcG4lxcJbjtqj_WhLOKMfVdeATOgZwgP4ro6m3HSBC4ssrNBzB6r3WNfJZ5gGMBrWg&time_continue=50&v=pJuh5GVkxNM

    I'm a longtime fan of the series. I was very disappointed in Unity, but I thought Syndicate was a decent step back in the right direction and I think this one is shaping up really well. It's been too long, I've missed Assassin's Creed. There was the film last year and that was okay but it didn't really satisfy my AC urge, so I'm really excited for this one.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,250
    I had such an awful time with the third installment that it pretty much killed my interest in the series. Haven't touched any installment since, and I'm OK with that. Maybe some day.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 12,317
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I had such an awful time with the third installment that it pretty much killed my interest in the series. Haven't touched any installment since, and I'm OK with that. Maybe some day.

    Do you mean Brotherhood or AC 3? Brotherhood I'm not too keen on myself because I thought the story was a bit all over the place, but I actually really liked AC 3. One of the most epic, ambitious games I've ever played.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,250
    ACIII. Toss me in the minority with those sentiments, but I've scarcely gotten as frustrated and fed up with a title as that one. If I wasn't into achievement hunting as seriously as I was at the time, I likely would've gotten rid of the game a day or two after my purchase.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Still waiting for the Jena Malone Batwoman movie that's never going to be made.Moderator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 11,849
    Since getting my PS4, I have been playing catch-up on a lot of games, the AC series included. I'm still working my way through AC: Unity, and maybe it's because most, if not all, of the wrinkles have been ironed out, I don't think it is anything like it was painted as on release.

    @Creasy47 - I didn't care for ACIII either. For a while, I threw in the towel regarding the aseries, mostly because of that game, and a little due to the Ezio trilogy, which never struck a cord with me in the way that it has for the majority of the AC fanbase. It took someone online to convince me to give ACIV: Black Flag a try, to lure me back to the series.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,250
    The one title that would likely get me back to the series is the remastered ACII - easily my favorite of the series. I'm just not sure if it's exactly the same as the base game, but with graphical improvements, or if they've tweaked/added a ton of features that could make or break the game for me.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 12,317
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The one title that would likely get me back to the series is the remastered ACII - easily my favorite of the series. I'm just not sure if it's exactly the same as the base game, but with graphical improvements, or if they've tweaked/added a ton of features that could make or break the game for me.

    I looked into it at the time and it's literally just better graphics and a copy of the two mini movies that came out (Lineage, a prequel to AC 2, and Embers, an epilogue to Ezio's story), both of which you can find for free online.

    I didn't get it because I still have my 360 and the original copies, but if you did want to play AC 2 again the remaster is probably your best bet because I'd imagine it's quite cheap by now and you do get the two sequels as well, so three games in one with better graphics isn't bad value if you don't have the old versions. If you still have the original and the means to play it though then I wouldn't bother, I didn't, it's not like the old graphics look terrible now anyway.

    @MajorDSmythe Unity wasn't buggy at all for me either and I got it on release. My problems with Unity were the story, the lack of memorable setpieces/missions (outside of the main assassinations which to be fair were very good) and the repetitive side missions. It was well made and everything, just didn't have a lot of the stuff I'd come to expect from Assassin's Creed. Probably my biggest disappointment video game wise. I liked Syndicate though.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,250
    @thelivingroyale, thanks for the information. Sadly I traded in my 360 wayyyy back when I first got my PS4, or else I'd totally go that avenue instead. Still, as you said, if I ever want it I'm sure it's pretty cheap by this point, and will only get cheaper from here on out.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    I don't know if I'm going to play the new AC. I just think I'm burnt out on the series and really, what more is there to be done? Ubisoft can take all the time they want to make these games, but you're still slinking into bushes, still doing double assassinations, still annoyingly climbing every tall structure in sight to see the full map, etc.

    AC is what AC is, but I think the IP has just had its run (10 years and an obnoxious amount of games!) and Ubi need to realize that no matter how much you try to reinvent it's all still the same experience with somewhat fresh paint (though they reuse old animations and assets all the time). I don't think it's any surprise why things have been mediocre to alright following the early Ezio games, and why Black Flag was the only real standout: it was a game that didn't feel like it was slavishly tied to the AC series or story and was allowed to really be a pirate game as much as anything. It was a freeing thing to see, Ubi just doing what they wanted to do and not just recycling the same old things.

    With Origins it's hard to tell what they are doing, or what is next. After a bunch of chronological games we're now back at the beginning again (?), and everything else seems to have been forgotten with Desmond, the modern day story, etc. I hate that stuff, but you just wonder what Ubi's game plan is, as they really are horrible when it comes to building IPs or managing existing ones. Their read on the industry and market are often faulty, and their business practices don't do them any favors.

    If I ever do play Origins it'll be through a massive sale (and on the normal version, not the gold, deluxe or collector's edition versions!). The only way I'll be back is if the locations and story get good again, but outside of that I don't care to play a game for the same old gameplay with nothing else to hook me. And this kind of thing is worth voting with your wallet over:

    61yjanSpG4L.jpg
  • I don't think the core gameplay being the same is a fair criticism. That's the same with pretty much every series, video games or otherwise (GTA, you're always stealing cars and fighting cops, COD you're always shooting people, etc) and they do add and change a lot. With the exception of Black Flag, every game since AC 3 has overhauled the combat for example, and they're always changing the parkour and adding game changing stuff like wilderness/animals, the naval stuff, etc. If you don't enjoy the core gameplay of the series that's fine but it's all subjective, that doesn't mean it's played out. I find it endlessly addictive and I like how they're always expanding on it and changing it. If you're tired of it just don't play them. It doesn't mean they're being obnoxious, they're just carrying on making them for the people who do enjoy it (supply and demand, they'll make them as long as they sell).

    I also never really understood the whole "Black Flag is good because it's a pirate game not an Assassin's Creed game" argument. All the Assassin's Creed stuff is still there and the story is still about the assassin/templar war. It's just that it's set in a pirate setting.

    They couldn't keep going chronologically because the industrial era is about as modern as they can get before it'd have to turn into a shooter (and technically they broke the whole chronological order thing with Black Flag and Rogue, both prequels). Origins is a reboot of sorts I think. With the modern day story it seemed like they didn't know what to do with it but were scared to get rid entirely (I wish they had done but oh well), and now they seem to have settled on a new protagonist and actually comitting to it again. I don't think the modern day stuff was ever necessary to begin with, I've always hated it, but I actually liked how the movie handled it so I'm keeping an open mind.

    And the locations have always been good. One thing you can't fault these games is their open worlds and attention to detail. And the modern day story is a load of crap but it barely even features anyway, and the historical stories (with the exception of Unity) are always great imo, so I'm optimistic about that too.

    It's clear that they don't have a big plan or vision in mind (although they do keep saying they have an ending they can use if they decide to), but honestly that doesn't bother me. I'm fine with them making it up as they go along as long as I'm entertained. Same with the Craig era. It's clear that SP and all the retconning wasn't planned in advance but I enjoyed it. Although if you're the type who wants to see stuff like this planned in advance, there are rumours of this one being the start of a new trilogy with Greece and Rome being next (I'm in two minds about that, my excitement will depend on how much I like the new character).

    And yeah, the whole special editions of games thing has always confused me. I just buy the normal one and I never feel that I'm missing out or don't have the full game. I wouldn't mind if the bonus stuff was actually cool, but seems like all the extra stuff is just tacked on crap like missions that take five minutes or outfits to justify the bigger price, so I never really see the point. I just buy the normal game and the story DLC (which is usually quite good, didn't play Unity's but loved Freedom Cry and the Jack The Ripper one).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    I don't think the core gameplay being the same is a fair criticism. That's the same with pretty much every series, video games or otherwise (GTA, you're always stealing cars and fighting cops, COD you're always shooting people, etc) and they do add and change a lot. With the exception of Black Flag, every game since AC 3 has overhauled the combat for example, and they're always changing the parkour and adding game changing stuff like wilderness/animals, the naval stuff, etc. If you don't enjoy the core gameplay of the series that's fine but it's all subjective, that doesn't mean it's played out. I find it endlessly addictive and I like how they're always expanding on it and changing it. If you're tired of it just don't play them. It doesn't mean they're being obnoxious, they're just carrying on making them for the people who do enjoy it (supply and demand, they'll make them as long as they sell).

    I wouldn't say AC is THAT varied from game to game. I don't think every series is rooted to the same thing, and you name GTA as an example, a series that went from top down pixel games to open world games that ramped up things with every new game, always with a new living and breathing city, with new things to do (the jump from IV to V is even crazy as far as content goes) and the combat and mechanics of the gunplay and driving are always changing, and Rockstar never reuse content in the way Ubi like to (like literally copy and pasting combat and running animations from each title to the next).

    Even the Uncharted games, which are very much rooted in a formula, always changed too; from game to game the combat always changed, as did the gunplay and the freedom of the player. 1 was very prototype but 2 added the active/playable cinematics, 3 made the combat more brawl focused and actually made the gunplay a bit too different (thankfully this was patched later) and 4 added less linear focused levels, drivable environments, even more visceral combat and shooting, and more. They are all Uncharted games, but growth and change were always happening.

    I don't feel that as strongly with the AC games, but I think that's also because the devs got forced into a cycle where they had to release a new one every year, and that has a negative impact on creativity and originality. Not to say change doesn't happen, as ACIII introduced things Black Flag took and ran with more than any of the others, but there's only so many times you can stealth kill a room of people, clumsily parkour over buildings or climb to the thousandth tower on a map to see an eagle fly around before you realize you're reached your peak of enjoyment with a series.

    I don't think the concept of the games is the issue, though they could've been made better for sure, it's more to do with the long life AC has led. The gameplay would've been fine if spread out over a handful of select games, but we've had so many AC games now and I just think the series has really extended itself beyond a point where it should as it plays by a distinct and little changing formula. Sure each new game has a new location, but they get increasingly lifeless and empty as so many open world games do, so the titles have less to draw you back.

    This is just my perspective, but I know I'm not the only one who's reached the end of their time with the AC series, or who has staled on the whole concept of it all.
    I also never really understood the whole "Black Flag is good because it's a pirate game not an Assassin's Creed game" argument. All the Assassin's Creed stuff is still there and the story is still about the assassin/templar war. It's just that it's set in a pirate setting.

    Black Flag isn't good because it's a pirate game, it's just a good game, and I didn't say it wasn't an AC game, it just didn't force itself into an AC box and lower its scope to fit that mold.

    You must admit that it's the least AC game ever, where the protagonist is a pirate for most of the game and not an assassin, and is still more of a pirate even after he's an assassin. The AC lineage is there too, but the emphasis on exploration, pirate ship battles, battling the sea life, diving, and treasure hunts are not focuses of the other games and that's what made it feel so fresh even with some AC elements like ACIII's combat and naval mechanics. Enough was different to make you stop and think you were playing something new.

    It also helped that the story wasn't in service of tying its plot line to a future/modern one for a cliffhanger or messy ret-con. Instead it allowed a story about Edward to be told, and the emphasis was placed on a greedy man learning true value throughout his experiences in a pirate run part of the world and it was the only game outside of the Ezio stuff that made me emotional because I actually cared what was going on. The modern tangles are still there, but even then Ubi flipped things on its head by burying the lead of the modern day plot as you play a faceless, naive developer stumbling onto a greater mystery that also amounts to Ubisoft being very meta with themselves (having Abstergo working as an evil organization masked as a triple-A game developer). The flips on the script, the flips on mechanics and what was really their first and only super open world game on league with other game worlds out there with no separate areas blocked by a loading screen. The world also felt truly open and alive, moreso than before.
    They couldn't keep going chronologically because the industrial era is about as modern as they can get before it'd have to turn into a shooter (and technically they broke the whole chronological order thing with Black Flag and Rogue, both prequels). Origins is a reboot of sorts I think. With the modern day story it seemed like they didn't know what to do with it but were scared to get rid entirely (I wish they had done but oh well), and now they seem to have settled on a new protagonist and actually comitting to it again. I don't think the modern day stuff was ever necessary to begin with, I've always hated it, but I actually liked how the movie handled it so I'm keeping an open mind.

    I guess so, but I think some interesting AC games could still happen after the late 1800s of Syndicate, like the revolution of Ireland leading up to 1916.

    One good thing about going to older timelines (as Origins is doing) is that difficulty could be expanded with a more back to basics approach where you must rely on relatively primitive tools to do the job. Hopefully the game utilizes that to its benefit.
    And the locations have always been good. One thing you can't fault these games is their open worlds and attention to detail. And the modern day story is a load of crap but it barely even features anyway, and the historical stories (with the exception of Unity) are always great imo, so I'm optimistic about that too.

    It's hit and miss for me, really. The game world can look good, but as with other open world games, feel empty at the same time. There's a delineation between games that are pretty to look at, and those that are transportive and feel real and alive. I don't think the early AC games nailed that too much, but the size of the games had to lead to corner cutting too. I think Black Flag felt very alive, not only with the ability to have wild life, a dynamic ocean sandbox and random events, but also by how the islanders of all the main locations created a nice atmosphere and feeling that was unique to that location. Depending on what island you were on the ruling power was different, as were the kinds of characters you'd meet, etc.

    Unity gets a lot of criticism but that may be the most "alive" AC I've played, as the crowd system was pretty stellar and the visuals and sound design really made France feel packed, densely compressed and loud. There was always some random fights for revolution erupting you could take part in, and dynamic changes to locations; some areas where princely and well furnished, while you could easily find poverty an arrondissement away. Syndicate by contrast cut crowds, lacked the dynamic and atmospheric feeling of Unity's France, and had an overall stiff and empty feeling. Even the blood effects were cut, whereas in Unity you actually felt like you were killing people, with blood that would react to how you killed the NPC, etc.
    It's clear that they don't have a big plan or vision in mind (although they do keep saying they have an ending they can use if they decide to), but honestly that doesn't bother me. I'm fine with them making it up as they go along as long as I'm entertained. Same with the Craig era. It's clear that SP and all the retconning wasn't planned in advance but I enjoyed it. Although if you're the type who wants to see stuff like this planned in advance, there are rumours of this one being the start of a new trilogy with Greece and Rome being next (I'm in two minds about that, my excitement will depend on how much I like the new character).

    I hope the rumors of the Greece/Rome trilogy aren't true. Why go back to what we already had with Ezio in that location? I would like to see a new set of games with one strong, consistent character, though, as I think what the series is missing are characters that leave an impact and that you can actually attach to. I'd have loved to see more games with Edward, even if it was just one more, as I thought he was a fascinating character and I wanted to see what his fight with the Templars amounted to when he got back to London. At least we got to see his house in Syndicate, which I did thing was cool.
  • To be fair there's a huge difference between ancient rome and renaissance rome. And the only games that have the same combat systems are Brotherhood/Revelations and III/Black Flag/Rogue. The rest are all different. I've never noticed animations being the same either except in Rogue (which wasn't the main title) and the Ezio games (and it made sense there because he's the same guy).

    I don't think Black Flag it's the "least AC ever" at all. It's told from an outsiders perspective because we'd already had loads of games from the perspective of an assassin, and of course he still joins them at the end anyway and still does all the standard AC stuff as well as being a pirate. They added different side activities like diving and harpooning and all that yes but so does every Assassin's Creed game. Is AC 3 less of an Assassin's Creed game because of the hunting? Or Syndicate because of the gang wars? Or 2 because of building up the town? The first game is the only one where all you do is assassinate people. Fun and varied sandboxes is part of what makes the series great, Black Flag isn't an exception, it fits the pattern. If you think it was executed better fair enough, it just annoys me when people make out the only reason it was a good game was because it broke the mold when really it does what they all do.

    Syndicate still had random events iirc. It doesn't feel as dynamic as Unity because it's in peace time rather than a Revolution. But like all of them, if you just stop and make him walk through the open world you'll see so much incredible detail. And I liked how different the industrial setting felt, with there actually being roads and pavements rather than crowds wandering aimlessly through the streets.

    Black Flag's islands feeling unique is nothing new either imo. The games with multiple cities always feel different right back to AC 1, and even the one big city focused games have variation through the different areas. That same thing you mention about Unity (richer areas, poorer areas) was also very obvious in Syndicate, and again that's been there since the first game (which literally had marked on the map rich districts, poor districts, etc). I don't get what you mean by "super open world game" either. There are still loading screens when you go to each area (city/carribean/the bigger islands) and that's normal, some of the biggest open worlds have loading screens (like Skyrim or Fallout when you go into a city or house or whatever).

    In terms of the story it's always modern day story bad, historical story good imo. The whole "abstergo is Ubisoft" thing still didn't make me care. I don't want to be a faceless ipad or a bland generic new yorker, I want to play the historical epic. But to be fair the modern day stuff has got less and less intrusive (I liked Unity and Syndicate's approach, just cutscenes). I think Unity is the only AC game with a poor historical story. The rest are all pretty great.

    Ezio's is still my favourite. I also thought Connors was great, it was a bit slow and suffered due to the forest gumping through the revolution (we don't need to see every single event, just the exciting stuff, sitting around in a pub discussing raising a banner or dumping some tea is not Assassin's Creed) but it really picked up after the middle sequences and had a great payoff, he definitely deserved a sequel. Edward's was really cool too but I don't think Black Flag needed a sequel, his story was done. Syndicate's didn't have the emotional weight of those other games but I liked the villain and his slow descent into insanity, the sibling dynamic, and I liked how fun and self aware it all was (something the games hadn't really been with their stories since Ezio). Unity and Brotherhood are the only weak links story wise imo but Brotherhood made up for it by being a fun game.

    The problem with the 1916 Rising or any other setting past the 1800s is the guns, cars, and the cities getting way too modern. I'm glad they went further back in time this time around. Just that it's set before the first game and any of the codes/creed/etc were established will give it an interesting flavour. I'd like to see medieval England (used to love Robin Hood when I was a kid).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    edited October 2017 Posts: 28,231
    To be fair there's a huge difference between ancient rome and renaissance rome. And the only games that have the same combat systems are Brotherhood/Revelations and III/Black Flag/Rogue. The rest are all different. I've never noticed animations being the same either except in Rogue (which wasn't the main title) and the Ezio games (and it made sense there because he's the same guy).
    I didn't know you were speaking about ancient Rome for a new trilogy, you just said Greece/Rome. Still, it's kind of been there done that, and when we haven't even gotten an AC game set in feudal Japan yet, I don't have an interest in seeing the series backtrack to locations it's already touched no matter the period. Ninjas vs. samurai next, please.

    As for the reuse of assets, just for animations you named a pretty hefty list of reuse, with five games fitting the bill even in your eyes as a fan of the series. But even in Syndicate you could see carry over from Unity in how the characters moved down to runs and climbing animations, and that's just one example. It's not a massive, game breaking deal, but every assassin/character should feel different, and when Arno and Jacob or Edward, Connor and Shay share so many animations they lack an identity of their own. With Ezio I don't take too big an issue as he would have his own style that would carry over. But different characters should feel more different than they do.
    I don't think Black Flag it's the "least AC ever" at all. It's told from an outsiders perspective because we'd already had loads of games from the perspective of an assassin, and of course he still joins them at the end anyway and still does all the standard AC stuff as well as being a pirate. They added different side activities like diving and harpooning and all that yes but so does every Assassin's Creed game. Is AC 3 less of an Assassin's Creed game because of the hunting? Or Syndicate because of the gang wars? Or 2 because of building up the town? The first game is the only one where all you do is assassinate people. Fun and varied sandboxes is part of what makes the series great, Black Flag isn't an exception, it fits the pattern. If you think it was executed better fair enough, it just annoys me when people make out the only reason it was a good game was because it broke the mold when really it does what they all do.
    Black Flag is all down to perception. We could argue about how it stacks up all day and it wouldn't matter.

    My comment about it being less of an AC game in the grand scheme is simply something I observed from looking at the series. ACI is all about being an assassin, and it's set around the early brotherhood. ACII to Revelations are all about Ezio taking on the role of an assassin and later becoming a mentor/elder of the brotherhood, managing spies and other assassins as he does so. Shay's story is again an assassin's versus Templar story, no matter how switched it is, and Connor is smack in the middle of an assassin and Templar conflict with own dad on one side. For the more recent games Unity and Syndicate both have characters with a deep family connection to the assassins and from the start of the former you're being trained into that role and for the latter you're a brother and sister who've had the assassin roles passed down through blood relation, like tradition. All those games are soaked in the tradition of being an assassin and the identity that role gives you.

    Some of that is in Black Flag, yes, but in comparison to the above, it' relatively light. Edward gets involved in the Brotherhood late in the game, and he may have the weakest connection to being an assassin out of all the others because the game doesn't begin with him as an assassin, the role doesn't get passed on to him through family, and he doesn't seek it out. He has a chance to help some people and he uses the mantle to do so, but I never get the sense that he identifies as an assassin, he's just a man who wanted to help out and stop the Templars from seizing power. The story of his life and what the game tells in its narrative is less focused on the Templar story or of him getting the ropes of being an assassin, it's largely about his pirate centric world, how the history of the time and what happened to his pirate friends affected him, and how he learned to be a man of quality beside his ship crew mostly outside of anything related to Templars.


    As for the argument that every AC game adds something, we must pay attention to the content of what's added and its relevance. AC 3's hunting isn't very relevant to me, as its impact is very small and doesn't have the kind of scope to make one think things have really stepped up (I'd have used the naval combat as a better example). Syndicate's gang wars just felt like an extension of what we saw in the Ezio games, where your forces (which were gang/brotherhood) would be rallying against the enemy or protecting your "turf" in Italy. It felt like what you'd expect to see, as it fits the AC style of building an assassin guild and using those forces in battle.

    Black Flag stood out to me not just for what was added (some of which was tweaked from III, at least with better naval stuff), but how what was added broke away from what you expected from an AC game. The content added was pirate focused, so everything in the game from the naval contracts to the pirate bounties, fortress raids of pirate strongholds, treasure hunts, diving bell missions, War ship battles, trade route coups and all the other things in the game were there to make you feel like you were taking on the identity of a pirate (not an assassin, you see?). I never thought I'd see an AC game where the focus of the role playing was so emphasized on being a pirate, as they are assassin games, and that's part of why I enjoyed it. Additionally, instead of putting content in there that felt empty or that didn't serve anything, the additional features of the game that Ubi added supported the idea that you were this skilled and daring ship captain/pirate that could do all the things a pirate could do. They made a game with that feeling and committed to it by making it feel like a pirate game with an open world style, and allowed it to be its own thing when it needed to be.
    If you think it was executed better fair enough, it just annoys me when people make out the only reason it was a good game was because it broke the mold when really it does what they all do.
    This point keeps getting brought up by you constantly, even though I and many others are quick to point out that that's not what drives our love for the game. It's refreshing to get a pirate game masquerading as an AC title, and it still feels great all these years, but it's a good game beyond how it relates to the series or whatever mold breaking it does or doesn't do.

    It was a good game because it was a good game (I'd say great or fantastic). It had great missions, great characters, great gameplay, a sense of identity and a design structure that supported the motivations of the team with the game, all things a good game needs. It showed how an open world pirate game could feel, and was so fun and immersive I put more endless hours into that game than I have 98% of others, and at one point was playing for a day straight I was so lost in it. Whether it was like other AC games or not wouldn't matter at that point, as the focus is on what works in the game and what keeps you playing. I kept playing and still hold it as a big favorite of mine, and that's got nothing to do with how it relates to the other AC games. Edward would still be a great character no matter what, the pirate ship combat would still be engaging and wild, and the open world would still be just as immersive.
    Syndicate still had random events iirc. It doesn't feel as dynamic as Unity because it's in peace time rather than a Revolution. But like all of them, if you just stop and make him walk through the open world you'll see so much incredible detail. And I liked how different the industrial setting felt, with there actually being roads and pavements rather than crowds wandering aimlessly through the streets.
    Eh, I don't agree with that. Syndicate depicted class war and a war between gangs, violence on the streets, so you'd expect to see more of an uprising and chaos if that was the general plot. But the only big scrapes you get into are in those blink and you miss it boss fights that I had to wear low gear to play for it to feel even close to a challenge. I wanted that game to be more of that, massive battles for parts of London that felt like actual gang warfare instead of isolated conflicts with diminishes crowds. There were also monarchical level assassination concerns in the game (you meet the Queen!) and wars over science and knowledge itself, so it shouldn't feel so empty of conflict or tension and risk.

    London at that time and place should've felt far more packed and alive, with more engaging crowds that weren't so stiff. For some reason it has just felt more rushed and unpolished to me than Unity, and I'd sooner go back to Unity than play it simply because it felt like it had more of an identity to itself, and at least had a good customization system and combat that was visceral and at times challenging. France felt like it was bleeding, but I don't sense a war on the streets when I play Syndicate, nor did I ever feel like I was really the leader of a gang. And that's probably because the game doesn't allow you to feel any ownership of the gang or how the gang attacks. In the Ezio games you could select who you wanted promoted to an assassin and who was sent out on missions, growing some form of familiarity to who was on your team, and you felt like a real leader because you were mentoring them and sending them to fight for your cause. With Jacob that leadership role wavered, and I still felt more of a connection to the crew I had on the Jackdaw because the game made you and the crew one as you faced giant ships throughout the campaign even if you don't get to know the members by name.
    Black Flag's islands feeling unique is nothing new either imo. The games with multiple cities always feel different right back to AC 1, and even the one big city focused games have variation through the different areas. That same thing you mention about Unity (richer areas, poorer areas) was also very obvious in Syndicate, and again that's been there since the first game (which literally had marked on the map rich districts, poor districts, etc). I don't get what you mean by "super open world game" either. There are still loading screens when you go to each area (city/carribean/the bigger islands) and that's normal, some of the biggest open worlds have loading screens (like Skyrim or Fallout when you go into a city or house or whatever).
    My comments were based far more on immersion, and how the locations were used to make you feel like you were in that time and place.

    By "super open world game" I simply meant that more than the other games Black Flag felt like an actual world you could travel in. You'd have some isolated sections in the game, but you could sail to islands on the majority of the map seamlessly and that's pretty impressive for a late PS3 title with that much in it. Considering that the other ACs were largely set around isolated cities with closed in sections you couldn't leave, what Black Flag did opened things out a lot and made the world feel more at your mercy for whatever you wanted to do. You could be on a bounty hunt and the guy you're after could race to his ship and you could get on yours and without any loading screens or cinematics you could battle him right then and there, with the dynamic world bringing other ships at you as you try to kill that target on the open seas.

    There's a feeling that, if you restarted the contract, the experience would be different every time for just that one mission. Instead of being chased by one ship, maybe you get three or four after you. Maybe you're wanted and you have two big level hunters on your tail while chasing your target, or maybe a storm starts and your target gets hit by a sea storm that sinks his vessel or wrecks yours. You just never knew what to expect, and I love that. I never get that feeling with any of the other games, even remotely.
    In terms of the story it's always modern day story bad, historical story good imo. The whole "abstergo is Ubisoft" thing still didn't make me care. I don't want to be a faceless ipad or a bland generic new yorker, I want to play the historical epic. But to be fair the modern day stuff has got less and less intrusive (I liked Unity and Syndicate's approach, just cutscenes). I think Unity is the only AC game with a poor historical story. The rest are all pretty great.

    I'd happily leave the modern day stuff too, but my point was that the Black Flag content wasn't insufferable to me like all the other stuff was. I appreciated the slow burn reveal, the doubt and mystery placed in your head, the red flags you'd get and the whole meta feel of it all. For the first and only time in the AC series, I didn't mind being pulled out for a stint in the modern world because I liked how off everything felt in that quaint little office space.
    Ezio's is still my favourite. I also thought Connors was great, it was a bit slow and suffered due to the forest gumping through the revolution (we don't need to see every single event, just the exciting stuff, sitting around in a pub discussing raising a banner or dumping some tea is not Assassin's Creed) but it really picked up after the middle sequences and had a great payoff, he definitely deserved a sequel. Edward's was really cool too but I don't think Black Flag needed a sequel, his story was done. Syndicate's didn't have the emotional weight of those other games but I liked the villain and his slow descent into insanity, the sibling dynamic, and I liked how fun and self aware it all was (something the games hadn't really been with their stories since Ezio). Unity and Brotherhood are the only weak links story wise imo but Brotherhood made up for it by being a fun game.
    You are the only person I have ever heard who likes Starrick, but more power to you. I can't remember a more disappointing or forgettable whatever he was (villain?), but there you have it. Like most of Syndicate I just said, "meh" every time he was around (which wasn't a lot, problematically). For a guy who was your gang rival you'd think the game would amount to more substantial conflicts with him than a brief and creepy dance and a double punch-up in a hidden underground space. By that point in the game I didn't even know why I was fighting him any more or why I should care anyway.

    Not to say the other AC games were great with villains, though. Outside of Cesare in Brotherhood none really stick with me, but at least the early games had Ezio and other great characters to distract from the lesser villains, just as Black Flag had a strong cast. Most of Syndicate left me cold, so there wasn't anything to distract from what didn't work. Not that it was a horrible game, it was just terribly average and unimpressive and I don't really have time or interest in average and unimpressive. A shame too, as I love the Victorian era.
  • I'm not going to reply to all of your post because it's very long and we're just going round in circles, so we can agree to disagree. But I do want to pick up on what you said about Black Flag's story.

    Edward having no connection to the Assassin's at the beginning doesn't mean it's less of an Assassin's Creed story. The game opens with him stealing an assassin's robes and taking his identity. The focus of the plot is still the pieces of eden and the Assassin/Templar war, you just have a different perspective on it with Edward not picking a side and turning the situation to his own advantage. You say it's largely away from all that stuff but literally every villain in the game is still a Templar, and Edward's goal is to find the observatory (a piece of eden). He just has his own reasons for getting involved.

    And the lack of a family connection doesn't matter at all. If anything that makes him more of an assassin imo because he wasn't just born into it and he didn't just want revenge. He saw the damage his actions had caused was ultimately won over by their ideals (this is shown when he finally understands the "everything is permitted" bit of the creed). He's the only main character to join on his own terms, with no personal goals or motivations in mind, he just thinks the assassins are doing the right thing and wants to help. And that it takes him nearly the whole game to come to that realisation makes it all the more powerful when he does imo. It's very much an Assassin's Creed story.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    Edward having no connection to the Assassin's at the beginning doesn't mean it's less of an Assassin's Creed story. The game opens with him stealing an assassin's robes and taking his identity. The focus of the plot is still the pieces of eden and the Assassin/Templar war, you just have a different perspective on it with Edward not picking a side and turning the situation to his own advantage. You say it's largely away from all that stuff but literally every villain in the game is still a Templar, and Edward's goal is to find the observatory (a piece of eden). He just has his own reasons for getting involved.

    Again, you are treating it as if I said that it wasn't an AC story, or had nothing to do with AC at all. The assassin/Templar conflict is there, but there is more beyond that than the others which are almost entirely built around some conflict between the two sides. Ezio's whole angle is going against the Templars, for example, and even newer characters like Jacob and Evie literally have the creed in their blood and it's their whole lives.

    What made Black Flag more of a departure IN COMPARISON is the fact that the story was more than just another assassins vs. Templar fight. Edward was concerned about his wife and daughter, his state in the world, and his development was more related to him as a man than as an assassin, which is barely worth mentioning. His crew and fellow pirates were more integral and relevant than any of the assassins to his life and development, and the events that really shaped his life were as much in reaction to the pirate history of the time as any Templar related incident that feels more in the background as far as salience goes.
    And the lack of a family connection doesn't matter at all. If anything that makes him more of an assassin imo because he wasn't just born into it and he didn't just want revenge. He saw the damage his actions had caused was ultimately won over by their ideals (this is shown when he finally understands the "everything is permitted" bit of the creed). He's the only main character to join on his own terms, with no personal goals or motivations in mind, he just thinks the assassins are doing the right thing and wants to help. And that it takes him nearly the whole game to come to that realisation makes it all the more powerful when he does imo. It's very much an Assassin's Creed story.

    I don't know how Edward having no connection to the assassins or his indifference to living by the creed with the loyalty and tradition of a lot of the other characters somehow makes him even more of an assassin than the rest. You've again said, "It's very much an Assassin's Creed story," as if you think I was saying that Black Flag has absolutely nothing to do with assassins at any point whatsoever, and that it's just a pirate game with nothing else going on. I've been very clear to say things like "it's the least attached" or "it's less of a focus" without saying it has no focus on that content. It's an AC game and assassin is in the title, I think we know what has to be there.

    Beyond that you've explained my side of the argument here, in a lot of ways. Edward is unconnected to assassins, doesn't follow them due to family connection or seek them out actively, and it takes him forever to become one, which is my whole point in saying the story is more than just another take on the AC formula or the usual spin. Edward is so independent that much of his development is free of the assassins, and he has more of an identity as who he is or even as a pirate captain than he ever does as an actual assassin (which would make him less of one as he doesn't care for wild commitment and doesn't live by the creed with devoutness) because in the end it's not all about that. At the end of the game Edward is honest about taking a break and not joining up with the assassins again right away, as he is motivated by other things in his life that mean more and he has roles that are more crucial and salient than all that. He stands in comparison to Altair, who was slavishly tied to the work, Ezio who again only kicked it until he was too old to do it anymore, and the other characters after them who make it their life purpose or who carry the title of assassin because their father did it before them. So, in reflection, Edward was an assassin, but he was so much more and he allowed himself to live beyond those confines in a way the others didn't get to or allow themselves to. The creed didn't rule him, and more than anything he feels like an outsider who peeked his head in and became initiated, but always remained a member of that outside world more than the inner circle even after.

    It's also telling that the important people that truly make Edward change in the game-Mary, Thatch, Anne, Adewale, Bonnet-are all connected to his life outside of being an assassin, and who fit into his time as a pirate, which the rest of the game serves to support with the historical content, gameplay additions, and overall presentation. The assassin angle is there, it's a damn AC game with the role in the title, but the story and the characters aren't tied by a leash to the series and the assassin's narrative to the same degree as the others have been.

    That's been my whole point. Black Flag is an AC game, but more than an AC game. But yes, still an AC game...with assassins. But also pirates, and more. A lot more.
  • And I don't think it is less of a focus at all is what I'm trying to say. The whole story of him bettering himself is tied directly to him joining the assassins imo. His development comes when he decides to join, until then he was on a journey of self destruction. And Mary was an assassin, as was Adewale by the end. He had other important people in his life but so did Connor for example. For me it didn't come across as him becoming a better man and helping the assassin's as a result of that, it was him realising that they had the right idea and becoming a better man when he joins, finally standing for something. I think this is also clear because of what Torres says at the end. "You wear your convictions well, they suit you". He'd turned (in his own words) from a scoungrel into a soldier, he was finally fighting out of a desire to make the world a better place rather than for his own selfish reasons.

    And I think they all develop as characters rather than just as assassins. Altair learns humility, Ezio learns that revenge won't bring his family back, Connor learns that he was naive and the world isn't black and white and that he can't save everyone, etc. And with the exception of Altair, they all have their own struggles, concerns and ties unrelated to the assassins (Connor had the persecution of his people for example).

    He was indifferent to the Creed until the end when he decided he was wrong. That he joined based soley off their ideals and a belief that they were the right cause, rather than out of personal motivation like Ezio or Connor, makes him more of an assassin imo, because he genuinely believes in their cause (Ezio did too in the end but spent a couple of decades after joining focused solely on revenge, he became an assassin for his own personal reasons). It took a long time for him to reach that point but like I said, it was a different perspective on the same story (Assassin's vs Templars).

    I also think it's worth noting that we only saw his origin story. He had assassin allies who were important to him later in life. There's a book called Forsaken, which is about Haytham, that details the end of Edward's life and shows that he worked as an assassin for years afterwards and genuinely believed in their cause. That's also why Adewale was so disgusted when he met Haytham in Rogue, he'd become everything his dad worked to stop later in life. And out of the characters you mentioned Mary was an assassin who spent the game trying to convince him that joining was the right thing to do, and Adewale eventually saw it as the right path and convinced Edward the same.

    Like I said, we can agree to disagree. But for me Black Flag isn't more than an AC story. It's just a very good one and they're almost always very good imo. I'd say that we're able to have such a long in depth conversation about this is a testament to how well the characters in these games are actually written.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,250
    EA feeds a massive load of bull on why the Star Wars game got canned:

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/10/27/viscerals-star-wars-game-wasnt-canceled-because-it-was-single-player-says-ea-exec

    Also, some plot/gameplay details regarding the title. Appears EA seemed to disagree with certain decisions, with a big one being the lack of MP:

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/10/27/canceled-visceral-star-wars-games-gameplay-story-details-revealed
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    edited October 2017 Posts: 28,231
    I worry that EA are now going to just make this game the opposite of what it was intended to be, so in a way I'm glad I wasn't looking forward to it; after the last Star Wars game got canned too, you wonder if there's a curse. And it's no shock EA didn't like the lack of MP: you can't have as many loot boxes if the game is only single-player!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,250
    I worry that EA are now going to just make this game the opposite of what it was intended to be, so in a way I'm glad I was looking forward to it; after the last Star Wars game got canned too, you wonder if there's a curse. And it's no shock EA didn't like the lack of MP: you can't have as many loot boxes if the game is only single-player!

    Oh that's exactly how it'll go. They're merely trying to downplay it all and "sweet talk" the hopes for the game now. You simply know it'll have some unnecessary, tacked-on MP to dilute the whole experience. At least some developers (looking at you, Wolfenstein: The New Colossus) are doing it right.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,796
    There is a new exciting one player card game called Solitaire out. It s insane!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    There is a new exciting one player card game called Solitaire out. It s insane!

    Is that an FPS? MMO? RPG? Can I pay to win?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    There is a new exciting one player card game called Solitaire out. It s insane!
    Oh that cutting edge game! Wow!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,796
    Bond played it in DN, way ahead of his time.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Bond played it in DN, way ahead of his time.
    Indeed. Bond had always set the standards for the future. Now we know why that game received positive reviews. A critical acclaim.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    Bond played it in DN, way ahead of his time.
    Indeed. Bond had always set the standards for the future. Now we know why that game received positive reviews. A critical acclaim.

    Fun-fact: Sean's face was placed on the head of the king in the first printing of card decks heading into 1963, in tribute to his paradigm changing use of cards in DN.
Sign In or Register to comment.