Assassins Creed III - trailer released.
- Thread starter Swordmaster
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Pfft. He should've dual-classed as Ranger/Ranger. -> http://www.nuklearpower.com/2009/01/27/episode-1087-exalted-feat/Lord Tim said:
Ringwraith #5 said:
Unamusing and barely relevant.
On topic, doesn't anyone else think the story is getting kind of dragged-out, especially on the Desmond end of things? "Oh Desmond, despite the fact that we've scoured nearly every inch of your brain for the answers we need, it turns out there's still more mysteries and you need to strap yourself in the machine for a fifth time!".
Getting dragged-out? The Desmond story was retarded and redundant even the first time around.Vermillion_Hawk said:
I just hope they resume the new Prince of Persia series after this release.
'Tis a bit correct if you just look at the latest release for the Sands of Time setting. However, the one that has its setting in Zoroastrian mythology seemed promising to me. I very much liked the dialogues between the girl and the main character, the music and the graphic style as well.
Yeah, those were the good points. But the rest of the game was rather mediocre IMO, including enemy variety, combat mechanics, parkour mechanics, level design, and pretty much everything else. It wasn't a complete piece of crap, but it was nowhere near the brilliance of Sands of Time. As you said, promising, but I felt it failed to deliver.
Though I did like the fact that it had a big open world that you could wander around in as you pleased rather than a linear sequence of levels like the Sands of Time series. That's always a plus. Often when playing a good but linear game with interesting gameplay mechanics I find myself thinking "damn, too bad this isn't a big sandbox game that you can keep playing indefinitely".
Though I did like the fact that it had a big open world that you could wander around in as you pleased rather than a linear sequence of levels like the Sands of Time series. That's always a plus. Often when playing a good but linear game with interesting gameplay mechanics I find myself thinking "damn, too bad this isn't a big sandbox game that you can keep playing indefinitely".
Well, look at Assassin's Creed 1 and then the second game. I believe they can make up the weak bits and can improve the game far more than expected.
Eh, not a good example IMO. Yes, they improved the gameplay massively, but other aspects suffered. They went from a main character that underwent some, albeit limited, character development to one that underwent none at all. Altair was trying to redeem himself after his arrogance caused the death of a fellow assassin and in the process he became a different man (as another character puts it). Ezio? Well he wants revenge... and then at the end when he can have it he walks away for no reason. They went from interesting and fleshed out villains with a motivation to cartoonishly evil ones. The Templars in the first game were all bitter and disillusioned from the brutal war over the Holy Land and so they thought if God won't make the world a good place to live, they'd do it themselves using ancient alien technology. The Templars in AC2? ****, I played that game through like three times and I still haven't got a clue what the hell they were trying to do. The AC series started out flawed and then the bad bits got better and the good bits got worse.
The thing about PoP is that the first game had it all. Interesting story, likeable characters, good gameplay, fantastic world design, etc. Then the sequels started getting progressively worse, every subsequent game was worse than the previous one. Is it possible that they might make a new PoP game and make it better than a previous one? In theory, yes. But they've tried four times already and failed every time, and the AC series hasn't managed to nail it even once yet. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
The thing about PoP is that the first game had it all. Interesting story, likeable characters, good gameplay, fantastic world design, etc. Then the sequels started getting progressively worse, every subsequent game was worse than the previous one. Is it possible that they might make a new PoP game and make it better than a previous one? In theory, yes. But they've tried four times already and failed every time, and the AC series hasn't managed to nail it even once yet. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
Ringwraith #5 said:
I think in those cases one precludes the other. Much of the attraction to Sands of Time came from the fact that it had great level desgn and the puzzles were all very well thought-out and in conjunction with the environment surrounding you. Translating that into an open-world game means you have to sacrifice some elements of that that can only be achieved through linear progression, thus weakening the quality of the game overall.
Also, Warrior Within was good, I just disliked the radical personality shift that the Prince had in that game.
Vermillion_Hawk said:
How so? I would think his personally shift was quite realistic considering the situation he was in. In the first game he was young and arrogant. He made a mistake, turned all the people into zombies and gave power to a madman. He later fixed his mistage, learned nothing of humility and still thought he's top ****. 7 years later he's being hunted by an unstopable beast (karma at it's best). He's no longer a kid now, he's no longer fixing his mistakes anymore, he's just trying to survive. The whole point of the game is him doing ANYTHING to survive. Which turns him into a more realistic, twisted grown up. Everything he does is out of his own selfish self interest now (which screws up his kingdom in TTT).
Well I don't know about that, I always felt that he was very pensive, and while he was somewhat arrogant at the beginning, only caring about getting the Dagger, he released the Sands by accident and felt genuine remorse for it. As the story went on in that game I felt that he became more mature and he always wanted to set things right again. His transition from the thoughtful, darkly humourous and somewhat unsure Prince from the first game into the generic action-hero badass in the second game was really a jarring transition, for me at least.
I'm not so sure. The cel shaded PoP actually had a pretty good idea of how to do that. Bits of the world were really open and you could go anywhere, and other bits were made up of linear paths that you had to follow once you entered them. I think that's a pretty good approach for this type of game.Vermillion_Hawk said:
As for the tone shift in WW, I actually kinda liked it too. I do think the transition could've been done a bit more smoothly, but it did make the game feel very different from its predecessor. Fresh. So they get points for that in my eyes.
Wolfhead
Count
I don't think that the templars in AC2 and it's adjacent games were too cartoonishly evil. Well, except Cesare.
I saw the cutscenes of the multiplayer 'Templar training' in Revelations. They give you everything you want: lovers, cars, money, power... As long as you're a capable and loyal member of the organization. The order went from bitter, frustrated idealistic individuals sacrificing free will to ensure peace, to power-hungry ego maniacs trying to create a global fascist regime devoid of free will, just to put themselves at the top of the pile.
I saw the cutscenes of the multiplayer 'Templar training' in Revelations. They give you everything you want: lovers, cars, money, power... As long as you're a capable and loyal member of the organization. The order went from bitter, frustrated idealistic individuals sacrificing free will to ensure peace, to power-hungry ego maniacs trying to create a global fascist regime devoid of free will, just to put themselves at the top of the pile.
