Another one bites the dust: AssCreed the Movie is apparently garbage

[DoPo]

But the original game was such a bastion of creativity, how could this happen?

The original game was pretty creative, in its rethinking of the concept of "stealth" to include hiding in crowds of people

I'd disagree with this. Sure, you could hide in crouds of people but it was not at all a prominent part of the gameplay. Heck, stealth itself was not a prominent part of the gameplay at all and you couldn't even make it to be - pretty much all assassination missions were with you having to fight a ton of dudes because you were spotted.

The only semblance of "stealth" is that you can rin away from the guards and hide. Even then a lot of times you just have to kill the guards in order to evade them, because running is so annoying.

robust combat mechanics

I'd disagree with that, too. The combat was simply obnoxious. You either have to parry to kill (what you need to do the majority of the time) or catch a lucky break and have somebody fall, so you can stab them. Even then, you have to swap to the hidden blade to do that, which is very timing sensitive.

The sequel didn't add anything new aside from better filler and the ability to skip cutscenes, but it was much better received as a result of that

Another disagreement - AC2 improved pretty much every aspect of the previous game - you could outrun guards more easily, since they would only run in a given area, combat was improved (although it was still on the bad side), you had more stealth options, and you also had more options of dealing with targets. On top of the gameplay mechanics, the story was quite more prominent than the barebones one in AC1.

 

[09philj]

"Fassbender gives a super serious performance in a movie that needed his natural sense of humor"

-New York Daily News

Another anti serious story guy that prefers tone clashing humor, because he can't take anything seriously and every story is a joke to him

I feel like I am Batman surrounded by Jokers.

Note that most people's favourite AC games are AC II and AC IV which are the ones with the most amusing protagonist and side characters. It doesn't need to be a laugh riot; just a little self aware and camp. AC works when it's swashbuckling in the classic sense of the term.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The sequel didn't add anything new aside from better filler and the ability to skip cutscenes, but it was much better received as a result of that

AC2 re-worked the entire core premise. AC was a loop of "do minigames to discover target then go to mission", which AC2 replaced with an actual flowing narrative, where the preparations where part of the main quest structure and not just scattered minigames you had to complete. AC2 also gave the protagonist and player some actual motivation to assassinate people other than "they are templars, kill them". Add to that that Ezio had an actual personality (as opposed to 'constantly angry Altair') and the supporting cast was diverse and well-portrayed and you had a game that shook off the weak parts of its' predecessor and delivered a great realization of the concepts underlying potential.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

"Fassbender gives a super serious performance in a movie that needed his natural sense of humor"

-New York Daily News

Another anti serious story guy that prefers tone clashing humor, because he can't take anything seriously and every story is a joke to him

I feel like I am Batman surrounded by Jokers.

Well to use Batman as an example, I don't like the influence the Dark Knight trilogy (likely originating from The Killing Joke) has had on recent storytelling. Everything has to be super-serious and dark and broody with no fun at all. Fun is for stupid things for children like comic books or video games or something. Convoluted storylines for the sake of complexity and not for the purpose of character development. Only the occasional joke to contrast directly with the overall tone of the experience which for me only highlights how little enjoyment I'm experiencing. I've gone off on Max Payne 3 for similar reasons.

I mean, at the core of it all, Batman is about a rich guy who fights crime at night by dressing up as a bat and using inexplicably bat-themed items from a cave to a car to grenades so he can punch a clown, a teller of oddball riddles, a penguin-like man, several experiments gone wrong and so on. How that came to symbolize the darkest of the dark and the most serious of the serious is strange in its own right. It smacks of someone who wants really badly to be taken seriously and is eager to throw anything away that could remotely be seen as not super FUCKING (swearing is adult, right) mature even the absurdity inherent in its origin and basic premise.

Bringing that back to Ass Creed (even the popular name is a joke), the series' best entries all had a sense of campy fun. Like a cheesy B-movie with weird science and overblown emotions and accents. If the movie has gone down the Batman path, it's quite understandable that it'll be criticized for it.

 

[happyninja42]

"Fassbender gives a super serious performance in a movie that needed his natural sense of humor"

-New York Daily News

Another anti serious story guy that prefers tone clashing humor, because he can't take anything seriously and every story is a joke to him

I feel like I am Batman surrounded by Jokers.

Note that most people's favourite AC games are AC II and AC IV which are the ones with the most amusing protagonist and side characters. It doesn't need to be a laugh riot; just a little self aware and camp. AC works when it's swashbuckling in the classic sense of the term.

I think it's more that the protagonists for AC 2 and 4 were actually interesting characters. Not just the humor of them, though that goes a long way, but that they were simply people you could empathize with, and identify with. AC 1 and 3's protagonists were so moody, grumbly blank slates that you had zero connection to them. They didn't give a shit about anything, so why should I give a shit about them?

 

[09philj]

Well to use Batman as an example, I don't like the influence the Dark Knight trilogy (likely originating from The Killing Joke) has had on recent storytelling. Everything has to be super-serious and dark and broody with no fun at all. Fun is for stupid things for children like comic books or video games or something.

It's not like comedy and darkness are mutually exclusive either. Brian K Vaughan's Saga is pretty grim; the first story arc predicates on people being sent to murder two parents and a baby, and things don't get more upbeat, plot wise. However, it's also full of wit and silliness.

Spoiler: I mean check this shit out

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

I'd disagree with this. Sure, you could hide in crouds of people but it was not at all a prominent part of the gameplay. Heck, stealth itself was not a prominent part of the gameplay at all and you couldn't even make it to be - pretty much all assassination missions were with you having to fight a ton of dudes because you were spotted.

The only semblance of "stealth" is that you can rin away from the guards and hide. Even then a lot of times you just have to kill the guards in order to evade them, because running is so annoying.

Maybe we just had different playstyles, then. I was always careful about the stealth parts because I saw the assassination missions as kind of like puzzles with different solutions. Maybe it has more to do with the game not adequately punishing you for being discovered...but in ACII, they had that whole insta-fail stealth mission thing, and that was awful.

Otherwise, yeah - there's a reason I said "robust" instead of something like "amazing" or "intriguing" when describing the combat system. It was serviceable and entertaining enough in its own way, but it was rather poorly utilised by them throwing two dozen guards at you at a time and watching as you parry-killed them one by one.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

It's not like comedy and darkness are mutually exclusive either. Brian K Vaughan's Saga is pretty grim; the first story arc predicates on people being sent to murder two parents and a baby, and things don't get more upbeat, plot wise. However, it's also full of wit and silliness.

Spoiler: I mean check this shit out

You call that silliness?

Spoiler: *This* is silliness!

[sub]His scepter is a remote control!!![/sub]

 

[pookie101]

sometimes the script might look excellent when an actor gets it but the end result turns out to be... lets be polite and say less than desired quality

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

"Fassbender gives a super serious performance in a movie that needed his natural sense of humor"

-New York Daily News

Another anti serious story guy that prefers tone clashing humor, because he can't take anything seriously and every story is a joke to him

I feel like I am Batman surrounded by Jokers.

Note that most people's favourite AC games are AC II and AC IV which are the ones with the most amusing protagonist and side characters. It doesn't need to be a laugh riot; just a little self aware and camp. AC works when it's swashbuckling in the classic sense of the term.

I think it's more that the protagonists for AC 2 and 4 were actually interesting characters. Not just the humor of them, though that goes a long way, but that they were simply people you could empathize with, and identify with. AC 1 and 3's protagonists were so moody, grumbly blank slates that you had zero connection to them. They didn't give a shit about anything, so why should I give a shit about them?

My favorite chacrater was Altair. And I liked him because he was a blank slate, it made him cool, not some stupid joker Main Character like Star Lord.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Of all the franchises, you'd think AC would be the easiest to translate to the big screen. Just throw some cool parkour and swordfights together, and you have an entertaining movie. But apparently, just like the games, the modern bits ruin the flow and are completely unnecessary.

So what you're saying is it's a faithful adaptation, but because the game story is shit, the movie is shit as well?

It's interesting that when a movie takes creative liberty with the source material (at least in the case of video games), the end result is usually shit.

Now when they start actually trying to be faithful (See Warcraft as well), the end result is still shit.

Either Hollywood needs to stop adapting video games or pick better or something. I don't know at this point.

 

[happyninja42]

My favorite chacrater was Altair. And I liked him because he was a blank slate, it made him cool, not some stupid joker Main Character like Star Lord.

To each their own. I personally found him uninteresting, and found Connor from AC 3 to be a carbon copy of him with as little personality as a corpse. Which is fine if the player isn't talking, silent protagonists are great Blank Slate avatars, and I LOVE being able to inject myself into a game as the protagonist. But the AC heroes don't give me the choice on why they are doing what they do. They state it, sometimes very blandly and with a robot's level of inflection, as to what their motivations are. So I can't really separate that from my own internal motivations. Like how I might not decide this particular character needs to die, because they actually had a point. But nope, doesn't matter, AC heroes will kill him, and say exactly why "It is because of X". So I'm no longer able to insert myself in the role of the hero, because I have no true agency. I'm just along for the ride.

If the hero at least has a well defined personality, and gives me an understanding of their motivations for why they are doing it, then I'm fine with it, and prefer it honestly.

 

[BrawlMan]

I wondered why an actor like Michael Fassbender was starring in such a shit series. Hollywood is weird.

Tell me about it. When Beverly Hills Cop was being planned, the exces at Paramount refused the character Axel (originally going to be white, but Eddie Murphy got the part) of being in an interracial relationship (AKA, Jenny, who is white), because they didn't want to offend the white males in their audience. So they became platonic friends instead. What a load of bullshit. It didn't matter, because you're gonna have racist assholes who wouldn't see the movies regardless.

In other news, carbon monoxide is the silent killer. Is anyone surprised at all? If the plot got over stupid and bad in the games, what makes anyone think the movie is going to do it better?

EDIT:

 

[Pyrian]

I was kind of expecting this one to be one of the best video game movies, to be honest.

That's a pretty low bar.

 

[Aeshi]

I was going to make a snarky "Who could've seen that coming?" comment, but screw it. That's not even the low-hanging fruit anymore, that's the fruit that fell and is now halfway to being worm food.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Hardly surprising for a movie that was said to only have like 30mins set in the past anyway.

 

[Zhukov]

Saw this coming as soon as I realized they were focusing on the future not-Desmond shit.

"We're making a movie with parkouring assassins during the Spanish Inquisition."

"Righto. Better make it mostly about a modern dude being strapped to a giant steadycam then!"

How colossally dense are these people? It's been 10 years now, a full fucking decade, and Ubisoft still haven't learned that simple fucking lesson.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I was expecting it. Honestly, though, how can the best Video Game movie this year be the Angry Birds movie of all things? Even that is only okay!

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Video Game Adaptations were a mistake.

 

[Saelune]

I was expecting it. Honestly, though, how can the best Video Game movie this year be the Angry Birds movie of all things? Even that is only okay!

Video Game Adaptations were a mistake.

Heres a question though. Is it a bad movie about a video game? Or a bad "video game" movie? Cause I mean, I havent seen it but it seems like as far as adapting the source material goes, its faithful enough. I like that they didnt just do the plot of ACI or II, and made a new character entirely.

And I mean, the plot of the games has been garbage ever since they killed Desmond.