Assassins creed 3 may be set in WW1.
- Thread starter Cpt Corallis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Guns could work in an Assassins Creed game, and it will have to work seeing as we're probably going to have a game set in the future somewhere in the series. Think Hitman with the free running of AC? Of course, we've still got many more periods to visit before then. 30s New York? Victorian London? Russian Revolution?
I think it has potential for story purposes, the Templars could be nicely fitted into the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and lead to some really interesting ideas, however, it seems a little obvious especially from an Assassin's Creed point of view, I liked the obscure historical events they use, that was fun and led me to read a bit more into the actual events in real life, something I would probably lose if I already knew of the events.
The combat would be a concern, however, I don't think it's as far fetched as it sounds, especially if you journeyed into military occupied cities, relying on your stealth and guile to jump guards who are actually armed with said weapons (let's not forget, all Assassin's Creed games thus far have had people with bows and crossbows). It could lead to some interesting new mechanics that could stop the series from going old and stale, afterall we don't want a clone of previous installments.
I don't think the idea is that far fetched, however, I have read that Ubisoft were considering the era for Assassin's Creed III, and are even considering a female lead. I don't think that it's as crazy an idea as it sounds.
Oh, and also, Victorian London would be amazing, but then I'm from London
The combat would be a concern, however, I don't think it's as far fetched as it sounds, especially if you journeyed into military occupied cities, relying on your stealth and guile to jump guards who are actually armed with said weapons (let's not forget, all Assassin's Creed games thus far have had people with bows and crossbows). It could lead to some interesting new mechanics that could stop the series from going old and stale, afterall we don't want a clone of previous installments.
I don't think the idea is that far fetched, however, I have read that Ubisoft were considering the era for Assassin's Creed III, and are even considering a female lead. I don't think that it's as crazy an idea as it sounds.
Oh, and also, Victorian London would be amazing, but then I'm from London
As long as its not all about the Americans, since they didn't bother coming in till 1916 when the war had been on for 2 years previous, I think if it was in WWI then he should get to play Football (The one where you actually kick the ball throughout the match) with the rest of the Tommy's on Christmas Day 1914
Without turning the game into a shooter, I think this could be great.
One of my pet peeves with AC is how poor the combat system is. You essentially just wait and counter whoever attacks you. Rince and repeat. If you get bored (and you might, fighting 20+ people takes a long time) you can go on the offensive. AC2 tried to mix it up a bit with opponents you couldn't block, but than gave you plenty of tool to stun them so you could just 1 hit kill them.
I like the free running, I like the 'stealth', I love figuring out how to kill someone without being seen and than doing it... but combat is so bad that it is essentially the price of failure... where other games show you an annoying 20 second death screen, AC puts you in a 3 minutes long boooooooring fight. Or yeah, you can run away and hide, but that still feels like a waste of time. The 30 last minutes of the first games were non-stop combat and to this day that was one of the less inspired gameplay moment I can remember (not like the ending in AC2 was much better, but still...).
So this is where guns fit in. I don't think the gameplay should really be all about guns... but enemies having guns would actually make the game a lot more fun. I'm thinking about Batman Arkham Asylum here and how gun changed the gameplay - the mooks you could dispatch easily with your bare hands suddenly became deadly and you had to dispatch them with stealth, the environment and your wits.
So guns in AC3? Bring it in - if done properly it may solve the series' one problem: Enemies will be dangerous and exciting to fight instead of boring and tedious.
One of my pet peeves with AC is how poor the combat system is. You essentially just wait and counter whoever attacks you. Rince and repeat. If you get bored (and you might, fighting 20+ people takes a long time) you can go on the offensive. AC2 tried to mix it up a bit with opponents you couldn't block, but than gave you plenty of tool to stun them so you could just 1 hit kill them.
I like the free running, I like the 'stealth', I love figuring out how to kill someone without being seen and than doing it... but combat is so bad that it is essentially the price of failure... where other games show you an annoying 20 second death screen, AC puts you in a 3 minutes long boooooooring fight. Or yeah, you can run away and hide, but that still feels like a waste of time. The 30 last minutes of the first games were non-stop combat and to this day that was one of the less inspired gameplay moment I can remember (not like the ending in AC2 was much better, but still...).
So this is where guns fit in. I don't think the gameplay should really be all about guns... but enemies having guns would actually make the game a lot more fun. I'm thinking about Batman Arkham Asylum here and how gun changed the gameplay - the mooks you could dispatch easily with your bare hands suddenly became deadly and you had to dispatch them with stealth, the environment and your wits.
So guns in AC3? Bring it in - if done properly it may solve the series' one problem: Enemies will be dangerous and exciting to fight instead of boring and tedious.
Assassins Creed in the World War/s would be interesting, i think, and if done correctly could be the game that makes more of a connection than the previous games (1. It's harder to empathise with people the further back in history you go. 2. not that the names and such were obscure in the previous games, but a game set in the World War/s may actually have more people going "That guy!" without reading the info pages)
Victorian England and the Russian Revolution would both be AWESOME settings for Assassin's Creed, as well as many other time periods (Although i'm not sure how they would tie in Assassin's/Templars in with the American Revolution. But i guess thats 'cause it's a period in history i know naught about heh.)
Gunplay in Assassin's Creed doesn't mean that'll be the end of close combat, or all those whacky inventions you can play around with, or even using groups to kill or distract for you. As long as the gameplay doesn't become entirely gun focused, or a first person shooter, it will most likely retain it's Assassin's Creed feel.
Victorian England and the Russian Revolution would both be AWESOME settings for Assassin's Creed, as well as many other time periods (Although i'm not sure how they would tie in Assassin's/Templars in with the American Revolution. But i guess thats 'cause it's a period in history i know naught about heh.)
Gunplay in Assassin's Creed doesn't mean that'll be the end of close combat, or all those whacky inventions you can play around with, or even using groups to kill or distract for you. As long as the gameplay doesn't become entirely gun focused, or a first person shooter, it will most likely retain it's Assassin's Creed feel.
gosh no ones touched WW1 in too long. they should only do it if its good though, but they can make it work. we'll see, but i personally would love that!
Because I think everyone know what the general outcry would be.manythings said:
"BUT WE PLAYED THE SABOTEUR WAH WAH WAH FANBOY SPEW"
I think that sums it up nicely.
Interesting it may be, but its wrong. Swordsmen weren't used, nor were archers, and cavarly was hardly ever deployed in combat roles. The American civil war was a prime example of the obsoleteness of cavalry in combat roles. The French/American revoltion took place over 100 years before WW1, rifling was developed a good 90 years before the war, breech loading rifles 60 years, machine guns 50 years, long range howitzers/mortars/artillery so on so forth. The Lee-Enfield was developed in the late 1800's and saw standard-issue service in both world-wars, it was more than capable of taking out the moron who brought a sword to a gun fight.MiracleOfSound said:
WW1 just wouldn't work, most of it took place in large, open fields, with trenches about 4 feet wide. Neither are good environments for stealth.
Victorian london would probably be as far as you'd want to go keeping the combat sensible without turning it into an FPS, could tie the Empire into it well. French revoltion would be cool as well, lots of stuff happening, interesting city, could provide a good basis for a story line based more on the players decisions... save the king and preserve the royalty for your own gains or side with the proletariat for the greater good of the people. Exactly the sort of conflict the templars/assassins like to get themselves involved in.
No. Simply because the longer it goes on, the more and more they have to stretch out the "Why am I in the animus" thing. They cant keep doing the "OMG WE LOOKED IN TEH WRONG PLACE GO HEAR NAOW!" kinda thing; that only works so many times.
My guess is IF they do do that, they probably will have an Obstergo agent in the Animus: Not Desmond.
My guess is IF they do do that, they probably will have an Obstergo agent in the Animus: Not Desmond.