So... Concerns about Assassin's Creed 3.

[Saladfork]

Haven't seen an AC3 thread around here for a bit, so I figure it's fair game.

Personally, I think the gameplay of AC3 is shaping up to be really, really damn good. What I'm a little more concerned about is the setting... though not in the way you might be expecting.

I've seen a lot of worry that it's going to become a jingoistic, heroic Americans vs evil Brits type story. I'm less inclined to thin that, though, because A) They's already established that the revolutionaries were templars as well, and B) Ubisoft is a Canadian company anyway.

I'm actually more worried that it's going to be a different cliche; that of the saintly natives vs the evil whitey (Similar to Avatar). This trope is, I think, more common than the first, and quite frankly, it drags down pretty much any work I've ever seen it in (Again, such as Avatar).

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the game thusfar. Do you guys have anything to add? Any other worries besides these?

 

[Amethyst Wind]

More of the same in terms of gameplay. It started to emerge halfway through Brotherhood and was obvious in Revelations. They could do with some serious retooling.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I really want a revamped combat system, one that actually makes the combat challenging.

I mean, in the first game it was stated that the Assassin's weren't supposed to be good hand to hand fighters, and that they relied more on the element of surprise in combat than anything else. That's why they trained their agility so much, to be able to escape combat. Hell, in the first cutscene Altair gets his ass kicked by a SINGLE enemy. Fast forward 5 minutes and you can take on dozens of guards by yourself.

The combat in Assassin's Creed just isn't terribly hard, and is rather boring. By the time I played Brotherhood I just tried to avoid the combat as much as possible because it felt so damn tedious.

Also, I want a way to move while hugging a wall damn it!

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

The only thing I want different in AC3 is the combat, I want it to be a little more than just spamming the attack button, and the occasional block button.

I think the story will be fine and I really doubt it will turn into 'the evil whities are ruining everything' kind of thing. They said that it won't be going in that direction and will just focus on the character and his place in life, seeing as he's a half and half.

I'm not all that worried with the next one, and E3 will be coming up shortly, so hopefully we will hear more about the story, combat, and whatnot. I'm a little curious about they have planned in terms of the time period since it's kind of an odd choice.

 

[Sneaklemming]

The main concern I have is that this will play like a reskinned AC2.

From what has been released I think we can comfortably say that AC3 will be in the same engine as the others.

That is both good and bad. The game will feel very like the last ones, with no great leap forward in terms of fundamental gameplay or graphics. However because they have been using this engine for a long time, it means that the studio will be very good at using the engine and using it cleverly.

Sadly while the game with be nothing groundbreaking, it will at least be very refined.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I'd imagine it's going to be about a secret war between assassins and templars.

 

[TheCommanders]

I think it's more accurate to say Ubisoft are french, considering two of their biggest offices are in Paris and Montreal, but considering they have about a dozen of them, whatever. I'm hoping that they remember that assassin's aren't supposed to be one man armies, and so far I like what I've seen.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

They've said they're going to deal with it well, showing how the founding fathers weren't exactly the coolest dudes, like how they went around and used their fame to score, and slavery stuff. I really hope they do it well.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

The Assassin's Creed series has always given me mixed feelings.

At beginning the concept to me was great on paper. You play through various historical periods utilizing technology. The gameplay has been solid despite hiccups here and there (not to mention those awful unskippable cutscenes at various points).

However, after the first game it became too obvious that the historical part of the "historical fiction" was not the emphasis. You do not play as the historical Islamic Hashshashin, you play as a completely altered non-religious stand-in that the writers have made served to their own ends of the story with the name "Assassin's" used as a name-tag. Your antagonists, the Templars, having been similarly modified.

But let's say I forgive that, I can admit there is some intrigue in making Da Vinci into a the gadgets professor of the Order in the second game. But then you have the universe in which EVERY SINGLE major historical event and figure made to be part of the Assassin-Templar war, it becomes ridiculous and convoluted.

The third game being set in America irks me a bit, but it's not like it can't be well done, I just wanted more foreign settings (cause I'm American). What irks me more is the developers saying "we couldn't really have a female protagonist cause it wouldn't fit the time period." [http://www.gamespot.com/news/assassins-creed-iii-female-hero-would-be-a-pain-says-developer-6368577] As if trying to say they are suddenly being OH SO faithful to history all of a sudden, just cut the crap, you wanted a male protagonist so you decided on one.

I wouldn't call it a bad series. But it's not what I would have done, and It's still not as bad as turning the Divine Comedy into a generic God of War rip-off.

 

[Gatx]

Haven't seen an AC3 thread around here for a bit, so I figure it's fair game.

Personally, I think the gameplay of AC3 is shaping up to be really, really damn good. What I'm a little more concerned about is the setting... though not in the way you might be expecting.

I've seen a lot of worry that it's going to become a jingoistic, heroic Americans vs evil Brits type story. I'm less inclined to thin that, though, because A) They's already established that the revolutionaries were templars as well, and B) Ubisoft is a Canadian company anyway.

I'm actually more worried that it's going to be a different cliche; that of the saintly natives vs the evil whitey (Similar to Avatar). This trope is, I think, more common than the first, and quite frankly, it drags down pretty much any work I've ever seen it in (Again, such as Avatar).

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the game thusfar. Do you guys have anything to add? Any other worries besides these?

Technically the first game was also a "natives" vs "evil whitey" story. You also played the next three games as a "whitey" so the Assassins as a group are fairly diverse as far as race goes.

 

[Esotera]

I'm not that concerned about it, all signs so far indicate that it'll be a good game. They're not going to purposely screw up a very lucrative franchise. I'd like to see more codex pages/the truth missions though, Revelations was missing in that department.

 

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

I just want it to be more harder. I miss the long chases from AC1. The combat just makes it too easy, all you have to do is counter attack and Brotherhood pretty much give you the "screw you guys, I'm going home" option were you kill every enemy in a 50 metre radius.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I want it to not be the same as AC 2 or 2.1 or 2.2 or 2.3 ffs.

 

[BlueMage]

I'd imagine it's going to be about a secret war between assassins and templars.

YOU'RE FUCKING KIDDING ME!

Eh, no, expect a double-cross ala the first, where there will be elements of the Templars on both sides seeking to prolong the conflict in order to maneuver their own interests more easily. The Templars have always been about manipulation in the story provided, no reason they'll change that now.

They've said they're going to deal with it well, showing how the founding fathers weren't exactly the coolest dudes, like how they went around and used their fame to score, and slavery stuff. I really hope they do it well.

This would be interesting. Any debate with Americans inevitably sees the Founding Fathers brought up, and I think it's high time they were revealed as the human beings they actually were. Y'know, fallible, prone to human conditions of greed, jealousy, anger, ambition. Human

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

The main concern I have is that this will play like a reskinned AC2.

From what has been released I think we can comfortably say that AC3 will be in the same engine as the others.

That is both good and bad. The game will feel very like the last ones, with no great leap forward in terms of fundamental gameplay or graphics. However because they have been using this engine for a long time, it means that the studio will be very good at using the engine and using it cleverly.

Sadly while the game with be nothing groundbreaking, it will at least be very refined.

Well actually this game has been in development for almost 3 years now, and the engine has gone under some massive changes apparently.

People remember, the guys who developed Assassins Creed 1 and 2 did not develop Brotherhood or Revelations, they've been working on Assassins Creed 3, so there is a very good chance it will have taken a more than a few steps forward in the gameplay department.

Im not saying that it will, just that it is likely, but we will have to wait a few more months to know for sure. All I can say is, I have very high hopes for AC3

 

[Woodsey]

More of the same in terms of gameplay. It started to emerge halfway through Brotherhood and was obvious in Revelations. They could do with some serious retooling.

The design philosophy for Revelations seemed to be "anything with a tenuous link can go in". Since AC2 they've been following a trend of just adding and adding stuff, which worked for AC2 and AssBros, but has now led to them needing some serious refinement. For starters, ditch the fucking weapons. Four was overkill in the first game, since then we've become walking armouries.

I'd also like to see them push social stealth more. They fixed it so it actually worked in AC2, but it's not really changed since then and it still feels underdeveloped.

OT: I'm most worried that since Revelations went off its fucking rocker and turned the entire lore into a mess, that what they've got left to salvage is gonna be atrocious.

I know people felt it jumped the shark at the end of AC2, but that always worked for me - Brotherhood was a diversion they could afford, but the only one. AssRev started introducing a mess of shit so that it looked like the story was going somewhere when, in reality, it wasn't doing anything, and was just becoming overly ridiculous.

I mean really, what dip-shit thought it'd be better to fuck with a planned trilogy instead of letting it finish and then doing whatever they wanted with the series?

 

[Puzzlenaut]

My 3 main worries for AC3:

1) Camp-ness: Assassin's Creed 1 had several historical figures in it, mainly Robert de Sablé and King Richard, all of whom were treated seriously, even the cross-dressing midget fat man wasn't just played for laughs: he was genuinely sinister. Assassin's Creed II and onwards, however, had characters like Da Vinci: an irritating mockery of the real Da Vinci who is introduced with the game practically going "Ooh! Ooh! Look at me, we have a person you've heard of!"; AC continued to this through the sequels, and I fear for AC3: they are doing the Founding Fathers and other American figures, and I really don't want them to just become ridiculous jokes: they can be incredibly sinister or evil, but not ludicrous like what they did to Lucrezia Borgia and Da Vinci.

2) Lack of Assassinating: Assassin's Creed 1 was, despite its sandbox cities, a very streamlined game. Sure, the pre-assassination missions got boring and repetitive, but the game at least never forgot that we were playing ASSASSIN'S Creed so we could ASSASSINATE people, and to that end, each mission arc ended with an Assassination, each of which memorable in its own way if one chose to pay attention to the information gleaned from the pre-assassination missions. Since the first game, the focus on actual Assassinations has become less and less, and with AC:B and AC:R, even when there are assassinations, it doesn't even feel like they matter. AC:B especially, you could sometimes kill a target without even realising.

3) Overly powerful character: All the AC games have been far to easy. AC:Bro attempted to fix this with the "50% Synch/100% Synch" system, however I just felt this limited one's ingenuity in playing. Counters and Combos need to be removed, completely this time, and the "health bar" (they do sometimes call it that in the sequels; it annoys me because it was always supposed to a "synch bar", which is different) should be much smaller.
There should be either be much greater consequences for carrying lots of weapons (like people see you're armed and treat you suspiciously in certain areas) or the number of weapons should just be reduced by a large amount, forcing the player into more tactical decisions in equipment.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I'm really hoping it's not going to be totally anti British. It's a very boring cliché (The evil Brit in movies got boring a long time ago). And since Ubisoft have a lot of French roots, it could be that way. It'd be nice if some of the major American historical figures turned out to be evil, too.

But that's just a little thing. Honestly, it's the only thing that could bring down my enjoyment of the game at all and even then, it's only a little bit. The only time this cliche has been an actual real flaw for me was in Killzone (seriously, it's a planet populated by evil bald British guys?) I'm looking forward to it, I think it's going to be a very well done game and a lot better than the previous ones.