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

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Hoping that the combat is changed, the latest games make it too easy to fight your way through 30 guards without so much of breaking a sweat. We're meant to be stealthy assassin, we should have to avoid full combat unless it is absolutely necessary.

Also hoping that they bring the frantic city wide chases from the original Assassins Creed. It makes no sense that I kill an important target and the guards lose sight if I some much as turn into different street and whats more it just boring. I loved in Assassins Creed 1 how there would be legions of guards chasing me across the rooftops, it made it all the more satisfying when I finally was able to shake them.

 

[Stripes]

I was worried about the good yanks vs the evil brits but now im more worried about the setting being kinda dull, historically its interesting but renaissance Europe cant really be matched in my book. Im more worried about the multiplayer since the environments need to be interesting generally since story doesnt matter as much and you will spend a lot of time looking at it. Speaking of multiplayer im worried they will keep the abilites which could ruin a good game of deathmatch. Being able to run and climb led to a lot of people, sometimes every player, doing just that rather than sneeking up on people who are trying to hide themselves. The wrist mounted gun in that game mode was also kinda bull because it was unavoidable, cheap and had unlimited range. It just led to very cheap kills which arent in the spirit of deathmatch.

 

[Vivi22]

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

This is pretty much what I was going to say. The game is using a new engine, and the team that made AC1&2 has been working on it since AC2 was made while other teams handled AC:B and Revelations. I'm not saying that guarantees it will be awesome, but it's got a much better shot at being awesome with Ubisoft Montreal at the helm and getting 3 years to work on it than it would have otherwise.

Point being, people expecting nothing but another minor iteration on the previous game using the same engine and shoved out the door in about a year haven't been paying attention to the news coming out in previews for the game from day one.

 

[TheNaut131]

Honestly, I was just kinda hoping for the French Revolution.

I mean really, they'd have taller buildings and could easily include wood's to run through. There would actually be important relevant political/military figures to assassinate as well as religous figures to include for all that Apple stuff. The setting would've been modern enough without being too distant in the past and probably would've had a lot more interesting locations and events for an assassin to actually be involved in, especially if the main character mostly sided with the Radicals.

Bastille Day seems like it'd be an interesting location and event.

 

[Kiardras]

I'd like to see the combat about something more than "press counter at the right time to win" that nearly all the games have been, and I too would like a return to AC1's assasinations - where, information frmo the premissions showed you better ways to make the kill rather than just slaughtering 50 people,

I'm also terrified of the story - so worried it will be nothing more than a America=fuck yeah, brits = evil templar's.

I have faith, in that it will be a good game, and hopefully make up for the franchise cash cow milking that was 2.1 and 2.2.

 

[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.

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

They will surely push the engine to its limited and polish the game through and through, but make no mistake, each engine has its limitations, and part of those are in how the gameplay works.

 

[DrgoFx]

TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH Y'ALL.

I was hoping for something like what the comics did with the cold war assassin. Or a Mongolian Assassin. Or a tribal African Assassin. I mean, you know what's a brilliant setting in Africa? Ghana or Mali Empires. I mean that whole area has an amazing story to it, a civilization conquered thrice and each culture vastly different from the last. No White vs Blacks, but it's actually African vs Muslim, and that would be quite the interesting game.

 

[Cry Wolf]

Do you guys have anything to add? Any other worries besides these?

My worry? It's the same game. Again.

 

[Palademon]

I'm glad a clip from a trailer showed going through a farily normal building's window.
I felt that the world was a bit lifeless when most of the buildings were pretty much solid obstacles. I'd like to see more buildings actually have insides.

I would like a bit more sneaky. If you drop more thna foot form something in the first one, everyone knows.
Every game after that you can run full pelt with many weapons clearly on show and no one cares until you climb a building or kill someone.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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.

Wait, you mean to say that the Founding Fathers of The United States of America, the greatest and most important country in the history of the planet were not saints? How dare you sir?! If anything Assassin's Creed 3 needs to be MORE patriotic, and should faithfully capture the time period like so:

 

[Jaeke]

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.

You don't?!? I was fairly confident that you are in-fact Hashshashin.

I thought the idea of using Da Vinci's actual (though maybe a little implied) workings as technological utilities was awsome.

Yeah I would actually have liked to see a female protagonist and I disagree with them a bit, but they make a fair point at least. Women were not nearly as free as men (especially in a Middle Eastern setting for AC1), besides who doesn't at least LIKE Ezio Auditore da Firenze.

 

[Baldr]

First Ubisoft is a French Company. Sometime it seems they don't real like the United States, giving great collector's edition exclusives to everywhere, but the US.

British, French, Spanish, Hessian(German), and other nations and nationalities, it was a true European war fought on this side of the Atlantic. They promised to keep sorta neutral to both sides the war.

I do understand your concerns in respects to Native Americans, there were so many Nation/tribes and attitudes so different that it hard to lump them all together. Playing to one stereotype would be dreadful.

 

[verdant monkai]

My biggest concern is WHAT THE FUCK WILL THERE BE TO CLIMB????
I don't know much about that time period in America, but I do know that there were nowhere near enough amazing architecture in America back then. The other games had ancient Castles forts prisons stately home etc. America had none of that back then. Rocks and tree's will not be enough to make exploration good.
Personally I don't understand why they dont set the game in Egypt far more interesting time period, more interesting events, more interesting buildings and generally just better everything for an AC game.

As for the Americans vs British thing who cares? I am British and I certainly don't. America always casts British people as the stereotype villain, and we think of the average American as an obesity time bomb (not all of us obviously). We all have our harmless stereotypes.
I was under the impression Ubisoft was French though.

 

[Kizi]

I agree with a lot of things said in this thread. I will reiterate one of those thing, though. Assassinations.
I want to play as an assassin like in the first game, not an all-powerful knight that just happens to have a hidden blade (which you can suddenly use in combat, too), only to be used for cooler kills.

 

[iLazy]

Kinda worried it's just going to be like Revelations. I'll love it nonetheless because I'm pathetic like that, but I'd like it to be as serious as AC and AC2.

Combat could be improved and I'd like for their to be more sneak/ assassinations.

I just really hope the story is great.

 

[Dethenger]

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.

I can't really wrap my mind around this, because I both agree and disagree with you. One one hand, I the games are easy. Like, seriously; reading about the Janissaries in the database (really interesting shit), they were described as elite soldiers, and I was like "Oh, I guess that explains why they're a pain in the ass sometimes."
But then I was like, wait, what? The hardest enemies in the game are just a pain in the ass. I tried explaining it by thinking, "Well, Assassins are like, the best soldiers in existence." But that didn't cut it, because even while mowing down Janissaries, I didn't feel particularly skilled. The game is simply too easy, and as a result, the Assassin's don't feel like elite, Spartan-esque warriors who've spent their lives training; they feel like the only guy who knows how to hold a sword properly.
I don't think combos and counters need to be removed, necessarily, they need to be harder to do and less easy to utilize. Turtling, anyone? It's like the only way to actually win fights, though, because all the enemies can parry your attacks (that's what challenging means to Ubisoft apparently). I heard they're making Connor more aggressive in ACIII, making him more mobile, getting rid of turtling and whatnot, so I think Ubisoft understands it as well as we do and are working on it at least. High hopes for ACIII, which is more than I can say about much anything else.

My biggest concern is WHAT THE FUCK WILL THERE BE TO CLIMB????
I don't know much about that time period in America, but I do know that there were nowhere near enough amazing architecture in America back then. The other games had ancient Castles forts prisons stately home etc. America had none of that back then. Rocks and tree's will not be enough to make exploration good.
Personally I don't understand why they dont set the game in Egypt far more interesting time period, more interesting events, more interesting buildings and generally just better everything for an AC game.

From my understanding, the Frontier will be rife with good climbing locations; cliffsides and mountains whatnot, which I honestly think'll be awesome. But I do agree, the cities will probably not be as exciting, America's architecture is pretty lackluster compared to... well, everywhere. Feudal Japan? Check. Victorian England? Check. Best part of AC, though, is that once they get through the Desmond shit, they literally have all of history as their playground. If the Frontier isn't that great, fine; they can go anywhere and anywhen they want to make it better.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

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.

I can't really wrap my mind around this, because I both agree and disagree with you. One one hand, I the games are easy. Like, seriously; reading about the Janissaries in the database (really interesting shit), they were described as elite soldiers, and I was like "Oh, I guess that explains why they're a pain in the ass sometimes."
But then I was like, wait, what? The hardest enemies in the game are just a pain in the ass. I tried explaining it by thinking, "Well, Assassins are like, the best soldiers in existence." But that didn't cut it, because even while mowing down Janissaries, I didn't feel particularly skilled. The game is simply too easy, and as a result, the Assassin's don't feel like elite, Spartan-esque warriors who've spent their lives training; they feel like the only guy who knows how to hold a sword properly.
I don't think combos and counters need to be removed, necessarily, they need to be harder to do and less easy to utilize. Turtling, anyone? It's like the only way to actually win fights, though, because all the enemies can parry your attacks (that's what challenging means to Ubisoft apparently). I heard they're making Connor more aggressive in ACIII, making him more mobile, getting rid of turtling and whatnot, so I think Ubisoft understands it as well as we do and are working on it at least. High hopes for ACIII, which is more than I can say about much anything else.

Well to be more specific about a combat overhaul:
Counters should be reserved for swords and knives, not hidden blade or fists, and only usable when an enemy goes in for a "heavy attack"; one of the big slow sword swings they do sometimes but not often. There should be a lot more emphasis on the Step and Dodge mechanics, which have barely been used but make for very interesting gameplay.
I do maintain, the combos/killstreaks introduced in AC:B need to disappear forever though. Those were just ridiculous. Finishing moves can stay, they were pretty cool, but the combos where you can just keep pressing one button and instantly dispatch a random foe, those need to go.

The enemies you can only kill by kneeing them in the groin repeatedly need to go, or be altered, though as people aren't really going to be wearing suits of armour in revolutionary America they shouldn't be a problem anyway. Tough enemies should play more like the Templars from the first game: they were very tough because they were just as fast as you, could dodge your attacks, couldn't be countered very easily and would take the initiative in fighting.

I think being an aggressive fuck on AC should be very difficult, and if you get into a straight up fight with more than 4 people, you should have to flee the scene or die: the first game had this mood better; the emphasis was, often, more on assassinating and then having to flee rather than just mowing down hundreds of guards with ease, though towards the end it became this anyway. Hopefully, with the introduction of guns on a larger level, this can be the case, or at least it can be the case that if you are spotted from a distance you are FUCKED.

One more thing:
PLEASE, Ubisoft, PLEASE, NO MORE CITY-RENOVATION-MINI-GAMES. NOBODY LIKES THEM.

 

[GrimGrimoire]

SNIP.

[quote ="Puzzlenaut"]Well to be more specific about a combat overhaul:
Counters should be reserved for swords and knives, not hidden blade or fists, and only usable when an enemy goes in for a "heavy attack"; one of the big slow sword swings they do sometimes but not often. There should be a lot more emphasis on the Step and Dodge mechanics, which have barely been used but make for very interesting gameplay.
I do maintain, the combos/killstreaks introduced in AC:B need to disappear forever though. Those were just ridiculous. Finishing moves can stay, they were pretty cool, but the combos where you can just keep pressing one button and instantly dispatch a random foe, those need to go.

The enemies you can only kill by kneeing them in the groin repeatedly need to go, or be altered, though as people aren't really going to be wearing suits of armour in revolutionary America they shouldn't be a problem anyway. Tough enemies should play more like the Templars from the first game: they were very tough because they were just as fast as you, could dodge your attacks, couldn't be countered very easily and would take the initiative in fighting.

I think being an aggressive fuck on AC should be very difficult, and if you get into a straight up fight with more than 4 people, you should have to flee the scene or die: the first game had this mood better; the emphasis was, often, more on assassinating and then having to flee rather than just mowing down hundreds of guards with ease, though towards the end it became this anyway. Hopefully, with the introduction of guns on a larger level, this can be the case, or at least it can be the case that if you are spotted from a distance you are FUCKED.

One more thing:
PLEASE, Ubisoft, PLEASE, NO MORE CITY-RENOVATION-MINI-GAMES. NOBODY LIKES THEM.[/quote]

I pretty much agree with all of this. Although combos was fun the first minutes, they became overpowered "Press X to kill all enemies" attacks. Not very Assassin-like.

I do also have some problems with the crossbow. It's the most overpowered weapon in the game, and I finished pretty much all of AC:B using it in close combat or sniping from rooftops.
Then again, it's a fun weapon, and I wouldn't want it to disappear.

Having such a large arsenal of weapons as you have, you're well enough equipped to take down a army by yourself. Maybe a complete weapon overhaul would be in place, to balance the character out. Already in AC:II you could win just about any battle with smokebombs and hidden blades.
With Brotherhood and Revelations giving you even more weapons combat is boring.

Overhauling the combat system is one thing, but something needs to be done about the unbalanced items.

Also:

One more thing:
PLEASE, Ubisoft, PLEASE, NO MORE CITY-RENOVATION-MINI-GAMES. NOBODY LIKES THEM.

That's a weird way to spell "tower defence".

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

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).

So... you're averse to period accuracy?

I mean, the only real difference between the Nazis and the British Colonial Empire is that the Brits wrote the history books. The horrors they inflicted on entire nations and races of people have had a drastic effect that has lasted to this day.

Imagine someone starting a thread saying that they're worried some WW2 game set in Germany will fall into the "cliché" of portraying Nazis as evil, and the whole Jew-killing thing is boring and they shouldn't dwell on it.